|
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: 1048645-CCC (Child Care Center) Investigator(s): Danielle Morrison 651-431-5647 Suspected Maltreatment Reported: It was reported that a staff person (SP) pulled an alleged victim (AV) across the floor and the AV sustained a “rugburn.” Date of Incident(s): June 29, 2023 Nature of Alleged Maltreatment Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 260E.03, subdivision 15, paragraph (a), clauses (1) and (2); subdivision 18, paragraph (a); and subdivision 23, paragraph (a): 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. "Physical abuse" means any physical injury, mental injury, or threatened injury, inflicted by a person responsible for the child's care on a child other than by accidental means. "Threatened injury" means a statement, overt act, condition, or status that represents a substantial risk of physical or sexual abuse or mental injury. Summary of Findings: Pertinent information was obtained during a site visit conducted on July 18, 2023; from documentation at the facility; and through seven interviews conducted with one supervisory staff person (P1), three facility staff persons (the SP, P2, and P3), the AV, and the AV’s family members (FM1 and FM2). The Preschool Three classroom had a large, carpeted area with different learning centers. There was a sensory table, shelves with manipulatives, a bookshelf, dramatic play pieces, and an open area for group time. The AV was three years old at the time of the incident and enrolled in the Preschool Two classroom. On the day of the incident, the AV was in the Preschool Three classroom due to staffing. The AV told this investigator that s/he was playing hide and seek and laying down when the SP pulled the AV’s arm. The AV said it felt like “an owie.” The AV pointed to his/her back as to where the “owie” was. The AV did not cry and did not tell the SP that it hurt. On June 29, 2023, FM1 picked up the AV from the facility around 4 p.m. and they went home. About 30 minutes later, FM1 was changing the AV’s clothes and noticed a “pretty big rugburn” on the AV’s back about the size of a baseball. FM1 stated that it was still red and looked like it hurt. The AV told FM1 that the SP dragged him/her on the carpet because the AV was not listening. The AV did not indicate to FM1 that it hurt until FM1 touched it. FM1 took photos of the injury and reached out to FM2. FM1 had no prior concerns with the SP. FM2 received a text from FM1 stating what the AV said and a photo of the AV’s back. When FM2 saw the AV, the AV told FM2 that s/he was not listening, and the SP pulled him/her. FM2 described the mark in the photo as “really red” and “whole red spot and then the darker spots scabbed over.” FM2 stated that the redness lasted a couple of hours, but did not appear to hurt the AV. FM2 stated that it took about a week for the “two little dots” that were a little deeper to go away. FM1 had no prior concerns with the SP and stated that the AV liked the facility. P1 received an email from FM1 and FM2 around 4:30 p.m. containing a picture of the AV’s back and concerns that the AV told FM1 and FM2 that the SP had “drug [him/her] across the rug in the classroom.” P1 then pulled video footage and saw the AV and another child under the sensory table during clean up time. The SP walked over and grabbed the AV by the ankle and dragged the AV over to the group time area and then the SP walked away. The SP did not seem mad or aggressive, just “matter of fact.” The AV did not seem upset, and the other teacher did not notice anything out of sorts. The AV and the other child were laying and giggling shortly afterwards. P1 stated that from the picture s/he was sent by FM1 and FM2, the mark was about “donut size” covering the AV’s shoulder blade with a “dime sized” spot that looked like a scab. P1 stated that s/he had a previous conversation with the SP regarding playing safely with the children and that it was not like playing with nieces and nephews at home, and that safety had to be the focus. P1 said, “The children loved [the SP],” and that the SP “had a great bond with the [children].” P1 stated that P3 had not expressed concerns with how the SP interacted with the children. The video footage showed the SP and P2 walking around the Preschool Three classroom and children cleaning up and moving to the area for group time. The AV and another child were underneath the sensory table. At 9:16 a.m., the SP walked over to the sensory table, grabbed the AV by his/her right ankle, and dragged the AV 12-15 feet to the area for group time, about six seconds. P2 was seated at a chair when the SP started dragging the AV, but then got up, walked to a different point in the Preschool Three classroom, and his/her back was turned when the SP stopped dragging the AV. The AV was not struggling while the SP dragged him/her and once at the group time location the AV smiled with another child. The AV continued to lay down. The SP was expressionless during the incident. After the incident, the SP walked around the room, pulled