|
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: 800377-CCC (Child Care Center) Investigator(s): Danielle Morrison 651-431-5647 Suspected Maltreatment Reported: It was reported that an alleged victim (AV) was left alone in a classroom for three to four minutes without staff person’s knowledge or supervision. Date of Incident(s): April 25, 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 8, 2023; from documentation at the facility; and through six interviews conducted with two supervisory staff persons (SP2 and P1), three facility staff persons (SP1, P2, and P3), and the AV’s family member (FM). The AV was three years old at the time of the incident and enrolled in the Preschool Two classroom. The AV did not provide pertinent information to this investigation. The facility had five preschool classrooms. Between the Preschool One and Preschool Two classrooms there was a shared bathroom with two stalls. From each classroom there was a doorway with a curtain that was pulled for privacy. The Preschool One classroom was not in use at the time of the incident and the curtain leading from the bathroom to that classroom was permanently drawn closed and there was an art easel pushed against the curtain to block children from entering the Preschool One classroom from the shared bathroom. In the Preschool Two classroom, on one side of the doorway that lead to the bathroom was a sink and on the other side of the doorway was a trash can. In the hallway outside of the Preschool Two classroom entrance was another bathroom stall. On April 26, 2023, SP1 documented what had happened the day of the incident (April 25, 2023.) SP1 stated that it was close to 5 p.m. and s/he was in the classroom with the AV and another child while two managers (SP2 and P1) were in the doorway of the Preschool Two classroom. The AV went to use the bathroom, and SP1 stood by the curtain doorway watching and waiting for the AV. When the AV was done, s/he came out of the bathroom. SP1 saw some toys in the sink and started washing those. The AV came to wash his/her hands and SP1 moved to the other side of the sink. The last SP1 saw the AV, s/he was standing by the trash can. SP1 turned his/her back to continue washing toys. Then one of the managers (SP2) came into the Preschool Two classroom and asked for the AV. SP1 looked around the area and in the bathroom for the AV. SP1 was still standing by the sink at this time. SP1 told the manager (SP2) s/he thought the AV went with the other manager (P1). The manager (SP2) asked SP1 to check the bathroom again and this time SP1 went inside, saw the curtain to the Preschool One classroom, lifted the curtain, and saw the AV playing with some toy cars on the floor. SP1 thought it was about three to four minutes. When speaking with this investigator SP1 stated that on April 25, 2023, one of the regular teachers was not there that day and the other regular teacher had left at 3:30 p.m. Around 5 p.m., SP1, SP2, and P1 were working in the Preschool Two classroom, and they had just come back to the Preschool Two classroom from the large muscle room. SP1 stated that there were two children present at the time, the AV and another child. SP1 stated that the other child went in to use the bathroom and when s/he was finished the AV went in to use the bathroom. Since it was so close to 5 p.m., P1 told SP1 that s/he could go home for the day. SP1 saw the toys in the sink and said, “Let me finish washing and then I will go home.” SP1 did not see P1 leave the classroom. The AV was still using the bathroom at that time and then s/he came out and washed his/her hands. The AV went to the trash can and SP1 continued washing the toys. SP1 saw SP2 standing in the doorway to the Preschool Two classroom and thought the other child had been picked up by his/her family member. SP2 asked SP1 where the AV was and SP1 did not see the AV, so s/he looked in the bathroom and did not see the AV. SP2 told SP1 to look in the bathroom again and SP1 left the Preschool Two classroom to look outside of the Preschool Two classroom. SP1 went into the bathroom, and noticed the curtain, lifted it up not realizing there was an opening behind it, and saw the AV playing with cars. SP1 reached out his/her hand to the AV and took the AV back into the Preschool Two classroom. When SP1 and the AV went back into the classroom, P1 and SP2 were coming back inside. SP1 thought it was less than a minute. SP2 stated that at the end of the day, s/he and SP1 were in the Preschool Two classroom with the AV and another child who both needed to use the bathroom. The AV went into the bathroom in the Preschool Two classroom while the SP2 guided the other child to the bathroom in the hallway and stood by in the doorway to the Preschool Two classroom to support the other child if s/he needed assistance and to make sure the other child washed his/her hands. SP2 saw the FM come down the hallway so SP2 asked SP1 if the AV was finished in the bathroom. SP1 told SP2 that the AV was not there and said s/he thought the AV left. SP2 told SP1 that s/he had been by the door to the Preschool Two classroom and the AV did not leave and to check the bathroom again. SP2 went to ask P1 if s/he saw the AV leave. P1 was coming out of the office. SP2 went back into the Preschool Two classroom and SP1 was back in the Preschool Two classroom with the AV. The AV went through the curtain to the Preschool One classroom and was playing with toys. The FM told SP2 s/he was glad the AV was safe and to have a good evening. SP2 thought the AV was without supervision for less than a minute. The FM stated that when s/he went to pick up the AV, the AV was not in the Preschool Two classroom where s/he was supposed to be. The FM said that P1 was in the office and the FM did not know the names of the other teachers. One teacher was