|
MALTREATMENT INVESTIGATION MEMORANDUM Minnesota Statutes, section 260E.01, paragraph (a), “The legislature hereby declares that the public policy of this state is to protect children whose health or welfare may be jeopardized through maltreatment.”
License Number and Program Type: 800467-CCC (Child Care Center) Investigator(s): Tessa Ripka 651-431-6612 Suspected Maltreatment Reported: It was reported that an alleged victim (AV) was found outside by two school age children and was outside without supervision anywhere from one to ten minutes. Date of Incident(s): January 12, 2023 Nature of Alleged Maltreatment Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 260E.03, subdivision 15, paragraph (a), clauses (1) and (2): Failure by a person responsible for a child's care to supply a child with necessary food, clothing, shelter, health, medical, or other care required for the child's physical or mental health when reasonably able to do so. Failure to protect a child from conditions or actions that seriously endanger the child's physical or mental health when reasonably able to do so. Summary of Findings: Pertinent information was obtained during a site visit conducted on January 27, 2023; from documentation at the facility; and through four interviews conducted with three facility staff persons (SP1, SP2, P), and the AV’s family member (FM). Due to the AV’s age, s/he was unable to provide any information about the incident. The AV was two years old at the time of the incident and enrolled in the Discovery Preschool classroom. The facility was located inside an apartment building in the lower level. There was a small parking area outside the facility with a sidewalk that went past a playground and to the entrance door. The entrance door had a bar and latch that turned to open the door from the inside. Inside the entrance door, there was a ramp that went down to the lobby area. Straight ahead was the AV’s classroom. The door to the AV’s classroom had a slow closer door and a child lock doorknob. Inside the classroom was a large open space with several tables and chairs. The AV’s classroom had a window with a pull-down shade that connected to the kitchen area. The P provided the following information: · On the day of the incident at approximately 9:35 a.m., the P was in the kitchen when s/he heard a school age child (SA) say that s/he found a child outside the facility. The P came out of the kitchen into the classroom and saw that the SA held the AV’s hand. The SA’s parent (SAP) was in the classroom and had just dropped off his/her other child (C) in the classroom. · The P looked over the AV and s/he looked “ok.” The AV was not upset and was not cold to the touch. The AV had in the past went to the door and jiggled the handle or kicked the door especially when the AV was having a “hard drop off.” · The P thought the AV got out of the classroom when the SAP came into the classroom. The door to the classroom was a “slow close” door and the P thought it was possible that a parent could come into the classroom and a child could slip behind them and exit the room. · The P thought it was less than a minute from when the SAP came into the classroom and when the SA brought the AV back to the classroom. The P had no prior concerns with SP1 or SP2. When a child arrived at the facility, the staff persons signed the child in on a I-Pad application and wrote their name on the Child Supervision Record (CSR). Staff persons then completed name to face checks every two hours. · The door to the classroom had a slow closer and a child lock doorknob prior to the incident. After the incident, the facility removed the slow closer on the classroom door and put a baby gate at the door. An additional baby gate was installed at the bottom of the ramp that went to the entrance door. SP1 and SP2 provided the following information: · SP1 and SP2 worked in the classroom on the morning of the incident. SP2 sat with a group of children during group time and was reading books. When the SAP came into the classroom with the C, SP1 went to talk with the SAP near the door. The SAP had two bags of clothing. One bag was to send home with the C and the other was a bag of donations for the facility. · SP1 took the donation bag and put it into a back storage room that was located in the classroom. When SP1 returned, the SA had come into the classroom with the AV. The SA said s/she was in a car in the parking lot waiting for the SAP when the SA saw the AV walking on the sidewalk outside the facility. · SP2 thought the SAP was in the classroom for no more than three minutes. The AV was not cold when s/he came back into the classroom. SP1 said the AV was out of the classroom for two to three minutes. · The door to the classroom closed very slowly. In the past, the AV had tried to leave the classroom and ran to the door when someone entered the classroom. SP2 always tried to keep an eye on the AV when anyone opened the door. The FM said the door to the classroom closed “obnoxiously” slow and the FM always tried to close the door behind him/her. The AV was able to open the front entrance door, as the hook was lower on the door within a child’s reach. When the FM picked up the AV later that day, the tips of the AV’s left fingers appeared red as if they were “frost nipped” but were fine the following morning. On two other occasions recently, the FM had seen children out in the lobby area that were able to “slip out” of the AV’s classroom. The Child Supervision Record indicated that on January 12, 2023, the AV arrived to the classroom at 9:13 a.m. The next child to arrive was the C, who arrived at 