|
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: 1038973-CCC (Child Care Center) Investigator(s): Beth Virden 651-431-6572 Suspected Maltreatment Reported: It was reported that an alleged victim (AV) was left unsupervised on the facility’s playground for a little more than three minutes. An unrelated parent discovered the AV crying and upset but uninjured. Date of Incident(s): July 6, 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 25, 2023; from documentation at the facility; and through interviews conducted with facility staff persons (SP1 and SP2) and a supervisory staff person (P). The AV was not interviewed due to his/her age, and the AV’s family member (FM) was contacted for an interview but did not respond by the completion of this investigation. At the time of the incident, the AV was 33 months old, and enrolled in the facility’s early preschool classroom. The facility provided childcare services to children, infant to school age. The facility was a stand-alone building with an outdoor playground along the north side. The playground was fully enclosed by chain-link fencing and portions of the building, itself. There were two ways to get into the building from the playground. One way included going through a gate on the west side of the fence. This then opened onto a sidewalk, which connected the gate to one of the facility’s exterior doors. The sidewalk ran along the west side of the building and was fully enclosed by portions of the building and a five-foot metal fence with vertical slates one to two inches apart. There was landscaping on the opposite side of the fence that included shrubbery approximately one to three feet tall. There was a gate in the metal fence that led to the surrounding community. The surrounding community included roads with varying speed limits and traffic patterns, a large factory building, various parking lots, a wooded area, and community residences. The facility had cameras that recorded movement but not audio; and included the following footage for this investigation: · On July 6, 2023, at the time of the incident, SP1 and SP2 were transitioning 13 early preschool- and toddler-age children from the playground into the building. There was a camera that captured a portion of the route they took, which included the sidewalk and the facility’s exterior door. · At 05:07:14 p.m., SP1 and an unidentified child walked into camera frame moving across the sidewalk toward the exterior door. The door then opened, and a parent took one step outside holding the door as they approached. Other children then entered the camera frame also heading toward the door. SP1 held the door open as the children (and the parent) walked inside. The AV was among the children walking on the sidewalk. The AV approached, but then stopped about three feet from the door and did not enter the building. The AV stood in a tree-covered, shaded corner of the sidewalk and remained standing still in this place. The AV was watching SP1 holding the door and watching other children going through the door. · At 05:07:46 p.m., SP1 propped the door open and then walked inside the building followed by some children. An interior camera showed SP1 standing directly inside the door, holding a water bottle, and looking at the children as they walked into the playroom. The exterior door opened directly into the playroom. · Also, at 05:07:46 p.m., and simultaneous to SP1 entering the building, SP2 walked into camera frame on the outdoor sidewalk. There were children walking on either side of him/her; all walking toward the now propped-open door. · SP2 walked up to the door, stopped, and looked back in the direction of the playground gate appearing to say something to one of the children. SP2’s back was turned to the AV during this time. The AV remained standing still in the same tree-covered, shaded corner of the sidewalk. Another child entered the camera frame running toward SP2. SP2 placed his/her hand on the child’s back and led him/her through the door walking inside behind him/her. SP2 pulled the door so that it began slowly closing behind them. The AV took a few steps to follow SP2 and reached for the door but was unable to stop it from closing. · At 05:08:22 p.m., the door closed leaving the AV outside, alone, on the sidewalk staring up at the door. · An interior camera showed that at 05:08:24 p.m., SP2 walked into the playroom and handed an unidentified item to SP1. SP1, the parent, and one child then left the playroom into an adjoining classroom closing the door behind them. SP2 walked into the middle of the playroom and sat on the floor with his/her back against a wall. SP2 was looking around the room and appearing to speak to various children who had begun playing with the toys in the room. · At 05:11:32 p.m., the parent, child, and SP1 reentered the playroom. The parent immediately looked toward the exterior door, which had a window overlooking the sidewalk to the playground. The parent then pointed at the door appearing to say something. SP1 and SP2 ran to the door. · At 05:11:43 p.m., the door was opened. SP1 guided the AV inside and gave him/her a hug. Two other children approached and hugged the AV, and SP2 also gave the AV a hug. According to a historical weather report, the outdoor temperature at the facility on July 6, 2023, around 5 p.m., was 74 degrees Fahrenheit (°F). There was no precipitation and conditions were “fair.” SP1 and SP2 provided the following information: · At the time of the incident, SP1 and SP2 were on the playground with 13 early preschool- and toddler-age children. The end of the day was nearing, and parents were arriving to pick up their respective children. · SP1, SP2, and the children were headed in from the playground. SP1 and SP2 each said that the facility had a walking rope with attached rings that children held onto when transitioning from one location to another. SP1 and SP2 were not using the walking rope on this day. SP1 explained that the children were toddler-age and so it was difficult to motivate them to hold onto the rings. SP1 did not use the walking rope as a mechanism or aid for counting the children; rather, it’s purpose was to keep the children walking in a line. SP1 said that s/he was “working on” using the