|
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: 800552-CCC (Child Care Center) Investigator(s): Danielle Morrison 651-431-5647 Suspected Maltreatment Reported: It was reported that an alleged victim (AV) was left outside on the playground without a staff person’s (SP) supervision or knowledge for approximately two minutes. Date of Incident(s): May 17, 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 June 5, 2023; from documentation at the facility; and through five interviews conducted with the AV, a supervisory staff person (P1), two facility staff persons (SP and P2), and the AV’s family member (FM). The facility was located inside a church. The Pre-K classroom was off a hallway that had five other classrooms and an office. The hallway had storage lockers along one side and at the end of the hallway was a door that led to the playground. There was an interior door that was always propped open and an exterior door that was locked when the last staff person entered the building with his/her classroom from the playground. The playground was surrounded by a chain link fence. The AV was five years old and enrolled in the Pre-K classroom at the time of the incident. The AV said that s/he was playing a little longer on the playground and s/he forgot to go inside. The AV stated that another child (C) tried to get him/her back inside. The AV said s/he was scared when s/he was outside. The AV said when s/he came back inside the SP ran down the hallway to open the door, then they met a staff person (P3) in the hallway and the SP told P3 what happened. The AV said the SP told the AV, “I’m sorry” and the SP held the AV’s hand. The SP went outside on the playground so that P3 could use the bathroom. The SP stated that P3 did not tell the SP how many children s/he had and when the SP went outside the other classroom was heading inside. The SP stated s/he called the children over to line up to go inside. The SP said there was a clipboard on a bench outside that one of the other children grabbed for the SP. The SP did not look at the sheet to see which children were listed on there but stated s/he counted and thought all of the children were there, so the classroom went inside. The SP had the children wait while s/he locked the outside door. The SP walked away from the door. The C heard the AV, so the C opened the door for the AV. The AV seemed “shocked and scared”, so the SP told the AV s/he was safe now and not alone. The SP told P3 what happened and then went and told P1. The SP said s/he should have done a face to name count when the children were lined up and then once in the building do a name to face again. The SP did not know how many children to bring inside and that s/he did not do a name to face count. Around 10:55 a.m., P1 said s/he was in the office, and s/he saw children coming inside so s/he went to assist in monitoring the bathrooms. While there, the SP brought the AV to P1, and the SP told P1 that the AV was left outside on his/her own and that the C had let the AV inside. P1 said the AV was crying. P1 stated that the SP went out to the playground to step into the Pre-K classroom to provide a bathroom break to the teacher. The SP brought the children inside and as the children were putting items into their storage lockers, the SP saw the C open the door to outside and let the AV inside. P1 stated that there was a laminated sheet of paper on a clipboard that had the children’s names on it and procedure was to conduct a name to face using this tool. P1 thought the AV was without supervision for about two minutes. P2 said that while outside, the SP stepped in so P3 was able to use the restroom. P2 was bringing his/her classroom inside as the SP lined up his/her group. P2 heard that the AV was left outside without supervision. P2 stated that s/he lined up the children from his/her class and counted and then counted again as the children entered the building. The FM was aware of the AV being left on the playground unsupervised. The FM stated that the classroom came inside, and the AV was left outside so s/he knocked, and someone let the AV inside. The FM said it did not sound like the AV was scared and the FM had no prior concerns and enjoyed having the AV at the facility. The facility’s Employee Handbook stated that staff persons “will conduct a ‘face to name’ when transitioning from one space to another.” The facility’s Risk Reduction Plan stated under condition and design of the outdoor space that, “A ‘face to name’ count is done when returning inside.” The facility’s Staff Supervision of Children Policy stated that, “When exiting or entering a new space, [staff persons] will conduct a “face to name” count to ensure that all children are present.” Facility documentation showed that the SP, P1, and P2 were all trained on the facility’s supervision policy, the facility’s Risk Reduction Plan, and the Reporting of Maltreatment of Minors Act. Relevant Rule and/or Statute 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: Consistent information was provided that on May 17, 2023, the SP stepped in for P3 while P3 was on the playground with his/her classroom so that P3 could use the restroom. The SP brought the children inside and the AV was left outside on the playground without supervision. The SP stated that s/he was not told by P3 the number of children P3 had. When the SP lined the children up to go inside, the SP had the classroom’s clipboard that had a list of the children in the classroom on a laminated piece of paper that indicated how many children were in attendance. The SP said that while s/he had that clipboard, the SP did not use the paper to see which children were present. The SP stated s/he counted the children as they lined up and thought all the children were present. The SP brought the classroom inside and locked the outside door behind him/her as s/he entered the building. As the SP walked away from the outside door, the C heard the AV outside the door and opened it for the AV to come inside. The SP stated that s/he did not know how many children to bring inside and that s/he did not do a name to face count. The SP and P1 stated that a name to face should have been conducted. 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 non-maltreatment mistake was made by the individual. A non-maltreatment 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 non-maltreatment 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 for approximately two minutes without staff persons’ knowledge which was a violation of Minnesota Statutes, section 245A.02. subdivision 18, and Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0045. subpart 1, item A, the SP’s actions and conduct was determined to be a non-maltreatment mistake for the following reasons. (1) at the time of the incident, the SP was performing job related duties, as required by the facility’s policies; (2) The SP had not been determined responsible for a previous incident that resulted in a finding of maltreatment; (3) The SP had not been determined to have committed a non-maltreatment mistake under this paragraph; (4) There were no injuries to the AV as a result of this incident; and (5) except for the period when the incident occurred, the facility and the SP were in compliance with all licensing requirements relevant to the incident. The non-maltreatment 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. 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 found their policies and procedures adequate, but not followed by the SP. The SP received a written warning and all staff persons received training on ensuring communication happened between staff persons as to the number of children present. Action Taken by Department of Human Services, Office of Inspector General: On July 7, 2023, the facility was issued a Correction Order for the violations 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.
|
