Minnesota

MALTREATMENT INVESTIGATION MEMORANDUM
Office of Inspector General, Licensing Division
Public Information

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.”

Report Number: 202305711        

Date Issued: August 18, 2023

Name and Address of Facility Investigated:   

Discover Magical Moments West
2790 Commerce Drive NW
Rochester, MN 55901

Disposition: A nonmaltreatment mistake to an alleged victim by a staff person was not maltreatment.

License Number and Program Type:

1083442-CCC (Child Care Center)

Investigator(s):

Kimberly Huettl Anderson
Minnesota Department of Human Services
Office of Inspector General, Licensing Division
PO Box 64242
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55164-0242
651-431-6553

kimberly.huett.anderson@state.mn.us

Suspected Maltreatment Reported:

It was reported that an alleged victim (AV) was in a classroom without a staff person’s (SP) knowledge or supervision for approximately two to three minutes.

Date of Incident(s): July 3, 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 19, 2023; from documentation at the facility; and through five interviews conducted with the AV’s family member and facility management persons (P1, P2, P3) and the SP.

The facility consisted of twelve classrooms serving infant through preschool aged children. There was a wing for four infant classrooms, a wing for four toddler classrooms, and an upstairs for four preschool classrooms. There was an inside gym that was accessible from the toddler wing and from the lobby area.

The AV’s Enrollment Form stated that the AV was eighteen months old at the time of the incident and enrolled in one of the facility’s toddler classrooms.

The facility’s Incident Report stated that on July 3, 2023, at approximately 5 p.m., the AV was left in one of the toddler classrooms without the SP’s knowledge or supervision for approximately three minutes.

The FM stated that on July 3, 2023, s/he arrived at the facility around 5 p.m. and that the toddler classroom had just moved into the gym. The FM entered the gym and saw the SP leaving the gym. Approximately thirty seconds later, the FM saw the SP carrying the AV into the gym. The FM stated that the AV did not appear to be upset or in any distress. The FM was satisfied with how facility management persons handled the situation.

Facility documentation and interviews with P1, P2, P3, and the SP provided the following information:

· On July 3, 2023, P1 was working in the lobby at the front desk and called the SP at 4:50 p.m. to tell him/her to take his/her children to the gym. At that time, the SP had five children and was going to combine with a preschool classroom. P1 did not know what time the SP went into the gym but stated that the preschool classroom entered the gym at 4:55 p.m. At 5 p.m. the FM arrived to pick the AV up and shortly after that the SP told P1 that the AV had been left in the classroom when the SP transitioned the children into the gym. The SP told P1 that as soon as s/he entered the gym, s/he realized that s/he was missing a child and ran back to the classroom. The AV was playing in the classroom and was not aware that s/he was alone in the classroom.

· The SP told P1 that s/he was “frazzled” at the time of the incident because s/he did not normally work in the toddler classroom and did not know the children. The SP had only been in the classroom for ten minutes before P1 asked the SP to transition to the gym.

· According to P1, P2 and P3 each stated that staff persons were trained to line the children up and count the children at the doorway before transitioning the children to another area, then count the children when they arrive at the next area. Staff persons used an iPad and the ProCare application to track the children in their care. The SP told P1 that s/he was not sure how many children were supposed to be in his/her care at the time she moved to the gym because in the ten minutes that s/he was in the classroom, several children were picked up and the staff persons s/he replaced left for the day.

· The SP stated that on the day of the incident around 4:45 p.m., s/he was asked to cover the toddler classroom. When the SP entered the classroom, there were several children leaving and two children who needed assistance with using the bathroom. When P1 called the SP and asked the SP to transition the children to the gym and combine with the preschool classroom, s/he finished helping the children in the bathroom, asked the children to line up, counted the children, and thought that s/he had three children, but did not verify the count against the iPad. The SP walked the children to the gym, counted the children using the classroom’s clipboard and realized s/he was missing the AV. The FM entered the gym at the same time that the SP realized the AV was missing. The SP went to the classroom and found the AV playing with toys on the floor. The AV was not upset and did not appear to realize that s/he was left alone in the classroom.

· The SP did not know how long the AV was in the classroom without supervision but thought it was approximately three minutes.

The facility’s Risk Reduction Plan stated that all children were to be supervised at all times and that staff persons were trained to count the children using a name to face method to ensure that everyone was present.

The facility’s personnel files showed that the SP was trained on the facility’s Risk Reduction Plan and the Reporting of Maltreatment of Minors Act on September 8 and 9, 2022. P1, P2, and P3 were each trained on the facility’s Risk Reduction Plan and the Reporting of Maltreatment of Minors 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, state that a child must have supervision at all times, and that supervision is 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:

On July 3, 2023, the AV was left in the toddler classroom without the SP’s knowledge or supervision for approximately three minutes, which was a violation Minnesota Statutes, section 245A.02, subdivision 18, and Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0045, subpart 1, item A. The SP did not count the children when they left the classroom, but counted the children when they arrived in the gym and realized that s/he was missing the AV. The SP immediately went back to the classroom and found the AV playing with toys.

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.

Although the AV was left in the toddler classroom for approximately three minutes, the SP’s actions or conduct were determined to be a nonmaltreatment mistake for the following reasons:

(1) At the time of the incident, the SP was performing job related suites as required by the facility’s child care program plan and although s/he did not count when s/he left the classroom, s/he counted immediately upon arriving to the gym and discovered the AV was missing;

(2) The SP had not been determined to be responsible for a similar incident that resulted in a finding of maltreatment;

(3) The SP had not been determined to have committed a nonmaltreatment mistake under this paragraph;

(4) The AV was not injured as a result of the incident;

(5) Except for the period when the incident occurred, the facility and the SP were both in compliance with all licensing requirements relevant to the incident.

The nonmaltreatment mistake regarding the Av by the SP 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 their policies and procedures were adequate but not followed at the time of the incident. All staff persons were retrained on the policy related to counting children.

Action Taken by Department of Human Services, Office of Inspector General:

The SP was not determined as a perpetrator of maltreatment of the AV because the Department of Human Services found that the incident for which the SP was responsible met the criteria to be determined a nonmaltreatment mistake. The SP was notified by the Office of Inspector General that any future incident of possible neglect of an alleged victim for which the SP is responsible might not be considered a nonmaltreatment mistake.

On August 18, 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.


PO Box 64242 • Saint Paul, Minnesota • 55164-0242 • An Equal Opportunity and Veteran Friendly Employer

https://mn.gov/dhs/general-public/licensing/