|
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: 1005378-CCC (Child Care Center) Investigator(s): Anna Parkin 651-431-6225 Suspected Maltreatment Reported: It was reported that four staff persons (SP1-SP4) left an alleged victim (AV) alone on a playground for approximately eight minutes. Date of Incident(s): June 8, 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 27, 2023; from documentation at the facility; and through seven interviews conducted with two supervisory staff persons (P1 and P2), SP1-SP4, and the AV’s family member (FM). According to the AV’s enrollment information, the AV was three years old and in the young preschool room at the time of the incident. The facility had a playground that was enclosed by a chain link fence. The playground was attached by a gate to a long cement area that was the along the side of the building used for bikes and playhouses that was also enclosed by the fence. The doors into the young preschool room and older preschool room were along the cement area. Surrounding the playground was a pond, the facility’s parking lot, and a public street. Consistent information was provided that at the time of the incident, the young preschool and prekindergarten room were combined on the playground. SP1-SP4 provided the following information: · On June 8, 2023, at approximately 4:30 p.m., SP1-SP4 had approximately 18 children including the AV outside on the playground. As the children began lining up by the gate, the AV and another child ran back onto the playground. SP3 and SP4 went and brought the AV and the other child back in line near the end of the line. SP1-SP4 lined up the children including the AV at the gate to go back inside the facility. SP1 was at the front of the line, SP2 and SP3 were in the middle, and SP4 was at the end of the line. SP1 counted the children including the AV when they were lined up to leave the playground. SP3 and SP4 each stated they did not count the children when leaving through the gate or when entering the building. · When SP1 opened the gate, approximately four to five children ran to the cement play area and SP1 followed. SP2 moved to the front of the line while SP1 hurried to clean up spilled milk inside a playhouse because one of the children (the C) who ran had a milk allergy. A few other children began playing on the bikes and SP3 and SP4 got those children back in the line. · After SP1 was able to get the C back with the group, SP1-SP4 brought the children inside to the older preschool room. SP2 stated s/he stood at the door and counted the children as they went inside the building. SP2 could not recall if s/he counted the AV going inside the building and did not recall the number of children s/he counted because there was so much happening during that time. SP4 did not count the children when going inside the building but heard SP2 count the children. SP4 did not remember if s/he counted the children during the incident. SP1 was focused on trying to get the children inside the room and the C away from the milk so did not count the children when going inside. SP1 was not aware if other staff persons counted the children. · SP1-SP4 assisted the children with washing their hands and getting ready for activity time. P3 came inside the building and said the AV was alone on the playground. SP2 went outside and saw the AV swinging on a swing. The AV did not have any injuries. · SP1 stated that name to face was “encouraged” but staff persons had to at least count children. SP1 generally counted the children when leaving the toddler playground, when they reached the door to go inside the building, and then again once inside the room. P1 and P2 provided the following information: · P2 stated on the day of the incident, P3 came to P2 and said that a family member of a child who attended the facility came up to P3 and said there was a child alone on the playground. P2 went to the preschool room and saw the AV already in the room and was not injured. P2 then called P1 (who was not at the facility) and P1 told P2 to review the video footage of the incident. · P2 reviewed the video footage on the playground and saw that when SP1-SP4 were leaving the gate with the other children, the AV ran back to a tunnel and hid. The AV then went on a swing. P2 saw SP1 and SP3 count the children when lined up to go inside the building but the AV was not in line at that time. P2 timed out the video footage and it was approximately eight minutes from when SP1-SP4 and the other children left the gate until P3 found the AV. P2 then reviewed video footage from inside the room during that time and saw SP1-SP4 assisting the children with washing their hands. During that time, SP2 was counting the children. SP1-SP4 then started activities with the children before P3 came into the room. · P1 stated when talking to staff persons after the incident, they counted the children when leaving the gate but not afterwards since they were concerned about getting the children inside without running off again. All staff persons were verbally trained to count children at each transition and communicate with each other how many children were counted. P1 did not save the video footage of the incident prior to it deleting so it was not available for the investigation. The FM stated s/he was told about the incident the day it happened. The FM did not have concerns with the facility or about the incident. Facility documentation showed that staff persons, including SP1-SP4, received training on the Maltreatment of Minor’s Act prior to the incident. Relevant Rules and/or Statutes: Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0045, subpart 1, item A, stated that children are required to have supervision at all times. Minnesota Statute section 245A.02, subdivision 18, states that supervision means 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 June 8, 2023, at approximately 4:30 p.m., the AV was left alone on the playground unsupervised for approximately eight minutes without staff persons 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. Minnesota Statutes, section 260E. 30, subdivision 3, stated 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 required under Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0045; (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 at the time of the incident, SP1-SP4 were supervising children on the playground and into the older preschool room. Although SP1-SP4 were not aware that the AV was left on the playground, SP1’s-SP4’s actions or conduct were determined to be a nonmaltreatment mistake for the following reasons: (1) Supervision is a duty identified in the facility’s handbook. The AV was left on the playground for approximately eight minutes without the knowledge or supervision of the staff persons. Although SP2 miscounted the children, it was a chaotic at the time, children were leaving the group and one child was near a potential allergen, and staff persons were still in the process of transitioning when the AV was found. (2) SP1-SP4 have not previously been found responsible for a similar incident that resulted in a finding of maltreatment or a nonmaltreatment mistake in the past. (3) SP1-SP4 have not previously been found responsible for a similar incident that resulted in a finding of a nonmaltreatment mistake in the past. (4) The AV was uninjured and did not require medical care after the incident. (5) Outside of this incident, the facility and SP1-SP4 were in compliance with all relevant licensing requirements. The nonmaltreatment mistake to the AV by SP1-SP4 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 and internal review and determined that policies and procedures were adequate but not followed. All staff persons received additional training on supervision, counting children, and transitions. Action Taken by Department of Human Services, Office of Inspector General: SP1-SP4 were not determined as a perpetrator 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-SP4 were each notified by the Office of Inspector General that any future incident of possible neglect of an alleged victim for which they are responsible might not be considered a nonmaltreatment mistake. On August 11, 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.
|
