|
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: 1100327-CCC (Child Care Center) Investigator(s): Tessa Ripka 651-431-6612 Suspected Maltreatment Reported: It was reported that an alleged victim (AV) was left outside on the playground for four minutes. Date of Incident(s): June 23, 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 through four interviews conducted with three facility staff persons (SP1, SP2, P), and the AV’s family member (FM). Due to the AV’s age, s/he was not able to provide any information about the incident. The facility was a large building with many classrooms. The AV’s classroom was to the right of the entrance midway down a long hallway. At the end of the hallway was a doorway that led out to the toddler playground. The playground was a large fenced in area that contained a small play structure and several smaller play items. The playground bordered an infant classroom and was accessible through a glass door into that classroom. The AV was 25 months at the time of the incident and enrolled in the 3B classroom. The P provided the following information: · On the date of the incident, the P was sitting at the front desk when s/he received a phone call from the infant room that bordered the playground. The staff person saw the AV out on the playground playing on the slide by him/herself. The P picked up the child and brought him/her back inside the facility. · The AV seemed happy and excited that s/he had the slide to him/herself. The P took the AV back to his/her classroom and then looked at the video footage to see what had happened. It appeared the classroom had come inside, and the AV was outside unsupervised for approximately four minutes. SP1 provided the following information: · On the day of the incident, SP1 returned to the playground from a bathroom break and another staff person was letting his/her class back into the facility. SP1 started to get his/her classroom on the walking rope while the other staff person was trying to combine some classrooms as many children had left for the day. · SP1 remembered asking the AV to get off a bike on the playground and come inside. SP1 started walking the children down the hallway. Some of the children were holding the walking rope while there were some that were not. SP1 tried to get the children to grab the rope and SP2 was also trying to get a child back to the rope. · While walking SP1 was doing a name to face count using the roster and when s/he got to the AV s/he did not see him/her at that time. It was common for the AV to get picked up earlier so SP1 thought maybe the AV had been picked up. SP1 stopped doing the name to face at that time. · The class then reached the classroom door and another child ran back to some wagons that were in the hallway and was trying to play on them. A parent of another child had arrived and SP1 was saying goodbye and trying to give a quick update on that child. SP1 asked the child playing on the wagon to come into the classroom and then SP1 came into the classroom. · Once in the classroom SP1 counted the children but did not finish the name to face roster. SP1 could not remember how many children s/he had on that day but thought s/he had counted the correct number. SP1 started to do diaper changes when the P came into the classroom with the AV. SP2 provided the following information: · The classroom was outside and SP1 came back from the bathroom. Another class had just gone inside, and the children were by the door. SP2 saw the AV outside and called him/her over to be with the rest of the children by the door. · SP1 was at the front of the line and SP2 was at the back of the line. The day was very chaotic and SP2 could not remember if SP1 and SP2 counted the children when they left the playground. · After arriving in the classroom, SP2 took two children to the bathroom who were potty training. Shortly after the P came into the classroom holding the AV. SP2 could not remember if a count was completed when the children arrived back at the classroom. · SP2 thought the AV went back outside and at some point, possibly when SP2 was trying to get another child back in line. Typically, SP1 and SP2 took turns doing the name to face roster and counted before the children went outside, when they came back inside and once they entered the classroom. Video footage of the incident showed that on the date of the incident the classroom was playing outside on the toddler playground. The children appeared to gather near the door and were no longer visible on the outside camera at 4:21 p.m. The AV appeared to be on a slide on the far-right side of the playground. The AV went up and down the slide several times. The hallway video showed that at 4:21 p.m., SP1 opened the door and stood inside the facility. The children started to gather in the hallway just inside the entrance. SP2 came in behind the children and shut the door. SP1 walked backward down the hallway with the children following. SP2 walked at the end of the line. Some children were holding a walking rope. There were several children that wandered away from the line and/or stopped at some toy wagons. SP2 physically prompted the children back to the line. The classroom camera showed the children entering the classroom at 4:22 p.m. SP1 stood at the door and appeared to put a hand on each child’s head as they came through the door. A parent was in the classroom gathering a child’s things and left the class at 4:23 p.m. and shortly after, all the children were in the classroom and SP1 closed the door. SP2 appeared to pick up a tablet and make some notations. The infant room camera showed that at 4:23 p.m. a staff person in the infant room went to the doorway leading to the playground and appeared to look out the door (the door was not in the view of the camera). The staff person then went over to the phone in the classroom and made a call. After the call, the staff person appeared to go back to the door and stand there. At 4:25 p.m. the P went outside and brought the AV back into the facility. The Face to Name Attendance Roster showed that on the date of the incident, the classroom went outside at 4:00 p.m. and returned inside at 4:23 p.m. There were in and out checks on the first 10 children on the list. Four more children were at the bottom of the list including the AV but did not have checks by their names. The Face to Name Attendance Count policy stated that a face to name count was performed before leaving a classroom or play area and immediately upon arrival and prior to entering the new classroom or play area. The Child Care Program Plan stated that all children must be supervised at all times, whether in the building, on the playground, or on a field trip. According to www.wunderground.com, the outdoor condition at the facility, on June 23, 2023, at the time of the incident, was “mostly cloudy” with a temperature of 86 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) and wind speed of 16 miles 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 day of the incident, SP1 and SP2 were outside on the playground and took the children back inside the facility. SP1 was in the front of the line and started to complete a name to face roster as they walked down the hallway. The children held a walking rope as they walked to the classroom. SP2 was at the back of the line and had to get a child back in line when s/he tried to leave the area. As the class started to enter the classroom a parent arrived and talked with SP1. SP1 prompted another child to come inside the classroom and then counted all the children but did not finish the name to face roster. Shortly after, the AV was brought back to the classroom when s/he was seen outside on the playground unsupervised by another staff person, which was a violation of Minnesota Statutes, section 245A.02, subdivision 18. The AV was outside unsupervised for approximately four minutes. 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 changing diapers for multiple children, getting all the children into the classroom from outside, and interacting with family members during the time of the incident. SP1 and SP2’s actions or conduct were determined to be a nonmaltreatment mistake for the following reasons: (1) At the time of the incident, SP1 and SP2 were performing job related duties, as require by the facility’s policies; (2) Neither SP1 or SP2 had not been determined responsible for any previous incident that resulted in a finding of maltreatment; (3) Neither SP1 or SP2 had not 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 not followed when staff persons did not complete a face to name count when coming inside. Staff persons were retrained on the face to name attendance roster and completed additional training courses on supervision. 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 August 16, 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.
|
