|
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: 1103754-CCC (Child Care Center) Investigator(s): Kimberly Huettl Anderson 651-431-6553 Suspected Maltreatment Reported: It was reported that three alleged victims (AV1, AV2, and AV3) were in a classroom without a staff persons’ (SP) supervision for approximately thirty minutes. Date of Incident(s): March 7, 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 28, 2023; from documentation at the facility; and through four interviews conducted with facility staff persons and AV3’s family member. Attempts to contact the SP, who was also AV1’s and AV2’s family member, were made via telephone, email, and US mail. The SP did not respond to the requests for additional information. Attempts to contact a facility staff person (P3) via telephone for additional information were unsuccessful. The facility consisted of two infant classrooms, two toddler classrooms, and three preschool classrooms. The preschool classrooms surrounded a large motor room that was at the end of the facility’s main hallway. The facility had video cameras in the facility’s main hallway. The facilities operating hours began at 6:30 a.m. Facility documentation showed that AV1 was five years old and that AV2 and AV3 were two years old and that AV1, AV2, and AV3 typically attended the facility from 6:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. AV3’s family member (FM) was not aware of the incident when this investigator notified him/her of the incident. However, the FM did not have any concerns about the care that the facility provided to the AV. Facility documentation and information from two facility management persons (P1 and P2) provided the following information: · On March 7, 2023, P1 received an email from a facility parent stating that when s/he dropped his/her children off in the preschool classroom earlier that morning, there were three crying children in the preschool classroom by themselves without a staff person. The email explained that after they entered the classroom P3 came into the classroom. P1 did not review the facility’s video surveillance of the incident but was told by an administrative staff person (P4) from the corporate office that AV1, AV2, and AV3 were unsupervised for approximately twenty-seven minutes. · After reading the email, P1 spoke to the SP about the incident. The SP told P1 that s/he left AV1 and AV2, who were his/her own children, in the preschool classroom while s/he was filling bleach water bottles for the classrooms. The SP told P1 that s/he knew that s/he left AV1, AV2, and AV3 unsupervised, but that s/he was doing his/her “job.” P1 reminded the SP that the SP’s first responsibility was to supervise the children at all times. · On March 7, 2023, P2 opened the facility with the SP and P3. P2 was working in the office, the SP was scheduled in the preschool classroom, and P3 was scheduled in the infant classroom. AV1 and AV2 were the first two children at the facility that day. At approximately 6:40 a.m., AV3 arrived at the facility and went to the preschool classroom P2 stated that s/he did not realize that AV1 and AV2 were without supervision on the day of the incident was not aware that after AV3 arrived, AV1, AV2, and AV3 were in the preschool classroom without staff person supervision. P2 did not know why the SP did not ask P2 to supervise the children. · On March 6, 2023, before the center opened, P1 noticed that the SP was outside the facility shoveling the sidewalk and that AV1 and AV2 were in the preschool classroom without the SP’s supervision. At that time, P1 told the SP that even though AV1 and AV2 were the SP’s family members, they were not to be unsupervised in a classroom while at the facility and that if the SP needed to leave the children to perform a work duty, the SP should ask P1 or another staff person to supervise the children. P1 also told the SP that supervising the children was his/her first job duty and that s/he needed to wait for a second staff person before s/he started any of his/her morning tasks. · According to P1, the SP was scheduled to open the facility and maintain ratio in the facility’s preschool classroom until a second staff person arrived. A facility management person and two staff persons were always opened the program. P1 scheduled the SP to arrive at the facility fifteen minutes early to shovel, chop ice, and lay salt before the children arrived. The SP did not arrive fifteen minutes early to start his/her shift. · According to P1 and P2, the SP was trained on providing supervision to children prior to the incident. P2 stated that if the SP needed assistance supervising the children, s/he could have asked P2 for help. · The SP’s job description stated that s/he was the health, safety, and food specialist. The SP’s job duties included supervising children, ensuring safe food preparations and proper sanitation methods, and maintaining a clean and safe environment for all children. · The facility’s Child Care Risk Reduction Plan stated that children were “never” allowed to be unsupervised or left alone in a classroom or the hallways. The facility’s Employee Handbook stated that staff persons were to provide direct supervision to “every” child at all times. This investigator reviewed the facility’s video