|
AMENDED 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.” NOTICE: This Amended Maltreatment Investigation Memorandum supersedes a version dated June 14, 2023, which should be destroyed. The original version was missing a word in the Conclusion. The amended version contains the correct wording.
License Number and Program Type: 801270-CCC (Child Care Center) Investigator(s): Lindsay Arth/ Beth Virden 651-431-6572 Suspected Maltreatment Reported: It was reported that a staff person (P1) discovered an alleged victim (AV) unsupervised in the facility’s parking lot. Date of Incident(s): January 16, 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 February 6, 2023; from documentation at the facility; and through interviews conducted with the AV’s family member (FM), facility staff persons (the SP and P1), and a supervisory staff person (P2). [Note: At the time of the site visit, the AV was sleeping for naptime and not interviewed.] At the time of the incident, the AV was four years old and enrolled in the facility’s pre-kindergarten (pre-k) classroom. The facility provided childcare services to children, infant to school age. The pre-k classroom had an attached restroom for children, and along the same wall, there was an exterior door leading to an outdoor playground. The playground was completely enclosed by a chain-link fence. There was a gate in the fence, which opened into the facility’s parking lot. The gate was secured with a carabiner or bungee. The parking lot had parking spots around the perimeter and a strip of parking spots through the middle of the lot. There were various businesses and other parking lots in the immediate area, including a gas station. The facility, itself, was located near the intersection of Radio Drive and Valley Creek Road, which were main thoroughfares in the City of Woodbury. According to weatherunderground.com, on January 16, 2023, at 12:30 p.m. it was “lightly raining,” the temperature was 34 degrees Fahrenheit, and the windspeed was between eight and nine miles per hour. The FM provided the following information: · On the day of the incident, the facility contacted the FM about an incident that involved the AV. · The AV had accessed the pre-k classroom’s exterior door, went outside onto the playground, and then through the fence gate, into the parking lot. No one inside the building was aware and it was also not known how long the AV was outside, unsupervised. A staff person (P1) discovered the AV near a snowbank on the opposite side of the parking lot and brought him/her back inside the building. · The AV told the FM that s/he was headed home because a teacher was “mean” to him/her. The AV intended to walk home or look for the FM. According to the FM, this meant the AV intended to walk toward a “main street where cars normally pass.” · The AV was crying during the incident but did not sustain injuries. P1 and P2 provided the following information: · P1 said that at the time of the incident, around 12:30 p.m., s/he drove into the parking lot after having completed his/her lunchbreak. Upon parking, s/he saw a child, later identified as the AV, walking away from the playground gate, and then running into the parking lot away from the building. According to P1, it was “really cold” outside and “either snowy or kind of rainy.” The AV was wearing a long sleeve shirt without a coat, hat, or mittens. P1 immediately got out of his/her car and stopped the AV from advancing. P1 believed the AV “would keep running if no one would have been there.” The AV was uninjured but, “seemed very scared and sad.” P1 guided him/her back into the facility.
· P2 was in his/her office with a window facing the parking lot. P2 saw the AV step into the parking lot and start running. P2 also saw P1 stop the AV from going any further. · P2 believed the AV was outside, unsupervised, for “within a minute, not even a minute.” P2 said that s/he came to this conclusion because of the distance between the pre-k exterior door and the gate to the parking lot. P2 did not believe the AV stopped to play on the playground because the AV’s clothes were dry and the portion of the playground where the AV would have passed through did not have a playset; rather it had a basketball court and picnic tables. P2 believed the AV must have unclipped the gate to get through it. · Immediately following this incident, P1 checked the gate and found it open. The facility used a bungee to secure the gate, and P1 believed that most children of the AV’s age would know how to open the gate. · At the time of the incident, the SP was the sole staff person in the pre-k classroom. P1 and P2 each did not have previous concerns with the SP’s conduct. The SP provided the following information: · At the time of the incident, the SP was transitioning the pre-k classroom from lunch to naptime. The SP was the sole staff person in the room with seven children. The SP added, “During transition time, it can get really busy … a lot of movement … a lot of hustle and bustle during this time.” · The SP saw the AV clean up his/her lunch dishes and then walk in the direction of the attached restroom. There was a motion-sensor light in the restroom. The light came “on,” which made the SP believe the AV entered the restroom. It was common practice to allow pre-k aged children to use the restroom independently. The SP might peak-in, but otherwise let the children have privacy. · The SP continued cleaning and then noticed his/her personal cellphone alert with a notification. The SP had a message from P1. P1 messaged the SP that there was a child in the parking lot from the pre-k classroom. Almost simultaneously, P2 entered the classroom with the AV in-hand. The SP said that the entire incident happened “really quick.” · The SP believed the AV was outside, unsupervised, for 15 to 20 seconds, and s/he based this on his/her estimation of the time that passed between seeing the AV walk towards the restroom and then seeing P2 entering the classroom with the AV. · The SP had been counting the children and was due to count next when the children were on their respective naptime cots. The SP would have noticed the AV’s cot was empty. This would have happened “pretty soon after” the AV left. The facility’s policies and procedures provided the following information: · “Enrolled children must be supervised at all times. This means that Staff Members must never leave a child or children unattended for even a moment.” · “Name-to-face attendance (visually confirming children are present by matching the names on the Child Supervision Record to the faces in the classroom) must be taken at least every 30 minutes and during any large class transitions ….” Facility documentation stated that the SP, P1, and P2 received training on the facility’s policies and procedures, and the Reporting of Maltreatment of Minors Act.
The FM provided additional information that on an unspecified day, the AV came home from school crying that s/he was “starving.” The AV told the FM that s/he had a snack that day but was not given lunch. According to the FM, the AV should have received lunch as s/he was present during the lunch hour. When the FM asked a teacher about this, the teacher said that the AV had chicken nuggets for lunch that day; however, each time the FM asked the AV, s/he did not say anything about chicken nuggets. The FM could not recall exactly what day this happened and without additional information or witnesses, a licensing violation was not determined.
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 16, 2023, the AV left the pre-k classroom without the SP’s knowledge or supervision which was a violation of Minnesota Statutes, section 245A.02, subdivision 18, and Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0045, subpart 1, item A. The AV went outside an exterior door in the classroom, through the playground and fence gate, and into the parking lot. P1 was parking his/her car and saw the AV enter the parking lot. P2 was inside and also saw the AV entering the parking lot. P1 immediately stopped the AV and brought him/her back inside. 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 outside likely between 15 seconds and one minute, 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 pre-k classroom and transitioning children from lunch to naptime and saw the AV walk towards the bathroom and the bathroom light turn on; 2) The SP was not determined responsible for a similar incident of maltreatment within the previous seven years; 3) 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 that policies and procedures were adequate and followed. The facility installed a bell on the pre-k exterior door to alert staff when it was opened, and also put an additional bungee on the fence gate.
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 June 14, 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.
|
