|
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: 1114264-CCC (Child Care Center) Investigator(s): Anna Parkin 651-431-6225 Suspected Maltreatment Reported: It was reported that two alleged victims (AV1 and AV2) were alone in a classroom while staff persons (SP1-SP3) and other children were outside on a playground. Date of Incident(s): April 11, 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 20, 2023; from documentation at the facility and text messages provided by a family member; and through six interviews conducted with two supervisory staff persons (P1 and P2), SP2, SP3, a family member (FM1) of another child enrolled in the preschool room, and a family member (FM2) of AV2. Attempts were made via telephone and certified mail to contact and interview SP1, but SP1 did not respond to the requests. SP1 was also a family member of AV1. AV1 and AV2 were each four years old at the time of the incident and enrolled in the preschool room. The preschool room had a door that led out to the preschool playground. Consistent information was provided that SP1-SP3 were assigned to work in the preschool room and were outside on the playground at the time of the incident. FM1 stated on April 11, 2023, at approximately 3:30 p.m., s/he went into the preschool room to pick up his/her child (C). AV1 and AV2 were alone in the preschool room and were hitting each other. FM1 went and told P1 who was at the front desk. Later on, FM1 texted P2 about the incident. Text messages provided by FM1 showed that on April 11, 2023, FM1 texted P2 that two children were alone in the preschool room and “attacking” each other. P2 responded saying that P1 discussed the incident with P2. P2 also said that correction measures were taken and they were working on retraining staff persons and expect it not to happen again. P1 and P2 provided the following information: · On April 11, 2023, around pick up time, P1 was near the front door of the facility. P1 saw FM1 enter the facility and walk into the preschool room. P1 was getting ready to leave for the day and heard FM1 talking to “a few” children inside the preschool room but did not hear a staff person. P1 knew the preschool room was outside on the playground and it had been quiet prior to this interaction. P1 began walking toward the preschool room and FM1 came out of the room and said that two children were alone in the room and one of the children was “aggressive.” P1 stated based on how quiet the room was until s/he went in there, P1 believed AV1 and AV2 were in the room alone for less than one minute. · P1 went into the room and saw AV1 and AV2 alone playing and running around in the room. P1 started to gather AV1 and AV2 when SP1 opened the door from outside and called AV1’s name. P1 walked AV1 and AV2 outside where SP1 appeared to have been lining the other children up outside the door. · Later that night, P1 called P2 and told him/her that earlier that day, s/he was at the front desk of the facility when s/he heard someone trying to get a child to stop hitting another child. P1 walked to the room and saw FM1, AV1, and AV2 in the preschool room but no staff persons. P1 brought AV1 and AV2 back outside to the playground. · The following day, P2 called and spoke to FM1. FM1 told P2 that when s/he was outside getting the C, the rest of the preschool room was lining up to go inside. When FM1 went inside with the C, AV1 and AV2 followed through the door. Neither AV1 or AV2 were injured when inside the preschool room. · P2 also spoke to SP1, who said that during the incident, SP1 had some of the children start lining up near the door to go inside. FM1 began talking to SP1 and “right afterwards” SP1 looked up and did not see AV1. SP1 began looking for AV1 and that was when P1 walked out the door with AV1 and AV2. SP2 stated it was his/her second day training in at the facility and SP2 was playing with some of the children when P1 came outside with AV1 and AV2. AV1 and AV2 did not have any injuries. SP2 did not know AV1’s and AV2’s names yet or where they were prior to P1 bringing them outside. SP2 was across the playground so did not hear the conversation between P1 and SP1. SP2 did not know what SP1 was doing prior to P1 coming outside but SP3 was near the playground with other children. SP3 was near the slide on the playground at the time of the incident. FM1 came outside to get the C and then went back inside the preschool room. After “a couple of seconds,” FM1 “popped” his/her head back out the door and said that AV1 and AV2 were inside the preschool room. AV1 and AV2 were brought back onto the playground, and they did not have any injuries. FM2 was not aware of the incident when this investigator contacted him/her. According to the facility’s employee handbook: · Playground supervision was “critical.” Staff persons did not “cluster” around in groups talking and were actively supervising children using slides, climbers, swings, and the sandbox. · All children were in sight and sound “at all times” so staff persons could intervene to protect the health and safety of the children. Facility documentation showed that staff persons interviewed in this investigation, including SP1-SP3, received training on the facility’s employee handbook and the Maltreatment of Minor’s Act prior to the incident. Relevant Rules and/or 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: Consistent information was provided that on April 11, 2023, at approximately 3:30 p.m., FM1 told P1 that AV1 and AV2 were alone in the preschool room, which was a violation of Minnesota Statutes, section 245A.02, subdivision 18, and Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0045, subpart 1, item A. P1 provided information that s/he heard AV1 and AV2 for less than one minute prior to FM1 coming out and telling P1 they were in there alone. P2 provided information that the following day, s/he spoke to FM1 who said that AV1 and AV2 followed him/her into the room from the playground. 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-SP3 were supervising children on the playground. SP1’s-SP3’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. AV1 and AV2 left the playground for less than one minute without the knowledge or supervision of the staff persons through the classroom door more than likely when FM1 went inside. SP1 realized that AV1 was missing and began looking when P1 came outside with AV1 and AV2 without injury. (2) SP1-SP3 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-SP3 have not previously been found responsible for a similar incident that resulted in a finding of a nonmaltreatment mistake in the past. (4) AV1 and AV2 were uninjured and did not require medical care after the incident. (5) Although the facility failed to report maltreatment, outside of this incident, SP1-SP3 were in compliance with all relevant licensing requirements and the facility’s failure to report solely did not make them responsible for maltreatment. The nonmaltreatment mistake to AV1 and AV2 by SP1-SP3 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 determined that policies and procedures were adequate but not followed. All staff persons received additional training on supervision and playground safety. SP1 no longer worked at the facility. Action Taken by Department of Human Services, Office of Inspector General: SP1-SP3 were not determined as a perpetrator of maltreatment of AV1 and AV2 because the Department of Human Services found that the incident for which they were responsible met the criteria to be determined a nonmaltreatment mistake. SP1-SP3 were 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 August 11, 2023, the facility was issued a Correction Order for the violations outlined in this report and failure to report maltreatment as required. 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.
|