surveillance of the hallway. There was no video from the classroom. The video was date stamped March 7, 2023, but according to a facility management person (P4), the time stamp was delayed approximately twenty minutes. (Note: The time stamps below have been adjusted to the twenty minutes as stated by P4.) This investigator observed the following: · At 6:31:25 a.m., the video began as the SP walked out of the preschool classroom and as P2 walked into view at the other end of the hallway. At 6:31:28 a.m. AV1 or AV2 came into view and ran to the SP as the SP neared the middle of the hallway, as P2 looked in drawers at the other end of the hallway. The SP walked down the hallway and into the preschool room. · At 6:32:10 a.m. the SP left the preschool classroom by him/herself and was out of the preschool classroom until 6:36:43 a.m. (4 minutes, 33 seconds). During this time, at various times, P2 and the SP were in the kitchen and in the hallway together. The SP entered and exited multiple rooms carrying spray bottles. While the SP was in the preschool classroom, P2 and P3 were in the hallway together for a period. · At 6:37:50 a.m., the SP came out of the preschool classroom carrying spray bottles as P2 was in view at the other end of the hallway. The SP went into various rooms and at one point had a conversation with P2 at the end of the hallway as P3 was next to them. The SP was out of the room until 6:43:33 a.m. (5 minutes, 43 seconds). · At 6:43:55 a.m., the SP came out of the preschool classroom while using his/her cell phone. At 6:38:51 a.m., the SP went into the kitchen and at 6:59:35 a.m. (15 minutes, 40 seconds later) after going into another classroom, returned to the preschool classroom. · During this time, it did not appear as though the SP was aware that: o At 6:44:30 a.m. (35 seconds after the SP left the classroom), AV3 and his/her family member came into view at the end of the hallway and walked to the preschool classroom. At 6:44:47 a.m. they walked into the classroom and at 6:45:12 a.m. the family member came out of the room without AV3 and walked out of view of the camera. The family member did not appear to have talked to any staff person. o At 6:52:50 a.m. (8 minutes, 55 seconds after the SP left the classroom) another child and their family member came into view at the end of the hallway and walked to the preschool classroom. At 6:53:02 a.m. they walked into the classroom. The family member remained in the classroom until P3 was in the classroom o At 6:53:33 a.m. (9 minutes, 38 seconds after the SP left the classroom), another child and their family member came into view at the end of the hallway and walked to the preschool classroom. At 6:53:47 a.m. they walked into the classroom. The family member remained in the classroom until P3 was in the classroom. o At 6:53:55 a.m., P3 came into view at the end of the hallway and walked down the hallway entering the preschool room at 6:54:15 a.m. (10 minutes, 20 seconds after the SP left the classroom). At 6:54:22 a.m. P3 walked out of the preschool classroom had a conversation with someone in the kitchen and at 6:54:34 a.m. walked back into the preschool room and at 6:35:14 a.m., the two respective family members left the preschool classroom. · The SP was out of the classroom for a total of 25 minutes, 56 seconds. The children were without staff person supervision for 20 minutes, 48 seconds. The facility’s personnel files showed that the SP was trained on the facility’s Child Care Risk Reduction Plan, the Employee Handbook, and the Reporting of Maltreatment of Vulnerable Adults Act on February 12, 2023. Relevant Rules and/or Statutes: Minnesota Statutes, section 245A.02, subdivision 18, and Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0045, subpart 1, item A, state 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: A. Maltreatment: Information obtained including the facility’s video surveillance showed that on March 7, 2023, the SP left AV1 and AV2 in a classroom without supervision. During the time that the SP was out of the classroom, unknown to the SP, AV3 was dropped off in the classroom by his/her family member who left without appearing to talk to any staff person. AV1 and AV2 were without supervision for 20 minutes, 28 seconds and AV3 was without supervision for 9 minutes, 3 seconds, which was a violation of Minnesota Statutes, section 245A.02, subdivision 18, and Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0045, subpart 1, item A. Although AV1, AV2, and AV3 were in a classroom within the facility and that there was no information that AV1, AV2, and AV3 were injured at the time of the incident, the SP was not in a position to intervene to protect AV1, AV2, and AV3 in the event of an injury or emergency. Given this, the ages of AV1, AV2, and AV3, and the length of time they were unsupervised, there was a preponderance of the evidence that there was a failure to supply AV1, AV2, and AV3 with necessary care and a failure to protect AV1, AV2, and AV3 from conditions or actions that could seriously endanger their physical health. It was 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). B. Responsibility pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 260E.30, subdivision 4, paragraph (a), clauses (1) and (2): When