|
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: 800463-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 young toddler classroom for approximately one to two minutes. Date of Incident(s): July 10, 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 20, 2023; from documentation at the facility; and through four interviews conducted with a supervisory staff person (P1), a facility staff person (SP), a community person (CP) visiting the facility, and the AV’s family member (FM1). According to the AV’s enrollment information, the AV was 23 months old and enrolled in the young toddler room at the time of the incident. Consistent information was provided that at the time of the incident, the SP was with seven toddlers including the AV in the disco room. The facility was open from 6:30 a.m. to 6 p.m. and had a young toddler room that had a door that led out to a toddler playground. Adjacent to the door to the playground was a door with a baby gate that led into the infant room. P1 provided the following information: · On July 10, 2023, at 9:50 a.m., P1 and another staff person (P2) were working in the infant room with five infants when the CP looked over the baby gate and asked P1 if s/he was missing a child. P1 looked over the gate and saw the AV in the young toddler room standing at the door to the playground. P1 stated that the AV must have walked back inside the room when a family member (FM2) of another child brought his/her child out to the playground. · P1 carried one of the infants with him/her to the AV and then took the AV outside to the toddler playground. When P1 got to the playground the SP was still talking to FM2. P1 told the SP that the AV got inside and then gave the AV to the SP. P1 looked at the sign in sheet for FM2’s child and saw s/he was signed in at 9:49 a.m. The AV did not sustain any injuries. The SP provided the following information: · On the day of the incident, the SP was in the toddler room and completed a name to face count of all the children prior to going out on the playground. While out on the playground, the SP was in process of doing another name to face count and marked the AV as on the playground on the supervision record. FM2 then came outside onto the playground with his/her children. · FM2 had spoken to the SP for approximately one and a half minutes when P1 brought the AV out to the playground. P1 told the SP that the AV was in the young toddler room, standing in front of the door to the playground. The AV did not have any injuries and went and played on the playground. The SP believed the AV went inside the toddler room when FM2 came outside. The SP then did another name to face to make sure all the toddlers were on the playground. FM1 was aware of the incident and did not have concerns with the facility. According to the Risk Reduction Plan, while on the playground, staff persons rotated to different zones to actively supervise the children. Children were also counted using the name to face recognition and documented on the supervision record. A request was made for the unqualified sub list for the day of the incident but there was not one completed. Facility documentation showed that staff persons interviewed in this investigation, including the SP, received training on the Risk Reduction Plan and the Reporting of 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. Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0040, subpart 2, item D, stated in part that the first person needed to meet the required staff-to-child ratio must have been a teacher. Conclusion: Consistent information was provided that on July 10, 2023, at approximately 9:49 a.m., the SP and seven toddlers, including the AV, were outside on the playground. Given that at 9:49 a.m. it was outside of the 25% arrival time (6:30 to 9:30 a.m.), the SP working alone in the toddler classroom was a violation of Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0040, subpart 2, item D. Approximately one to two minutes later, the CP told P1, who was in the infant room, that the AV was in the young toddler room alone, which was a violation of Minnesota Statutes, section 245A.02, subdivision 18, and Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0045, subpart 1, item A. P1 then brought the AV out to the playground and told the SP about the AV. 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.
Although the AV was alone in the classroom for one to two minutes, the SP’s actions or conduct were determined to be a nonmaltreatment mistake for the following reasons: (1) Supervision is a duty identified in the facility’s handbook and Risk Reduction Plan. The SP counted the children, which included the AV, when s/he left the classroom and when they got onto the playground. It was likely that the AV left the playground through the classroom door when FM2 came outside with his/her children. (2) The SP had not previously been found responsible for a similar incident that resulted in a finding of maltreatment or a nonmaltreatment mistake in the past. (3) The SP had 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 the SP were in compliance with all relevant licensing requirements. The nonmaltreatment mistake to 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 policies and procedures were adequate but not followed. The SP received a final corrective action plan in his/her employee file and the facility will continue to provide ongoing supervision training. Action Taken by Department of Human Services, Office of Inspector General: The SP 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 notified by the Office of Inspector General that any future incident of possible neglect of an alleged victim for which s/he is responsible might not be considered a nonmaltreatment mistake. On September 15, 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.
|