down a shade, and then both the SP and P2 returned to the area for group time and were seated in chairs. P2 had only worked with the SP a couple of times and was in the Preschool Three classroom with the SP on the day of the incident. P2 did not see and was not aware that the SP was “rough” with a child. P2 said that when s/he worked with the SP and children were not listening, the SP got “upset” and raised his/her voice, but the SP was not physical. P2 did not see the SP drag the AV. P3 was not at the facility on the day of the incident, but usually worked with the SP. P3 heard that a child got a “rugburn” after playing with the SP. P3 said that the SP played well with the children, was levelheaded, and was easy going. P3 had not witnessed the SP drag a child and did not have concerns with the SP other than how the SP cleaned the classroom. P3 stated that the SP had watched P3’s children before and P3 did not have concerns. The SP remembered dragging a child and took responsibility for that but was not able to tell this investigator the name of the child or the circumstances surrounding the incident. The SP “assumed” the child was laying down and not listening. The SP stated that if a child told him/her that what the SP was doing hurt, the SP would have stopped. The SP did not remember a child ever crying or telling the SP to stop. The SP stated that s/he “absolutely” had been frustrated when working before and when that happened s/he “probably yelled” but the SP knows s/he did not hurt a child, “other than the dragging,” incident. A photo of the AV’s back taken by FM1 on the day of the incident showed a red area to the right and slightly lower than the AV’s left shoulder blade. This was approximately the size of a softball and there were two small darker red marks that looked to be scabbed over. The two spots were smaller than a dime. The facility’s Behavior Guidance Policy stated that staff persons should “redirect [children] to more expected and positive behaviors by showing and telling them what to do instead of focusing on what went wrong.” Staff persons were prohibited from subjecting a child to corporal punishment, including rough handling. Facility documentation stated that the SP, P1, P2, and P3 received training on the facility’s Behavior Guidance Policy and the Reporting of Maltreatment of Minors Act. Relevant Rule and/or Statute Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0055, subpart 1, item A, states that facilities must ensure that each child is provided with a positive model of acceptable behavior. Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0055, subpart 3, item A, prohibits the use of corporal punishment including but not limited to in part, rough handling, kicking, hitting, and spanking. Conclusion: A. Maltreatment: The AV stated that s/he was laying down and playing hide and seek when the SP grabbed the AV’s arm and pulled the AV. The AV said it felt like “an owie” but the AV did not cry and did not tell the SP that it hurt. The SP remembered dragging a child but was not able to recall the specific incident or even who the child was. Video footage showed that on June 29, 2023, around 9:16 a.m., the AV and another child were laying under the sensory table when the SP dragged the AV about 12-15 feet across the carpet by his/her ankle to group time. The SP let go and walked away from the AV and the AV laid on the floor next to another child and smiled at them. The AV was not a danger to him/herself or others at the time of the incident and the conduct of pulling a child across the floor by their foot was not accidental; was inconsistent with the facility’s Behavior Guidance Policy; and a violation of Minnesota Rules part 9503.0055, subpart 3, item A. Therefore, there was a preponderance of the evidence that there was a failure to supply the AV with reasonable and necessary care and a failure to protect the AV from conditions or actions that seriously endangered the AV’s physical health when reasonably able to do so. In addition, given the appearance of the AV’s injury was consistent with and described as being “a rugburn;” that the location of the injury matched the circumstances and video footage; and that there was no information the AV’s injury was sustained by other means, there was a preponderance of the evidence that the SP’s conduct inflicted a physical injury to the AV. It was determined that neglect and physical abuse 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. "Physical abuse" means any physical injury, mental injury, or threatened injury, inflicted by a person responsible for the child's care on a child other than by accidental means. "Threatened injury" means a statement, overt act, condition, or status that represents a substantial risk of physical or sexual abuse or mental injury). B. Responsibility pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 260E.30, subdivision 4, paragraph (a), clauses (1) and (2): When determining whether the facility or individual is the responsible party, or whether both the facility and the