walking rope more consistently in the classroom; however, it was not used on the day of the incident. · SP1 and SP2 asked the children to form a line by the playground gate. At that point, the gate was opened and SP1 led the children onto the sidewalk. SP2 was behind the children, last in line. SP2 said that s/he counted 13 children as they left the playground and before s/he closed the playground gate behind them. · SP1 then entered the building through the exterior door followed by children. SP1 stood inside the door and counted the children as they filed inside. SP1 reached 11 children but was then called into a classroom to assist a parent picking up his/her child. At that point, SP2 entered the classroom and closed the exterior door. SP1 “assumed” SP2 was last in line, had counted the children, and that the last child had entered with SP2. SP2 “assumed” SP1 had counted the children. SP2 said that s/he did not typically count the children but that “[SP1] normally does the counting” when they worked together. SP2 said that s/he was trained to count the children before leaving the playground, but s/he was not trained to count the children upon arriving in the classroom. SP1 was trained to count the children upon arriving in the classroom but believed SP2 had done so prior to closing the door. · SP1 and SP2 did not know the AV was left outside until the parent, who was not the AV’s parent, informed them of hearing crying through the door. The AV was “crying and upset” but not injured. · The AV was enclosed on the sidewalk and all of the access points, including two gates, were locked at the time. The AV would not have been able to leave the sidewalk without assistance. That said, it was the end of the day, and no other staff or children were scheduled to go outside after this point in time. The next time anyone would have checked the sidewalk area would have been when the facility was closed and locking up for the night. The P said that SP1 and SP2 should have been using the walking rope when transitioning the children inside, and SP1 and SP2 should have completed a name-to-face count upon entering the building. The P was not aware of previous or related concerns with SP1’s and/or SP2’s conduct. The facility’s policies and procedures, including Employee Handbook and Risk Reduction Plan, stated the following: · All children must be within sight and sound at all times … The most important rule is that you must never leave the children unattended for any reason and you must be certain to accurately count children at each transition. · Focus all of your attention on supervising your group of children. Always know the exact number of children you are responsible for, their names, and where they are at all times. · When transitioning from one area to another, children will form a line using a walking rope. Staff will call the children by name to hold on to the walking rope. Staff will use face to name every time the rope is used. One staff will be at the front of the line and one staff will be at the back of the line. If only one staff is present, they will be at the front of the line facing the children. Staff will count the number of children transitioning to ensure all children are present. Facility documentation stated that SP1, SP2, and the P received training on the facility’s policies and procedures, including Employee Handbook and Risk Reduction Plan, and the Reporting of Maltreatment of Minors Act. Relevant Minnesota Statutes and Rules: Minnesota Statutes, section 245A.02, subdivision 18, and Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0045, subpart 1, item A, states 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 6, 2023, SP1 and SP2 transitioned a group of children inside from the playground without using the facility’s walking rope which was inconsistent with the facility’s policies and procedures. The AV was left outside on an enclosed sidewalk without SP1’s and/or SP2’s knowledge or supervision. This was inconsistent with the facility’s policies and procedures and in violation of Minnesota Statutes, section 245A.02, subdivision 18, and Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0045, subpart 1, item A. An unrelated parent heard the AV crying and alerted SP1 and SP2. The AV was unsupervised for approximately three minutes and 21 seconds. The AV was “crying and upset” but not injured. 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 childcare 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 unsupervised outside for approximately three minutes and 21 seconds, it was determined that SP1’s and SP2’s actions were a nonmaltreatment mistake for the following reasons: 1) At the time of the incident, SP1 and SP2 were performing duties identified in the center's childcare program plan. SP1 and SP2 were transitioning 13 preschool- and toddler-age children inside from the playground. SP1 was in the process of counting prior to be called away to assist a parent who was picking up their child; 2) SP1 and SP2 were not determined responsible for a similar incident of maltreatment within the previous seven years; 3) SP1 and SP2 were not determined responsible for a similar nonmaltreatment mistake under this paragraph within the previous four years; 4) The AV was not injured and did not require medical care after the incident; and 5) Except for the period when the incident occurred, the facility and SP1 and SP2 were 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; and/or 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 adequate but not followed as it pertained to the incident. The facility provided additional training to staff persons. Action Taken by Department of Human Services, Office of Inspector General: SP1 and SP2 were not determined as a perpetrator of maltreatment of the AV because the Department of Human Services found that the incident for which SP1 and SP2 were responsible met the criteria to be determined a nonmaltreatment mistake. SP1 and SP2 were notified by the Office of Inspector General that any future incident of possible neglect of an alleged victim for which SP1 and/or SP2 were responsible might not be considered a nonmaltreatment mistake. On September 8, 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.
|