determining whether the facility or individual is the responsible party, or whether both the facility and the individual are responsible for determined maltreatment in a facility, the investigating agency shall consider at least the following mitigating factors: (1) whether the actions of the facility or the individual caregivers were according to, and followed the terms of, an erroneous physician order, prescription, individual care plan, or directive; however, this is not a mitigating factor when the facility or caregiver was responsible for the issuance of the erroneous order, prescription, individual care plan, or directive or knew or should have known of the errors and took no reasonable measures to correct the defect before administering care; (2) comparative responsibility between the facility, other caregivers, and requirements placed upon an employee, including the facility’s compliance with related regulatory standards and the adequacy of facility policies and procedures, facility training, an individual’s participation in the training, the caregiver’s supervision, and facility staffing levels and the scope of the individual employee’s authority and discretion; and (3) whether the facility or individual followed professional standards in exercising professional judgment. The SP was responsible for the supervision of AV1, AV2, and AV3 at the time of the incident. The SP had been trained on the facility’s Child Care Risk Reduction Plan and the Employee Handbook, and the Reporting of Maltreatment of Vulnerable Adults Act prior to the incident. In addition, the day before the incident, P1 spoke to the SP about not leaving AV1 and AV2 without supervision while s/he performed other job duties. The SP was responsible for maltreatment of AV1, AV2, and AV3. C. Recurring and/or Serious Maltreatment: The Office of Inspector General is required to evaluate whether substantiated maltreatment by an individual meets the statutory criteria to be determined as “recurring or serious.” Individuals determined to be responsible for recurring or serious maltreatment are disqualified from providing direct contact services. Minnesota Statutes, section 245C.02, subdivision 16, states: “Recurring maltreatment” means more than one incident of maltreatment for which there is a preponderance of evidence that maltreatment occurred and that the subject was responsible for the maltreatment. Minnesota Statutes, section 245C.02, subdivision 18, states: "Serious maltreatment" means sexual abuse, maltreatment resulting in death, neglect resulting in serious injury which reasonably requires the care of a physician whether or not the care of a physician was sought, or abuse resulting in serious injury. For purposes of this definition, "care of a physician" is treatment received or ordered by a physician, physician assistant, or nurse practitioner, but does not include diagnostic testing, assessment, or observation; the application of, recommendation to use, or prescription solely for a remedy that is available over the counter without a prescription; or a prescription solely for a topical antibiotic to treat burns when there is no follow-up appointment. For purposes of this definition, "abuse resulting in serious injury" means: bruises, bites, skin laceration, or tissue damage; fractures; dislocations; evidence of internal injuries; head injuries with loss of consciousness; extensive second-degree or third-degree burns and other burns for which complications are present; extensive second-degree or third-degree frostbite and other frostbite for which complications are present; irreversible mobility or avulsion of teeth; injuries to the eyes; ingestion of foreign substances and objects that are harmful; near drowning; and heat exhaustion or sunstroke. Serious maltreatment includes neglect when it results in criminal sexual conduct against a child or vulnerable adult. It was determined that the substantiated neglect for which the SP was responsible did not meet statutory criteria to be determined as recurring because this was a single incident of maltreatment and was not serious because AV1, AV2, and AV3 did not sustain any injury that required medical care. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 260E.35, subdivision 6, paragraph (c) all investigative data maintained in this report will be kept by the Department of Human Services for at least ten years after the date of the final entry in the report. Action Taken by Facility: The facility completed an internal review and determined that their policies and procedures were adequate but not followed at the time of the incident. The SP no longer worked at the facility. Action Taken by Department of Human Services, Office of Inspector General: The SP was not disqualified from providing direct care services as a result of the maltreatment determination in this report. However, the SP was notified by the Office of Inspector General that any further substantiated act of maltreatment, whether or not the act meets the criteria for “serious,” will automatically meet the criteria for “recurring” and will result in the disqualification of the SP. The determination that the SP was responsible for maltreatment is subject to appeal. On June 7, 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.
|
