|
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: 1116584-CCC (Child Care Center) Investigator(s): Lindsay Arth/Beth Virden 651-431-6537 Suspected Maltreatment Reported: It was reported that an alleged victim (AV) left the facility, ran into a street, and was almost hit by a vehicle. It was reported that the AV was unsupervised on the facility’s playground. Alleged Licensing Violations: It was reported that a staff person (P2) pulled the AV and/or a child by their arm. It was reported that the AV’s unacceptable behavior required a behavior plan, but one was not developed. Date of Incident(s): April 20, 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 May 1, 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 supervisory staff persons (P2 and P3). [Note: At the time of the site visit, the AV was no longer enrolled at the facility and not available for an interview.] At the time of the incident, the AV was four years old and enrolled in the facility’s preschool classroom. The facility provided childcare services to children, infant to preschool. The facility shared a renovated building with other businesses (i.e., an ice cream shop), which were accessible to the public. The front door to the building was a motion-activated sliding glass door. Once inside, there was a short hallway with doors leading to the various businesses within the building. The facility’s main door was made of glass, locked from the outside and accessible with a staff key card or parent-code. From the inside, when exiting, this main door could be opened by pushing on the handle. Directly inside was a large motor room with a receptionist desk. The classrooms were set off this room with standard solid doors. Outside the facility, the surrounding area included various businesses (i.e., a gas station) and residences. The facility had a large parking lot with outputs onto three different streets with varying degrees of traffic. 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. Regarding: It was reported that the AV left the facility, ran into a street, and was almost hit by a vehicle. The FM said that on April 20, 2023, at some point between 2:30 and 3 p.m., s/he arrived at the facility to pick up the AV and the AV’s sibling. At that time, s/he was informed by the SP and P1 that about an hour prior, the AV ran out of the building and into a street. P1 ran behind the AV and grabbed the AV’s arm “just before [s/he] got hit by a [truck].” The AV later told the FM that s/he wanted to go home and went outside onto the sidewalk, and there was a “white truck.” The FM was concerned that s/he was not immediately notified of the incident. Information was provided that at the time of the incident, the facility had recently opened with limited enrollment. P1 and the SP were the sole staff persons present. P1 worked in the infant classroom with two infant-aged children. The SP worked in the toddler/preschool classroom with four children between the ages of 22 months and four years. At the time of the incident, P2 was on lunchbreak and not present at the facility. P1 did not see the AV go outside, but was told about what happened by the SP. The SP told P1 that the AV ran into the street and was almost hit by a vehicle. When the SP left the classroom to chase after the AV, the three remaining children in the toddler/preschool classroom were unsupervised. All the children, including the AV, were not injured. P1 was concerned that the AV’s behaviors had been escalating and there was little intervention by the facility to assist the SP with classroom management. The SP provided the following information: · On the day of the incident, around 1 p.m., the SP was the sole staff person in the toddler/preschool classroom with four children. It was naptime and all the children were sleeping, except for the AV, who was “throwing a fit.” · The SP said, “I was trying to calm [the AV] down. Next thing I know [s/he] is out the classroom door or running towards the classroom door. I am trying to get to [him/her]. Before I know it [s/he’s] outside and [s/he] turns towards the fence we have out front and [s/he] runs past the fence and into the street and there is a truck there and thankfully the truck stopped because [s/he] was really close to getting hit. I quickly ran over to [the AV] and pulled [him/her] to my side and brought [him/her] back in.” The AV was unharmed. · The AV’s route out of the building, included running out of the classroom, through the large motor room, pushing the facility’s glass door open, and then continuing out through the motion-activated sliding glass door. The SP followed taking the same route. When they returned to the facility, they walked back through the motion-activated sliding glass door. The SP then used his/her staff key card to open the facility’s glass door to get inside. · The AV was out of the SP’s sight for about 20 to 25 seconds when s/he initially left the classroom. Otherwise, the SP was running directly behind him/her and within sight. · The vehicle that nearly hit the AV was a “big black truck.” The driver stopped and asked if the AV was okay. The AV was okay, and the driver drove away. The SP did not obtain the driver’s identification. There were no other vehicles and no one else was involved or stopped to help. · While the SP chased after the AV, the three children who remained in the toddler/preschool classroom were unsupervised. The children were unharmed. P2 and P3 provided the following information: · P2 and P3 each said that there was a camera outside the building, which captured and recorded activity at the