disappointed that they had “misplaced” the AV, and s/he told the other staff person to look in the bathroom again. The FM went to go look in the playground inside, but the teacher said the AV was just in the Preschool Two classroom. The FM went back into the Preschool Two classroom and the other teacher was brining the AV back. The AV had gone through the curtain in the bathroom to the other classroom. The AV seemed “fine” and said s/he was playing with balls. The FM thought the AV was gone “not even 30 seconds.” The FM had no prior concerns. P1 said that it was the end of the day around 5 p.m., and s/he was in the office. There were two teachers, SP1 and SP2, in the Preschool Two classroom with the AV and one other child. The AV was in the bathroom in the Preschool Two classroom and the other child was using the bathroom in the hallway. SP2 told SP1 that the FM was there and asked if the AV was done in the bathroom. SP1 looked in the bathroom and did not see the AV. SP2 looked in the bathroom and then went into the hallway to ask SP1 if s/he had seen the AV. SP2 and P1 then went into the Preschool Two classroom and the AV was with SP1. The AV then left with the FM. P1 thought it was “maybe a minute.” P2 was not there on the day of the incident, but the next day, SP1 told P2 that s/he was cleaning in the Preschool Two classroom and SP2 and P1 were in the hallway with a child (not the AV) and they did not know the AV was in the bathroom in the Preschool Two classroom. SP2 and P1 asked SP1 where the AV was, but SP1 was cleaning and did not know where the AV was. The AV was found in the Preschool One classroom. On April 26, 2023, SP1 told P3 that the AV was left in the Preschool One classroom the afternoon before, after P3 had left for the day. P3 talked to SP1 and s/he stated that SP2 and P1 were in the classroom with the AV and the AV was unsupervised for three to four minutes. When P3 asked SP2 and P1 about the AV being left unsupervised the day before they stated that it did not happen. The facility’s Active Supervision of Children Policy stated that “staff [persons] must position themselves to see, hear, and respond to children at all times.” The facility’s Risk Reduction Plan stated that “When preschool children use the bathroom, staff [persons] will make sure that children are in sight and sound at all times. One staff [person] will stand by the bathroom, while the other classroom staff [person] will supervise the rest of the children.” Documentation showed that SP1, SP2, and P1-P3 were trained on supervision and 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: The Preschool One and Preschool Two classrooms shared a bathroom which was located in between the classrooms. The entrance to the bathroom in each classroom had a curtain. The Preschool One classroom was not currently being used and had an art easel in front of the curtain that led from the classroom to the bathroom. Consistent information was provided that on April 25, 2023, SP1 and SP2 were in the Preschool Two classroom with the AV and another child. The AV needed to use the bathroom so went in. The other child also needed to use the bathroom so SP2 stood in the classroom doorway while the child used the bathroom in the hallway. SP1, who remained in the classroom, stated that the AV came out of the bathroom and washed his/her hands in the sink next to the bathroom entrance. SP1 turned to continue washing toys in the sink and last saw the AV standing near the trash can. As SP1 was washing toys in the sink in the classroom and SP2 was still standing at the entrance to the Preschool Two classroom. The FM approached the classroom door so SP2 asked SP1 if the AV was finished in the bathroom. When SP1 looked, the AV was not in the classroom and was not in the bathroom. SP2 told SP1 to look again and SP2 went to ask P1 if s/he saw the AV while P1 was sitting in the office. SP1 went into the bathroom and then through the curtain from the bathroom into the Preschool One classroom and found the AV playing with toys. SP1 and the AV walked back into the classroom as SP2 and P1 entered. Although SP1 initially wrote down that the AV was without supervision for three to four minutes, when speaking with this investigator s/he stated it was less than a minute. The FM, P1, and SP2 also thought the AV was without supervision for no more than a minute. SP2 was in the classroom doorway supervising the other child while the child used the hallway bathroom so SP1 was responsible for the AV’s supervision at the time of the incident. 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 one minute 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, SP1’s actions and conduct were determined to be a non-maltreatment mistake for the following reasons. (1) at the time of the incident, SP1 was performing job related duties, as required by the facility’s policies; (2) SP1 had not been determined responsible for a previous incident that resulted in a finding of maltreatment; (3) SP1 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 SP1 were in compliance with all licensing requirements relevant to the incident. The non-maltreatment mistake to the AV by SP1 was not maltreatment. 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 and followed. Action Taken by Department of Human Services, Office of Inspector General: SP1 was not determined as a perpetrator of maltreatment of the AV because the Department of Human Services found that the incident for which SP1 was responsible met the criteria to be determined a non-maltreatment mistake. SP1 was notified by the Office of Inspector General that any future incident of possible neglect of an alleged victim for which SP1 is responsible might not be considered a non-maltreatment mistake. On July 26, 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.
|