individual are responsible for determined maltreatment in a facility, the investigating agency shall consider at least the following mitigating factors: (1) whether the actions of the facility or the individual caregivers were according to, and followed the terms of, an erroneous physician order, prescription, individual care plan, or directive; however, this is not a mitigating factor when the facility or caregiver was responsible for the issuance of the erroneous order, prescription, individual care plan, or directive or knew or should have known of the errors and took no reasonable measures to correct the defect before administering care; (2) comparative responsibility between the facility, other caregivers, and requirements placed upon an employee, including the facility’s compliance with related regulatory standards and the adequacy of facility policies and procedures, facility training, an individual’s participation in the training, the caregiver’s supervision, and facility staffing levels and the scope of the individual employee’s authority and discretion; and (3) whether the facility or individual followed professional standards in exercising professional judgment. The SP was responsible for the AV’s care and supervision at the time of the incident. The SP received training on the facility’s Behavior Guidance Policy and the Reporting of Maltreatment of Minors Act. The SP was responsible for maltreatment of the AV. C. Recurring and/or Serious Maltreatment: The Office of Inspector General is required to evaluate whether substantiated maltreatment by an individual meets the statutory criteria to be determined as “recurring or serious.” Individuals determined to be responsible for recurring or serious maltreatment are disqualified from providing direct contact services. Minnesota Statutes, section 245C.02, subdivision 16, states: “Recurring maltreatment” means more than one incident of maltreatment for which there is a preponderance of evidence that maltreatment occurred and that the subject was responsible for the maltreatment. Minnesota Statutes, section 245C.02, subdivision 18, states: "Serious maltreatment" means sexual abuse, maltreatment resulting in death, neglect resulting in serious injury which reasonably requires the care of a physician whether or not the care of a physician was sought, or abuse resulting in serious injury. For purposes of this definition, "care of a physician" is treatment received or ordered by a physician, physician assistant, or nurse practitioner, but does not include diagnostic testing, assessment, or observation; the application of, recommendation to use, or prescription solely for a remedy that is available over the counter without a prescription; or a prescription solely for a topical antibiotic to treat burns when there is no follow-up appointment. For purposes of this definition, "abuse resulting in serious injury" means: bruises, bites, skin laceration, or tissue damage; fractures; dislocations; evidence of internal injuries; head injuries with loss of consciousness; extensive second-degree or third-degree burns and other burns for which complications are present; extensive second-degree or third-degree frostbite and other frostbite for which complications are present; irreversible mobility or avulsion of teeth; injuries to the eyes; ingestion of foreign substances and objects that are harmful; near drowning; and heat exhaustion or sunstroke. Serious maltreatment includes neglect when it results in criminal sexual conduct against a child or vulnerable adult. It was determined that the substantiated neglect and physical abuse for which the SP was responsible was not “recurring” but was “serious” maltreatment. The SP was responsible for a single incident for which the AV sustained tissue damage. The SP was disqualified from providing direct contact services. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 260E.35, subdivision 6, paragraph (c) all investigative data maintained in this report will be kept by the Department of Human Services for at least ten years after the date of the final entry in the report. Action Taken by Facility: The facility completed an Internal Review and found their policies and procedures adequate, but not followed by the SP. The SP no longer worked at the facility. Action Taken by Department of Human Services, Office of Inspector General: The SP was disqualified from a position allowing direct contact with, or access to, persons receiving services from programs, organizations, and/or agencies that are required to have individuals complete a background study by the Department of Human Services as listed in Minnesota Statutes, section 245C.03. The determination that the SP was responsible for maltreatment and the disqualification of the SP are each subject to appeal. On August 16, 2023, the facility was issued a Correction Order for the violations outlined in this report and for separating a child from the group whose behavior was not harming him/herself or others. 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.
|