motion-activated sliding glass door and a portion of the parking lot. P2 and P3 reviewed the video footage for the time of the incident. The timestamp on the video was off by about 40 minutes and so the exact time of events was difficult to determine. The footage showed P2 leaving for his/her lunchbreak through the motion-activated sliding glass door. About 14 minutes later, the motion-activated sliding glass door opened, and the AV took one step onto the sidewalk. A person, from inside, yelled, “[The AV’s first name] get back here right now.” The AV then turned around and walked back inside through the motion-activated sliding glass door. About 13 minutes later, P2 returned from his/her lunchbreak and walked inside through this same door. [Note: This video footage was provided and reviewed for this investigation.] · The video did not show the AV and/or the SP running outside through the motion-activated sliding glass door; and it did not show the AV and/or the SP returning to the building through this same door. · P2 and P3 each believed that the incident, as reported, did not match what happened. P3 said, “The whole thing doesn’t feel right or good.” · P2 described the SP’s height as being slightly shorter than P2. The video footage showed P2 leaving for lunchbreak and returning from lunchbreak. P2 believed that had the SP ran out the door and/or returned through this same door, s/he would have been visible on the camera. · P2 and P3 each said that the SP and P1 did not like P2 and did not believe P2 should be a supervisory staff person. · P2 believed the SP and P1 were trying to get him/her in trouble. · P3 said, “There was tension between [the SP and P1] and [P2].” P3 did not have concerns with P2’s conduct or ability to be a supervisory staff person. The SP and P1 told the FM about the incident about one hour after it allegedly occurred. On that same day, the SP and P1 walked off the job and did not return. When P3 followed up with the SP regarding the incident, P3 told the SP that there was a camera recording outside the door and the SP “got quiet.” · P2 said that the facility’s glass door required a staff key card or parent-code to open, and that there was an electronic timestamp whenever it was accessed. Facility documentation included a printout of the staff key card and parent-code timestamps for April 20, 2023, during the time of the incident. These were times when the door was opened from the outside using a staff key card or parent-code. It had been reported that the incident occurred during P2’s lunchbreak. The timestamps on the printout included, 1:12 p.m., the door was opened. The camera footage showed a parent arriving at or around that time. The camera footage then showed P2 leaving for his/her lunchbreak at 1:14 p.m. The next timestamp was at 1:40 p.m., when the door was opened using P2’s staff key card; this matched the video footage of P2 returning from lunchbreak. There were no other timestamps between 1:14 and 1:40 p.m., including any using the SP’s staff key card. Regarding: It was reported that the AV was unsupervised on the facility’s playground. The SP provided the following information: · On April 19, 2023, the AV left the toddler/preschool classroom and was unsupervised on the facility’s playground for about one minute. · There were two doors in the toddler/preschool classroom: one leading to the large motor room and the other door leading directly out to the playground. · At the time of the incident, the door leading to the playground was propped open. The SP was cleaning and did not see the AV step outside through this door. The AV’s sibling told the SP that the AV went outside. The SP then went to the door and saw the AV standing on the playground. · The AV was unharmed. P2 said that s/he was not aware of this incident and the SP did not complete any documentation that it occurred. Relevant Rules and/or Statutes: Minnesota Statutes, section 245A.02, subdivision 18, and Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0045, subpart 1, item A, states 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: Regarding: It was reported that the AV left the facility, ran into a street, and was almost hit by a vehicle. The SP said that on April 20, 2023, the AV ran out of the building, through the motion-activated sliding glass door, and into the street almost getting hit by a “big black truck.” Upon reaching the AV, the SP led him/her back through the motion-activated sliding glass door and into the facility. The SP used his/her staff key card to open the facility’s glass door to get inside. P1 did not see this happen but was told about it by the SP. P2 was on his/her lunchbreak and not present when this occurred. The AV told the FM that s/he wanted to go home and went onto the sidewalk, and there was a “white truck.” The video footage showed a child stepping through the motion-activated sliding glass door and onto the sidewalk. A person then yelled the AV’s first name, and the AV turned around and walked back inside the building. The video did not show the SP and/or the AV running out of the building and/or returning. In addition, a printout of the key card usage for the facility’s glass door did not show the SP’s key card being used to open the door. Given that video footage showed that the incident did not happen as provided by the SP, there was not a preponderance of the evidence that that the SP failed to supply the AV with care required for his/her physical or mental health; and/or failed to protect the AV from conditions or actions that seriously endangered his/her physical or mental health. 