|
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: 1045455-CCC (Child Care Center) Investigator(s): Alice Percy 651-431-6569 Suspected Maltreatment Reported: It was reported that three staff persons (SP1, SP2, and SP3) left an alleged victim (AV) unsupervised on the facility’s playground for approximately eight minutes. Date of Incident(s): March 9, 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 March 20, 2023; from documentation at the facility; and through seven interviews conducted with one facility staff person (P1), two administrative staff persons (P2 and P3), SP1, SP2, SP3, and the AV’s family member (FM). The AV was twenty-two months old and enrolled in the toddler classroom at the facility. The facility was located in a business district on the corner of two streets with a posted speed limit of 30 miles per hour. A large parking lot was located in front of the building and the facility’s playgrounds were located on the left side of the building. A grassy hill with trees was located on the far side of the playground. Because of the location of the building, the facility’s playgrounds were easily visible only from the facility’s parking lot. The main entrance to the facility was located in the middle of the building. The toddler classroom was located on the playground side of the facility. A sidewalk ran along the side of the building through both the toddler and preschool playgrounds. A door provided access from the toddler classroom to the preschool playground, which contained a large climbing structure. The toddler playground was located to the left side of the preschool playground and was separated from the preschool playground by a fence. A gate provided access to the toddler playground, which included a large house-shaped structure and a small tree-shaped structure. Each of the playgrounds was enclosed by a 6’ tall steel fence. A gate that opened from the toddler playground onto the sidewalk at the front of the facility had a spring latch located on the top half of the gate. An alarm sounded outside and in the staff office whenever the gate was opened. Consistent information was provided that the staff persons did not typically use the gate and the toddler children were unable to open the gate. A video camera was located on the playground and after the incident, P3 reviewed the video recording of the incident. However, the video camera system did not save the video recording and this investigator was unable to view it. P1, P2, P3, SP1, SP2, and SP3, and the facility’s documentation provided the following information: · On March 9, 2023, SP1, SP2, and SP3 each worked in the toddler classroom with 19 children. At approximately 9:30 a.m., they took the children outside to the toddler playground. At approximately 10 a.m., they lined the children up at the toddler playground gate. SP1 stated that s/he held the AV’s hand and led him/her to the gate, where s/he left the AV with the other children. SP1 then went through the preschool playground to the classroom door and waited for SP2 and SP3 to send the children to him/her. SP2 had an iPad, which s/he used to do a name-to-face count of the children as they left the toddler playground. SP1 had another iPad, which s/he typically used to do a name-to-face count of the children as they entered the facility. SP3 helped “round up” the children to ensure they went into the classroom. · SP2 stated that s/he used his/her iPad to do a name-to-face count of the children as s/he let them walk out of the toddler playground one at a time. The majority of the children had walked through the gate when SP2 looked up and saw that a child (C) was moving toward the large climbing structure on the preschool playground. SP2 asked SP3 to finish counting the children while SP2 got the C off the climbing structure. SP3 finished checking off four children who stood by the gate and SP2 took the C from the climbing structure to the classroom door. SP2 then returned to the toddler classroom gate and took the iPad from SP3. SP3 told SP2 that s/he checked off all of the children and had clicked “done” on the iPad. SP2 believed that SP3 and SP1 each finished the name-to-face counts of the children. SP3 stated that s/he did not walk around the playground prior to going into the classroom, but s/he looked around the playground and did not see any child, including the AV. · SP1 stated that after the group got inside, the children’s boots were covered with snow and s/he wanted to ensure that they did not run around the classroom before taking their boots off, which would make the floor wet and slippery, so rather than stand at the door and wait for all of the children, s/he helped take their boots off as they entered the classroom. SP1 stated that the children entered the classroom “all at once,” which made it “overwhelming” and s/he did not do the name-to-face count that s/he typically did. · P1 stated that at approximately 10:10 a.m., s/he opened his/her classroom door and prepared to take his/her group of preschool children to the playground. Once s/he was outside, P1 heard a child crying and checked the tree house structure and found the AV in the tree house. The AV was not wearing his/her gloves and one boot. P1 picked up the AV and his/her clothing and took him/her into the facility and called the administrative staff persons and told them that s/he found the AV on the playground. A staff person (P4) then took the AV to the toddler classroom. · At approximately 10:10 a.m., as SP1, SP2, and SP3 were still helping the children with their outerwear, P4 entered the classroom with the AV and told SP1, SP2, and SP3 that P1found the AV on the toddler playground SP1 stated that the AV was a “little sad,” but “cheered up” after s/he rejoined the group. SP1 stated that the AV “liked to wander.” SP2 stated that the AV was not upset when s/he was returned to the classroom. SP2 stated that the AV sometimes left the group to play on his/her own. SP3 stated that the AV’s face was “a little red,” but the AV was not crying. SP3 stated that the AV always liked to stay outside and typically did not want to go back to the facility. None of the staff persons realized the AV was not with the group until P4 brought the AV into the classroom. The AV did not sustain any injury while s/he was unsupervised on the playground. · P2 stated that s/he informed P3 about the incident. P3 watched the playground video and determined that when the other children lined up at the gate, the AV went into the tree structure on the toddler playground and remained there for eight minutes until P1 went to the playground and took him/her out of the tree structure and into the facility. P2 told the FM about the incident. · After the incident, all of the staff persons received retraining on doing name-to-face counts of the children. The staff persons were also trained to have the children enter the classroom one at a time, so that they could accurately count the children. P3 planned to move the tree structure so that someone standing near the gate could see into the tree structure and observe any child that was in the structure. The FM stated that s/he was informed about the incident immediately after it occurred. Prior to the incident, the FM had no concerns about the care that the AV received at the facility and believed that the AV received “wonderful care” at the facility. According to the facility’s Risk Reduction Plan, all of the staff persons received training on the importance of supervising children within sight and sound at all times. Whenever the staff persons transitioned children from one area to another, they were to use a name-to-face counting method each time they reached a new threshold. Facility documentation showed that SP1, SP2, SP3, P1, P2, and P3 each received training on the Reporting of Maltreatment of Minors Act and on the facility’s policies 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, state that “supervision” means 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; and that children are required to be supervised at all times.
Conclusion: Consistent information was provided that on March 9, 2023, SP1, SP2, and SP3 took 19 children, including the AV, to the facility’s toddler playground. At approximately 10 a.m., they lined the children up at the toddler playground gate. SP1 stood by the classroom door and SP2 and SP3 remained by the gate as the children were sent from the playground to the door. SP2 had an iPad at the gate and SP1 had an iPad at the classroom door, which they used to do a name-to-face count of the children. When the C left the group and went to a climber on the preschool playground, SP2 gave the iPad to SP3 to finish the count while SP2 took the C to the classroom door. As they entered the classroom, SP1 became distracted with assisting the children with removing their outerwear and did not complete a name-to-face count of the children. At 10:10 a.m., P1 found the AV unsupervised on the toddler playground inside the tree structure, making the AV not visible to passersby, and brought him/her into the facility. P4 then took the AV to the toddler classroom. The AV was unsupervised for approximately eight minutes, which was a violation of Minnesota Statutes, section 245A.02, subdivision 18, and Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0045, subpart1, item A. Minnesota Statutes 260E.30, subdivision 3, states that rather than making a determination of substantiated maltreatment by the 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 required under Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0045; (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. Although the AV was left outside on the facility’s playground unsupervised by SP1, SP2, and SP3 for approximately eight minutes, the AV remained in the tree structure and was not visible to passersby and SP1’s, SP2’s, and SP3’s actions or conduct were determined to be a nonmaltreatment mistake for the following reasons: · At the time of the incident, SP1, SP2, and SP3 were performing job-related duties as required by the child care program plan including removing children’s outerwear; · SP1, SP2, and SP3 had not been determined responsible for any incident that resulted in a finding of maltreatment. · SP1, SP2, and SP3 had not been determined to have committed a nonmaltreatment mistake under this paragraph; · The AV sustained no injury during the incident; and · Except for the period when the incident occurred, the facility and SP1, SP2, and SP3 were all in compliance with all licensing requirements relevant to the incident. The nonmaltreatment mistake regarding the AV by SP1, SP2, and SP3 was not maltreatment. 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 the facility’s policies were adequate, but were not followed by the staff persons. Action Taken by Department of Human Services, Office of Inspector General: SP1, SP2, and SP3 were not determined as perpetrators of maltreatment of the AV because the Department of Human Services found that the incident for which SP1, SP2, and SP3 were responsible met the criteria to be determined a nonmaltreatment mistake. SP1, SP2, and SP3 were notified by the Office of Inspector General that any future incident of possible neglect of an alleged victim for which SP1, SP2, or SP3 is responsible might not be considered a nonmaltreatment mistake. On April 19, 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.
|
