|
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: 1045455-CCC (Child Care Center) Investigator(s): Anna Parkin 651-431-6225 Suspected Maltreatment Reported: It was reported that an alleged victim (AV) was left alone in the preschool room for approximately eight to eleven minutes. Date of Incident(s): June 22, 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 July 17, 2023; from documentation at the facility; and through six interviews conducted with two supervisory staff persons (P1 and P2), three facility staff persons (SP1-SP3), and the AV’s family member (FM). According to the AV’s enrollment information, the AV was 34 months old and enrolled in the preschool room at the time of the incident. Consistent information was provided that on the day of the incident, SP1-SP3 were working in the preschool room with approximately 19 children including the AV. P2 stated on June 22, 2023, at approximately 4 p.m., while P2 was in the office s/he heard a knocking on a door. P2 went to the preschool room, opened the door, and saw the AV standing inside the door alone and crying. P2 brought the AV to the office to “calm” and gave the AV a snack. P2 called the FM and notified him/her about the incident and then brought the AV outside to the playground with the preschool class. SP1-SP3 provided the following information: · SP1-SP3 provided consistent information that staff persons conducted name to face counts of children and entered the information on an iPad at each threshold, including the door from the preschool room to the hallway and the door from the hallway to the playground. · On June 22, 2023, at approximately 4 p.m., SP1-SP3 had the children including the AV on the carpet area prior to going out on the playground. SP1 stated s/he was in the hallway at the front of the line going to the playground, SP2 was at the middle in the hallway, and SP3 was at the end still in the preschool room. SP2 stated s/he was in the hallway with SP1 and SP3 was in the room. SP3 stated s/he was at the door, SP2 was in the hallway, and SP1 was still inside the preschool room. · When at the first threshold of leaving through the preschool door, SP3 called out each child’s name and checked them off in the iPad. SP3 stated s/he was not able to see the carpet area from where s/he was standing at the door. SP3 did not remember calling out the AV’s name. SP3 asked if another child (C) who resembled the AV was in the hallway and SP2 responded that the C was. SP3 entered that the C was with the group although the C possibly went in the hallway when SP3 called out the AV’s name. SP3 then told SP1 and SP2 they were “good to go” so they proceeded to walk down the hallway. · At the second threshold before exiting outside, the children lined up along the wall. SP1 clicked on each child’s name on the iPad, including the AV. After approximately ten children’s names were called, SP2 began taking those ten children outside while SP1 and SP3 finished the name to face in the hallway. · SP1 “assumed” since s/he had only been there for approximately one week prior to the incident and was still learning children’s names, that s/he saw the C and clicked on the AV’s name. SP1 and SP3 then brought those children outside for snack time. · A few minutes later, P2 came outside carrying the AV. The AV did not have an injury and was calm. P1 stated that based on SP3 writing down 4 p.m. for the first threshold count at the classroom door; SP1 writing down 4:03 p.m. at the second threshold before going outside; and P2 telling P1 that s/he found the AV alone in the room at approximately 4:11 p.m., the AV was alone for approximately eight to eleven minutes. The FM did not have previous concerns with the facility. The facility was “very transparent” regarding the information provided about the incident. According to the facility’s Supervision Definition Policy, staff persons “must” have been able to see and hear all the children “at all times.” According to the facility’s Name to Face Check Policy: · Name to face checks were required at every threshold anytime a child or group of children were moved to a new location. Name to face checks were conducted at doorways to and from classrooms, doorways between classrooms, doorways outside and outdoor gates between playgrounds. If crossing multiple thresholds, the name to face procedure must have been repeated at every threshold. · When conducting name to face check, the staff person must have identified the face of the child as they crossed the threshold, vocalized his/her name, and mark them off on the attendance app. · Every child must have been accounted for before closing the door or gate behind the group. It was the responsibility of every staff person in the classroom to ensure name to face checks were executed properly. Facility documentation showed that SP1-SP3 and other staff persons interviewed in this investigation received training on the facility’s Supervision Definition Policy, Name to Face Check Policy, 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: Information from all sources was consistent that on June 22, 2023, the AV was left in the preschool room for approximately eight to eleven minutes without the knowledge or supervision of a staff person which was inconsistent with the facility’s Supervision Definition Policy, Name to Face Check Policy, and 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-SP3 were supervising children between the preschool room and the playground. Although SP1-SP3 were not aware that the AV was left in the preschool room, SP1’s-SP3’s actions or conduct were determined to be a nonmaltreatment mistake for the following reasons: (1) Supervision was defined in the facility’s Supervision Definition Policy and Name to Face Check Policy. The AV was left on the preschool room for approximately eight to eleven minutes without the knowledge or supervision of the staff persons. (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) The AV was uninjured and did not require medical care after the incident. (5) Outside of this incident, the facility and SP1-SP3 were in compliance with all relevant licensing requirements. The nonmaltreatment mistake to the AV 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. The facility had implemented additional observations on staff persons ensuring that name to face protocol was done properly and provided all staff persons with additional training on ensuring all children were accounted for prior to leaving a classroom. Action Taken by Department of Human Services, Office of Inspector General: On August 18, 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.
|