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). Regarding: It was reported that the AV was unsupervised on the facility’s playground. Although the SP said that on one occasion s/he left the AV outside unsupervised on the playground, given that the SP’s credibility was diminished by providing inaccurate information in the allegation above; that P3 stated there was interpersonal conflicts between the SP, P1, and P2; and that the SP did not document or tell P2 or P3 about the incident, there was not a preponderance of the evidence that the SP failed to supply the AV with care required for his/her physical or mental health; and/or failed to protect the AV from conditions or actions that seriously endangered his/her physical or mental health 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. Alleged Licensing Violations: It was reported that P2 pulled the AV and/or a child by their arm. Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0055, subpart 3 states in part that the license holder must have and enforce a policy that prohibits subjection of a child to corporal punishment including but not limited to rough handling. The SP stated that s/he saw P2 pulling children by their arms “a few times,” but s/he could not recall specific dates. The SP was not aware of any children sustaining an injury from being pulled. P1 said that s/he saw P2 “pulling [the AV’s] arm across the room to [his/her] cubby area. I think it was [his/her] left arm.” The FM did not see anyone pulling the AV’s arm at the facility and did not notice injuries on the AV’s arm. P2 said that s/he did not grab or pull a child by their arm, and s/he did not see any other staff grab or pull a child by their arm. The facility’s Behavior Guidance Policy stated, “[The facility] uses positive reinforcement and redirection as the primary discipline methods … Physically or mentally abusive forms of discipline are never used.” Given that the SP’s credibility was diminished by providing inaccurate information in the allegation above; that P3 stated there was interpersonal conflicts between the SP, P1, and P2; that the SP and P1 could not provide details such as dates and the names of children involved, a licensing violation was not determined. It was reported that the AV’s unacceptable behavior required a behavior plan, but one was not developed. Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0055, subpart 2 states that the license holder must have written procedures for dealing with persistent unacceptable behavior that requires an increased amount of staff guidance and time. The procedures must specify that staff observe and record the behavior of the child and staff response to the behavior; and develop a plan to address yhe behavior documented in consolation with the child’s parent and with other staff persons and professionals when appropriate. The SP said that the AV had ongoing behavior issues that were not being addressed by the facility; this included biting the SP, which occurred “pretty much daily.” “One day, I couldn’t handle [him/her] anymore so I brought [him/her] to [P2].” P2 mentioned a behavior plan for the AV. This conversation occurred approximately one and a half weeks prior to April 20, 2023. P2 started working on a behavior plan but “never got to it.” According to the SP, P2 told him/her that s/he should not document the AV’s behaviors; and at least one time, when P2 saw the SP documenting the AV’s behaviors, P2 questioned why.
P2 provided the following information: · P2 told the SP to write down the AV’s behaviors on a piece of paper. P2 expected that anything written down would be turned-in to him/her. P2 told the SP that s/he was working on developing a behavior plan; however, the SP never turned any documentation into P2 and so P2 was not informed of anything going on in the classroom. · Simultaneously, P2 repeatedly reached out to the FM to setup a meeting to go over a behavior plan; however, the FM was concerned that a behavior plan would follow the AV into kindergarten. The FM did not immediately respond to P2’s requests for a meeting. · P2 denied telling staff to not document the AV’s behaviors. · P2 met with the AV and provided coping strategies, such as counting and taking deep breaths. P2 also met with the SP and provided strategies, such as positioning him/her and using proximity. The facility’s Persistent Unacceptable Behavior Policy stated, “Staff will observe and record the behavior in writing and inform parents in writing what behaviors have been observed and what the staff has done to try to modify the behavior. Staff will also communicate via an online format to communicate any such behaviors with the parents as well … If a child’s behavior becomes consistently unacceptable or uncontrollable, [the facility], along with parents will develop a behavior guidance plan to try and resolve the problem. We will seek parent input and agree on steps to attempt and modify the behavior.” Although the AV may have demonstrated behaviors that required a behavior plan, given the SP’s lack of documentation regarding the AV’s behaviors, and that P2 was in the process of developing a plan and had reached out to the FM, a licensing violation was not determined. Action Taken by Facility: The facility completed an internal review and determined that policies and procedures were adequate and followed. There was not a need for additional staff training or corrective action. Action Taken by Department of Human Services, Office of Inspector General: No further action taken. 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.
|
