|
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: 800596-CCC (Child Care Center) Investigator(s): Lindsay Arth 651-431-6537 Suspected Maltreatment Reported: It was reported that a staff person (SP) bumped an alleged victim (AV1) with his/her foot, causing AV1 to fall. AV1 received a bump on his/her forehead and a rug burn injury to his/her nose from the incident. Additionally, there were concerns that the SP lifted and moved an alleged victim (AV2) by his/her shirt causing AV2’s shirt to rip. Date of Incident(s): May 19, 2023 Nature of Alleged Maltreatment Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 260E.03, subdivision 18, paragraph (a), and subdivision 23, paragraph (a): "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 June 16, 2023; from documentation at the facility; and through seven interviews conducted with two facility supervisory staff persons (P1 and P4), four staff persons (the SP, P2, P3, and P5) (Note: P2 was also AV2’s family member), and AV1’s family member (FM1). Attempts were made via email and phone to contact P2 for follow up of additional information, but the attempts were not successful. AV1 was approximately two and a half years old at the time of the incident. AV2 was approximately three years old at the time of the incident. Both were enrolled in the toddler room. The toddler room had a connected bathroom that was shared with a neighboring (P2’s) classroom. P4 provided the following information: · On the date of the incident which P4 thought was around May 5, 2023 (later determined to be May 19, 2023), around 3:35 or 3:40 p.m., P4 was in a hallway of the facility when the SP came out of the toddler classroom carrying AV1. AV1 was not crying but looked like s/he “probably [had been] crying” prior as AV1’s face was “red” and P4 had heard “sobbing.” However, when P4 spoke to the SP, AV1 was “calm.” P4 asked the SP what s/he was doing and the SP said that s/he was going to get an ice pack for AV1. The SP said that the children were supposed to be reading in their assigned squares on the floor but AV1 was “squatting” and not “sitting on [his/her] bottom” and was in another child’s “bubble.” The SP said his/her hands were “full,” so the SP used his/her foot to “bump” AV1’s “bottom” to get AV1 to sit in his/her assigned square. When the SP did this, AV1 “tipped over” and did a “face plant” on the carpeted floor. The SP said that s/he did not think this action would cause AV1 to fall or for an injury to occur. · P4 then observed that AV1 had a red “mark” and “bump” on his/her “forehead area.” The “mark” was not bleeding but looked similar to “rug burn.” The SP then went to get an ice pack. P4 was not aware of AV1 receiving any additional medical attention. P4 did not know if AV1 was crying prior to the incident but said that AV1 was a child who typically cried. Additionally, AV1 typically used a “lot of words” when speaking but did not saying anything to P4 about the incident. · Around 4:30 p.m., FM1 and another family member of AV1’s (FM2) picked AV1 up and during this time, the SP told them about the incident. P4 was not aware of FM1 or FM2 having any concerns with the incident. · At some point, FM1 and FM2 sent the facility a photo of a bump on AV1’s nose stating that the bump was from the incident. However, P4 was not aware of any injuries to AV1’s nose from the incident. P4 did not know if the photos were taken the same day of the incident or the next day. Aside from the incident, P4 was not aware of any other way that AV1 could have sustained the injuries. · P4 did not feel that the SP caused the injury “maliciously” or “out of anger” as the SP was “calm” when s/he told P4 about the incident. Additionally, the SP “loved kids.” · P4 was not in the classroom at the time of the incident so did not know if the SP asked AV1 to verbally move to his/her square prior to using his/her foot. P4 described AV1 as “very smart” but said that AV1 would “push the boundaries a bit.” If AV1 did not listen, then the SP should have gotten down to AV1’s level to explain to AV1 that s/he was in someone’s spot. AV1 typically understood things “very well.” · Additionally, a couple days prior to the incident with AV1 (which was later determined to also be the same day on May 19, 2023), P4 was in his/her office when P2 (who was also AV2’s parent) came into the office. P2 was “upset” and told P4 that earlier, s/he was changing a child’s diaper in the bathroom that was connected to AV2’s classroom. P2 “looked out” towards AV2’s classroom while changing the child’s diaper and saw the SP pick AV2 up by his/her shirt and “move” AV2 to his/her cot. AV2 was a “very small child” so it would have been “really easy” to do that as AV2 was “tiny.” P2 was “upset” and said that s/he “did not care how small” AV2 was and that AV2 should “never be handled that