|
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: 1102890-CCC (Child Care Center) Investigator(s): Lindsay Arth/Beth Virden 651-431-6537 Suspected Maltreatment Reported: It was reported that a staff person (SP) left an alleged victim (AV) unsupervised for approximately two minutes in the facility’s activity room. The AV was unharmed. Date of Incident(s): January 3, 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 17, 2023; from documentation at the facility; and through interviews conducted with the AV, the AV’s family member (FM), facility staff persons (the SP and P1), and a supervisory staff person (P2). At the time of the incident, the AV was four years old and enrolled in the facility’s preschool classroom. The facility occupied an area within a church and provided childcare services to children. The facility had a “big room,” which children accessed for naptime and large muscle activities. From the big room, there were several doors leading to other areas within the facility. One of the doors led to an outdoor playground, and another door led to a hallway lined with the children’s cubbies for their personal belongings. The facility had a camera mounted in the big room, which recorded movement but not audio. P2 reviewed the camera footage for this incident; however, the footage was no longer available for the DHS investigator. P2 described what s/he observed on the footage in the forthcoming paragraphs. P2’s Incident Report Form for January 3, 2023, which was completed after P2’s review of the camera footage, stated the following: At 11:27 a.m., pre-k class was coming in from the playground. The children gathered at the doorway to the hallway. [The AV] and 2 other children scattered in the [room] by the cots. [The SP] opened the door, all the children filed through the door to the hallway. [The AV] hesitated and started crawling toward the door as [the SP] shut the door. [The SP’s] back was to [the AV]. [The AV] knelt at the door and cried. [The AV] began banging on the door and [P1] opened the door. The door was not locked – [the AV] could open the door. According to P2, the camera footage showed the AV was unsupervised for approximately two minutes. P2 added that although the facility was located inside a church, the church was not open to the public at the time of the incident. The AV could have accessed the doors in the big room, which led to facility classrooms, hallways, etc. The AV also could have gone back outside to the playground but there was an outdoor gate, which would have blocked the AV from moving too far from the building. [Note: The SP provided information that s/he locked the playground door, which meant that the AV could not have gone back outside to the playground without a key.] The AV told the DHS investigator that s/he felt “sad,” and cried when the SP left him/her in the big room alone. The FM said that the AV was not harmed by the incident. P1 provided the following information: · P1 and the SP were the sole staff persons on the playground with a group of approximately 15 preschool-age children. Historically, it was difficult to bring 15 children inside all at once, and so typically staff split the group into two groups when returning from activities. P1 prepared to take a group of seven children inside. Prior to leaving the playground, the SP asked P1 how many children would be remaining after P1 went inside. P1 told the SP “Eight,” and the SP repeated, “Eight.” P1 then lead his/her group of children inside leaving the SP as the sole staff person outside with eight children, including the AV. · P1 led his/her group of children into the building, through the big room, and then through the door into the hallway where the children gathered by their respective cubbies to put away their outdoor gear. · “Five minutes after,” P1 saw the SP enter the building with the second group of children. The SP led the children into the same hallway as P1 and instructed them to remove their outdoor gear. The SP closed the door to the big room as s/he entered the hallway with the children. · While still in the hallway, and after “a few minutes go by,” P1 heard “banging” coming from inside the big room. P1 walked over and, through an interior window, saw the AV on his/her knees, crying, and banging on the door in the big room. P1 opened the door, and the AV came through. P1 alerted the SP to what happened, and the SP responded that s/he must have miscounted the children and did not notice the AV missing. · P1 believed the AV was in the big room for “no more than ten minutes by [him/herself].” · According to P1, the facility trained staff to count the children “anytime we are going anywhere.” “Even if things are chaotic and kids are running around screaming, I am still counting.” The SP provided the following information: · At the time of the incident, the SP did not have access to the facility’s electronic attendance list; however, the SP had asked P1 and knew s/he was responsible for bringing eight children, including the AV, inside from the playground. · Prior to leaving the playground, the SP checked various areas to ensure no one was hiding or left behind. The SP counted eight children, including the AV, as they filed through the door and into the big room. The SP then locked the door, which made it impossible to be opened from inside or out. · The SP then opened the door which led to the hallway lined with cubbies. The children filed through that door. The SP followed, closing the door behind him/her. The SP did not check the big room prior to closing the door. “I made the mistake of not looking behind me or I did look behind me, but I didn’t notice [the AV] had not followed me into the hallway.” · “A couple minutes” later, and while still in the hallway, P1 heard “banging” on the big room door, and found the AV. The AV was crying, but unharmed. · The facility had previously trained the SP to count children. “Every time we go in and out somewhere, we usually try to count.” The SP did not state why, in this instance, s/he did not count when the children left the big room and entered the hallway. The facility’s policies and procedures stated the following: · Children are accompanied by staff when traveling from their room to the bathroom, outdoor play area or among floors. Children are not be allowed to walk within the center or out of the playground without supervision. · Staff keep count of children at all times. · Staff will count children when leaving a destination and again when they have arrived at their destination. The SP, P1, and P2 provided consistent information that on two other occasions the SP left children unsupervised at the facility around July 2021 and February 2022. Neither child was harmed. The facility provided the SP with additional training following each of these incidents. These incidents were not investigated by the Department of Human Services. Facility documentation stated that the staff persons interviewed for this investigation received training on the facility’s policies and procedures, and the Reporting of Maltreatment of Minors Act. Relevant Minnesota Statutes and Rules: Minnesota Statutes, section 245A.02, subdivision 18, and Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0045, subpart 1, item A, states that a child must have supervision at all times and that supervision is 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: On January 3, 2023, the SP left the AV unsupervised for approximately two minutes inside the facility’s “big (activity) room.” The AV was crying, but unharmed. The SP did not know that s/he left the AV in the big room until P1 heard the AV banging on the door and found the AV in the big room, crying. The failure to ensure the AV was supervised at all times was a violation of Minnesota Statutes, section 245A.02, subdivision 18, and Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0045, subpart 1, item A. 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. Although the AV was unsupervised in the big room for approximately two minutes, it was determined the SP’s actions were a nonmaltreatment mistake for the following reasons: 1) At the time of the incident, the SP was performing duties identified in the center's childcare program plan. The SP was in the hallway directly outside of the big room and was still transitioning children back into the classroom when the AV was discovered in the big room; 2) The SP was not determined responsible for a similar incident of maltreatment within the previous seven years; 3) Although the SP left children unsupervised on two other occasions, those incidents were not investigated by the Department of Human Services and the SP was not determined responsible for a similar nonmaltreatment mistake under this paragraph within the previous four years; 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 and the SP were both in compliance with all licensing requirements relevant to the incident. The nonmaltreatment mistake to the AV by the SP 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; and/or 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 policies and procedures were adequate, but not followed at the time of the incident. The facility provided additional training to all staff persons. The SP was no longer working at the facility. Action Taken by Department of Human Services, Office of Inspector General: The SP was not determined as a perpetrator of maltreatment of the AV because the Department of Human Services found that the incident for which the SP was responsible met the criteria to be determined a nonmaltreatment mistake. The SP was notified by the Office of Inspector General that any future incident of possible neglect of an alleged victim for which the SP is responsible might not be considered a nonmaltreatment mistake. On May 24, 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.
|