9:38 a.m. A name to face count was completed at 8:16 a.m. and again at 10:08 a.m. According to www.wunderground.com, the outdoor condition at the facility, on January 12, 2023, at the time of the incident, was “cloudy” with a temperature of 23 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) and wind speed of 14-15 miles per hour (mph). Facility documentation showed that all staff persons were trained on the facility’s policies and the Reporting of Maltreatment of Minors Act prior to the incident. Relevant Rules and Statutes: Minnesota Statutes, section 245A.02, subdivision 18, and Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0045, subpart 1, item A, stated that a child must have supervision at all times and that supervision was defined as occurring when a program staff person is within sight and hearing of a child at all times so that the program staff person can intervene to protect the health and safety of the child. Conclusion: Information was consistent that on the date of the incident, the AV was able to leave the classroom when the SAP came into the room. The AV went through the lobby area and exited the facility through the entrance door. The SA saw the AV walking on the sidewalk while the SA waited for the SAP in the parking lot. The SA brought the AV back into the facility. SP1, SP2, and the P thought the AV was out of the classroom for approximately two to three minutes, which was a violation of Minnesota Statutes, section 245H.13, subdivision 10. Minnesota Statutes, section 260E. 30, subdivision 3 states that rather than making a determination of substantiated maltreatment by an individual, the commissioner of human services shall determine that a nonmaltreatment mistake was made by the individual. A nonmaltreatment mistake occurs when: (1) at the time of the incident, the individual was performing duties identified in the center's child care program plan; (2) the individual has not been determined responsible for a similar incident that resulted in a finding of maltreatment for at least seven years; (3) the individual has not been determined to have committed a similar nonmaltreatment mistake under this paragraph for at least four years; (4) any injury to a child resulting from the incident, if treated, is treated only with remedies that are available over the counter, whether ordered by a medical professional or not; and (5) except for the period when the incident occurred, the facility and the individual providing services were both in compliance with all licensing requirements relevant to the incident. Consistent information was provided that SP1 was assisting a parent while dropping off their child, while SP2 was assisting various children during circle time during the two to three minutes that the AV was able to leave the classroom and exit the building. SP1’s and SP2’s actions or conduct was determined to be a nonmaltreatment mistake for the following reasons: (1) At the time of the incident, SP1 and SP2 were each performing job related duties, as require by the facility’s policies, by participating in activities with the children and interacting with a parent during drop off; (2) Neither SP1 nor SP2 had been determined responsible for any previous incident that resulted in a finding of maltreatment; (3) Neither SP1 nor SP2 had been determined to have committed a nonmaltreatment mistake under this paragraph; (4) The AV was uninjured and did not require medical care after the incident; and (5) Except for the period when the incident occurred, the facility, SP1, and SP2 were each in compliance with all licensing requirements relevant to the incident. The nonmaltreatment mistake to the AV by SP1 and SP2 was not maltreatment. It was not determined that neglect occurred (Failure by a person responsible for a child's care to supply a child with necessary food, clothing, shelter, health, medical, or other care required for the child's physical or mental health when reasonably able to do so. Failure to protect a child from conditions or actions that seriously endanger the child's physical or mental health when reasonably able to do so.) Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 260E.35, subdivision 6, paragraph (b), the investigative data in this report will be maintained by the Department of Human Services for a period of five years. Action Taken by Facility: The facility completed an internal review and determined that policies and procedures were adequate but not followed when the AV was out of sight and sound. The facility installed an additional gate between the center classrooms and the main entrance door of the building. Action Taken by Department of Human Services, Office of Inspector General: SP1 and SP2 were not determined as perpetrators of maltreatment of the AV because the Department of Human Services found that the incident for which each was responsible met the criteria to be determined a nonmaltreatment mistake. SP1 and SP2 were each notified by the Office of Inspector General that any future incident of possible neglect of an alleged victim for which each is responsible might not be considered a nonmaltreatment mistake. On March 10, 2023, the facility was issued a Correction Order for the violation outlined in this report. Certification: The information collection procedures followed in this investigation were pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 260E.30, subdivision 6, paragraph (c). All individuals that are subjects of data in this investigation have the right to obtain private data on themselves which was collected, created, or maintained by the Department of Human Services.
|