way.” · P3 worked with the SP on May 19, 2023, and P4 was not aware of P3 having any concerns with the SP’s interactions with AV1 or AV2. P4 was not aware of any injuries to AV2 or any damage to his/her clothing as a result of the SP’s interactions. P4 had also never seen the SP pick up and carry a child in this manner prior. Staff persons were not trained to lift children in that manner. · AV2 was “very active” and “constantly on the go.” Staff persons needed to “physically” assist AV2 to his/her cot or AV2 would “run around the room.” The SP should have taken AV2’s hand and walked with him/her to the cot. If AV2 continued to leave his/her cot, the SP should have sat near AV2. There was “no reason” to pick AV2 up. · P2 “did not like” the SP and P2 had a “hard time” having AV2 “around” the SP. However, P4 “did not know why [P2] would have a motive to lie” about the incident. The SP was typically not AV2’s teacher and was a float staff person. However, P2’s main teacher was not at the facility on the date of the incident. · The SP was “stern” with children and “expected them to follow directions.” However, P4 was not aware or nor had seen the SP “physically” put his/her “hands” on children the “wrong way.” P4 did not have any other concerns with the SP’s interactions with the children but said there were interpersonal conflicts between the SP and staff persons. The SP had a “very hard time getting along with staff,” including because s/he felt in “charge of everything” despite not being the “lead teacher.” However, the SP was also “willing” to do any task or work in any room. P2 provided the following information: · P2 did not recall the date but said it was a Friday around 12 or 12:30 p.m. (Later determined to be May 19, 2023). At that time, P2 was changing a child’s diaper in the bathroom that was connected to the SP’s classroom when s/he saw AV2, who was in the SP’s classroom, sitting by a bookshelf reading a book. AV2 was not “harming anyone or pushing or biting anyone.” P2 then saw the SP pick AV2 up by his/her shirt with two hands “aggressively” and “forcefully” and walk AV2 to his/her cot. P2 also said that s/he could not see where the SP brought AV2 due to where P2 was standing but “assumed” it was to AV2’s cot because it was nap time. During this, P2 did not hear anything, including whether AV2 said something or was crying. However, P2 said that s/he was “so far apart” from where the incident occurred that s/he would not have heard if AV2 was crying. Additionally, AV2 did not typically cry. · During the incident, P3 was also in AV2’s classroom and P2 thought that P3 saw the incident. P2 “hoped” that P3 would have reported if s/he saw something concerning. · P2 did not say anything to the SP during the incident because s/he was “very mad” and knew that s/he would say “not very appropriate things.” P2 “calmed” and around 1:30 p.m., during P2’s break, P2 told P4 about the incident. P4 said that s/he would talk to P1 who was not at the facility at that time. · Around 5 p.m., P2 picked AV2 up and saw that AV2 had a rip in his/her shirt. There were no injuries to AV2. · The classroom was in ratio at the time of the incident. However, the two main staff persons were not present that day so the SP and P3 were filling in. · AV2 was “no angel” and was a typical “toddler” who had a “lot of energy.” P2 said that it was “hard” in general working with children. The SP had “expressed” to P2 that AV2 was a “handful.” P2 could also “tell” that AV2 did not “like” the SP and “probably” tested the SP’s “boundaries.” The SP should have picked AV2 up “normally” or verbally told AV2 to go to his/her cot instead of picking AV2 up by his/her shirt. AV2 would have walked to his/her cot on his/her own if the SP would have asked AV2 to. P2 did not hear the SP ask AV2 to move on the date of the incident and did not see the SP hold AV2’s hand to walk AV2 to his/her cot. · P2 had also seen the SP go from “one to ten very quickly,” including that the SP would be “mad,” would “yell” at the children, or would pick them up “aggressively.” Staff persons were not trained to do these things. If a staff person was frustrated, they were to ask another staff person for help. Staff persons were also trained to “walk away” or focus on another child. P3 provided the following information: · P3 did not recall the date of the incident but said that it occurred in the “middle of May [2023].” On that date, P3 was working with the SP in AV1’s and AV2’s classroom. Around 11 a.m., P3 was in an adjacent bathroom with some of the children and P2. Around this time, AV2 was near a bookshelf and was “maybe” grabbing other children or was in their “space” and “bugging” them. P3 did not see the SP touch AV2. Later, P3 saw AV2 sitting near a wall. The SP then told P3 that AV2 was “not listening,” so the SP “just set” AV2 