|
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: 801270-CCC (Child Care Center) Investigator(s): Tessa Ripka 651-431-6612 Suspected Maltreatment Reported: It was reported that an alleged victim (AV) was left unsupervised on the playground for two to five minutes. Date of Incident(s): May 4, 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 18, 2023; from documentation at the facility; and through four interviews conducted with three facility staff persons (SP1, SP2, P), and the AV’s family member (FM). Due to his/her age, the AV was not able to provide any information for this investigation. The facility was a large building with ten classrooms. The Twos classroom was a large classroom with a half wall running down the middle which could be divided into two separate classrooms. On the near side of the wall was several small tables and chairs, and some shelving with toys. On the far side of the classroom was a door that exited to a fenced playground. Out the playground door was a brick wall to the left and a small play structure near the middle of the playground. Near the brick wall were several tricycles and other riding toys. The AV was 22 months at the time of the incident and enrolled in the Twos classroom. The FM said s/he came into the classroom and asked where the AV was. One staff person (determined to be SP2) said, “Oh my God.” And ran outside. SP2 brought the AV back inside. The FM felt that the AV was outside for longer than a few minutes because some of the children in the classroom had already finished their snacks. After the FM picked up the AV, s/he was not acting like his/her “normal self” and was very thirsty. SP1 and SP2 provided the following information: · At approximately 5 p.m., on the date of the incident SP1 and SP2 were outside with nine children on the playground. SP2 typically worked from 5-6 p.m. in the Twos classroom. SP1 typically worked in the Twos classroom with another staff person who had just left for the day. The classroom had combined with another toddler classroom that had two or three children still in attendance. · SP1 and SP2 lined the nine children up by the classroom door and SP2 counted the children while SP1 went inside. SP1 and SP2 had each child walk through the door and then SP2 looked around outside and came inside. SP2 counted nine children and did a final look outside but did not see anyone still outside. · SP1 and SP2 had the children sit down at the tables in the classroom and started getting them a snack. SP2 counted the children again but only counted eight in the classroom. SP2 was not familiar with all the children in the classroom so s/he had not done an accurate face to name count outside as there were some children who names s/he did not know. · As SP2 was recounting, the FM came into the classroom and asked where the AV was. SP2 got up quickly and went to look outside. SP2 found the AV playing on a tricycle near the brick wall by the classroom door. The AV seemed confused but was not upset. SP1 and SP2 each said the AV was outside unsupervised for no more than five minutes. SP2 brought the AV back into the classroom and the AV left with the FM. · SP1 said s/he did not do a head count when s/he came inside with the children as s/he thought since they counted when the children were by the door that another count did not need to be done. SP2 had the form and documented the count. · Both SP1 and SP2 said they were newer staff persons at the facility and did not typically complete the form that documented the attendance. The P provided the following information: · At approximately 5:20 to 5:25 p.m., on the date of the incident, a family member came and said that the P was needed in the Twos classroom. When the P got to the classroom, the FM was there and informed the P that when the FM arrived the AV was not in the classroom. When the FM asked staff persons, SP2 went outside and found the AV on the playground by him/herself. · When children were outside, the staff persons were to have them line up and do a name to face count with the roster sheet. When the children were back in the classroom, staff persons completed another name to face count. Staff persons documented each count on the roster sheet. · After the incident, all staff persons completed a retraining on completing the name to face count and roster sheets. The Child Supervision Record showed that on the date of the incident, SP1 worked in the classroom from 11 a.m. to 5:27 p.m. and SP2 worked in the classroom from 4:40 to 5:45 p.m. The classroom went outside at 3:45 p.m. and returned inside at 5:15 p.m. The AV was checked out of the classroom at 5:20 p.m. The AV was checked present at the 5:15 p.m. count by SP1. The Guidance, Protection of and Respect for Children policy stated that children were supervised at all times. Staff persons worked to actively protect the safety of children and to ensure that children were protected from any dangers by intervening quickly if potentially dangerous situations arose. According to www.wunderground.com, the outdoor condition at the facility, on May 4, 2023, at the time of the incident, was “mostly cloudy” with a temperature of 76 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) and wind speed of 12miles per hour (mph). Facility documentation showed that all staff persons were trained on the facility’s policies and the Reporting of Maltreatment of Minors Act prior to the incident. Relevant Rules and Statutes: Minnesota Statutes, section 245A.02, subdivision 18, and Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0045, subpart 1, item A, stated that a child must have supervision at all times and that supervision was 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: Information was consistent that on the date of the incident, SP1 and SP2 were outside on the playground and took the children back inside for snack time. SP2 counted nine children, and they walked through the door but did not do a complete name to face count as s/he typically did not work in the classroom and did not know all the children yet. SP2 scanned the playground but did not see any other children so s/he went inside. SP1 and SP2 had the children sit down and served snack. SP2 counted the children again, as they sat down to eat but counted eight instead of the nine children they should have. As SP2 was tying to recount, the FM arrived looking for the AV. SP2 went outside and found the AV on the playground unsupervised, which was a violation of Minnesota Statutes, section 245H.13, subdivision 10. 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. Consistent information was provided that SP1 and SP2 were in the classroom serving snack and assisting other children at the time of the incident. SP1’s and SP2’s actions or conduct was determined to be a nonmaltreatment mistake for the following reasons: (1) At the time of the incident, SP1 and SP2 were each performing job related duties, as require by the facility’s policies, by participating in activities with the children and interacting with a parent during drop off; (2) Neither SP1 nor SP2 had been determined responsible for any previous incident that resulted in a finding of maltreatment; (3) Neither SP1 nor SP2 had been determined to have committed a nonmaltreatment mistake under this paragraph; (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, SP1, and SP2 were each in compliance with all licensing requirements relevant to the incident. The nonmaltreatment mistake to the AV by SP1 and SP2 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 determined that policies and procedures were adequate but not followed by SP1 and SP2. SP1 and SP2 were retrained on child supervision, child roster forms, and transitions from inside to outside. Action Taken by Department of Human Services, Office of Inspector General: SP1 and SP2 were not determined as perpetrators of maltreatment of the AV because the Department of Human Services found that the incident for which each was responsible met the criteria to be determined a nonmaltreatment mistake. SP1 and SP2 were each notified by the Office of Inspector General that any future incident of possible neglect of an alleged victim for which each is responsible might not be considered a nonmaltreatment mistake. On July 26, 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.
|