by the wall so that AV2 could “take a break.” P3 said that AV2 had not been listening “all morning.” P3 never saw the SP carry AV2 or any child by the clothes, including prior to the incident. P3 did not see any damage to AV2’s shirt but said that s/he “also did not look.” · Later, P2 asked P3 if s/he saw the SP “put [AV2] down on the ground.” P3 said that s/he did not and that s/he only saw AV2 “sitting.” P2 then told P3 that the SP “snatched [AV2] and put [AV2] down firmly.” P3 did not see anything concerning regarding the SP’s interactions and never saw AV2 cry. P3 then told P2 to talk to P1 if s/he was “worried.” P2 told P3 that s/he had already talked with P1 prior about concerns with the SP working with AV2 and P2 was “worried” that P1 would think that P2 was “out to get” the SP. P3 did not have any reason not to believe what P2 told him/her. · AV2 had a “hard time listening,” and specifically on the date of the incident. P3 thought that the SP’s actions of moving AV2 and having AV2 take a break was “appropriate,” as P3 had done similar with other children. However, if it was done with “too much force,” then it was not “appropriate.” · Additionally, at some point on the same date, the SP said that s/he needed to get AV1 an ice pack and P3 asked the SP what happened. P3 did not recall specifically what the SP told him/her, but it was “something along the lines of [that the SP] accidently bumped or moved [AV1].” P3 said that it was something that “anyone could do unintentionally” and P3 provided an example that on one occasion s/he accidently stepped on a child’s finger while walking. P3 did not see anything concerning regarding the SP’s interactions with children and said that s/he was “right there” with the children. The SP then took AV1 to get an ice pack. P3 did not recall AV1 crying and did not see any injuries to AV1. · P3 described AV1 as “very smart” and “observant.” There were times when AV1 would not listen and AV1 had a history of being in other children’s carpet squares. P3 had never seen the SP move a child with his/her foot. If the SP needed to move a child, the SP should have verbally reminded the child to go on their squares and to “move their body.” · On the date of the incident, the SP was his/her “normal” self. However, both of the typical teachers were not in the classroom and the SP and P3 were float staff persons, so “just trying to get through the normal routine and keep things moving.” P3 did not recall anything out of the ordinary with the SP. However, P3 “always got the vibe that [the SP] was very intense” but P3 never saw anything that was “reportable,” including no physical abuse. P3 did not have any concerns with the SP’s tone of voice at the time of the incident but said that “in general,” P3 “did not always appreciate the tone [the SP] used with the kids.” P3 provided an example where a child stepped on the SP’s hands and the SP said “very loudly,” “Ow.” However, the SP then told the child that s/he was “not mad” but it “just hurt.” P3 described it as a “big reaction” by the SP but also said that it probably hurt the SP’s hand. · The SP worked with P3’s own child in the infant room. P3 did not have any concerns with the SP working with his/her child. P1 provided the following information: · P1 was not at the facility on May 19, 2023. However, at some point, P1 was told by P4 that the SP told P4 that on May 19, 2023, the SP “bumped” AV1’s “bottom” with his/her foot, causing AV1 to fall forward. AV1 received a bump on his/her forehead. · FM1 and FM2 took a photo of the injuries the follow day which were sent to the facility and this investigator (which showed that AV1 had a small red mark on the side of his/her left nostril. This investigator was not able to see any injuries to AV1’s forehead in the photos). · P1 said there were some “discrepancies” regarding what the SP told P1 compared to what s/he told FM1 and FM2. This included that the SP said that the injury occurred on AV1’s forehead but FM1 and FM2 had photos of injuries on AV1’s nose. P1 was “not sure where the truth all lies.” · Additionally, on the same date during nap, P2 said that s/he saw the SP lift AV2 by his/her shirt and move AV2 from the book area to his/her cot. · Although the SP told P1 that the incident with AV1 happened, the SP said that s/he “did not remember” the incident with AV2. · There were interpersonal conflicts between the SP and staff persons at the facility, including P2 and a staff person (P6). P2 and P6 “did not like” the SP. P1 heard from P5 that P2 and P6 were “bragging” that they got the SP fired which made P1 “question” the incident regarding the SP and AV2. P1 did not have any reason to not believe what P5 said and said that P5 did not get involved with “gossip” and had a “really good head on [his/her] shoulders.” P1 wondered if P2 made the incident into “something bigger than what it was” and if P2 “added little piece to the story to make it better” so that P1 had to “do something” with the SP (which included the SP no longer working at the facility as a result of the incidents). Additionally, where P2 was in the bathroom compared to where AV2 and the SP were in the classroom was “across the whole room.” P1 “hoped” that P2 was being truthful regarding the concern with the SP and AV2 but said that P2 had a history of “lying.” This included lying to P1’s “face” regarding AV2’s birthdate so that P2 could get additional time off prior to AV2 being born. P1 had concerns that the SP’s “future in childcare could be on the line” if P2 was not providing accurate information. P1 was “heartbroken” when s/he heard P2 and P6 “bragging” that they got the SP fired as P1 “loved [the SP] as a person” and the SP did not “deserve” things to be said about him/her if they were not true. · P1 was not notified of the incidents until “way later.” P1 had concerns that the SP did not take a photo of AV1’s injury and did not document the incident. P1 said that the facility “policy” was that when there was an “incident,” they were to document what happened. · If staff persons were frustrated or needed a break, they could “tap out,” and “walk away,” which P1 often reminded staff persons of. Additionally, another staff person could “step in.” P5 said that at some point around the time that the SP stopped working at the facility due to the incident, P5 was outside on the playground with P2 and P6. P2 “made a comment about how [s/he] got [the SP] fired” and P6 gave P2 a “thumbs up.” P5 described P2 and P6 as “co-conspiring.” P2 and P6 “hated” the SP. P5 had concerns that it was “well known” prior that P2 and P6 did not like the SP and that they said they got the SP “fired.” P5 was not present during the incident with AV1 and AV2. P5 thought that the “core” of what P2 said about the alleged incident with AV2 would be “accurate” but that it would come from a “skewed” perspective. P5 had worked with the SP and felt that the children were safe with the SP. However, at times, the SP may be “frustrated” and P5 provided an example that the SP may not realize how “hard” s/he was holding a child by the arm. P5 also said that the SP did not “ever set out to harm a child” and that the SP wanted to provide a “safe environment” for the children. The SP provided the following information: · On May 19, 2023, the SP was working in AV1’s and AV2’s classroom with P3, because the main teachers were not working that day. The main staff persons left “specific instructions” regarding keeping the classroom “routine.” This included that after snack, the children were to get a book and sit in their assigned carpet “square” while staff persons cleaned up snack prior to going outside. · Around 3:30 p.m., after snack, the SP was cleaning up and P3 was in the bathroom with some children. AV1 was “playing” with another child and both were not sitting in their squares. The other child then went to his/her square and AV1 was “bouncing” on his/her hands and knees near his/her square. The SP asked AV1 to sit in his/her square but AV1 did not. Around this time, the SP was walking by AV1 and was carrying something so the SP “tapped” AV1 with his/her foot on the “soles of [AV1’s] feet” to have AV1 “continue moving” in the direction of his/her square. Because AV1 was on his/her hands and knees and was “bouncing,” the “momentum” of the SP “tapping” AV1 “pushed [AV1] forward,” which caused AV1 to fall forward and hit his/her head on the floor. However, the SP said that s/he “barely” took his/her own foot off the floor when s/he did this. AV1 “immediately” began crying so the SP picked AV1 up and noticed a “bump” on AV1’s forehead which the SP described as “rug burn.” The SP told P3 that s/he was going to get an ice pack for AV1, so the SP carried AV1 to get an ice pack. As the SP was going to get an ice pack, s/he saw P4 in the hallway and the SP told P4 what happened. The SP then got the ice pack and returned to the classroom. As the SP applied the ice pack, s/he realized that AV1 also had a “scratch” on his/her nose. The scratch was not bleeding but “released an oil” so the SP wiped it off. · AV1 was fine the remainder of the day and played outside as normal. · Around 4:30 p.m., FM1 and FM2 arrived at the facility to pick up AV1. The SP told them what happened and told them that s/he “injured” AV1 and showed them the injuries. FM1 and FM2 did not seem “overly concerned” and thanked the SP for letting them know. · The SP said that s/he should have found a place to put the things down that s/he was carrying instead of using his/her foot to redirect AV1 to his/her square. The SP considered using one hand to assist AV1 and then hold the things s/he was carrying in the other hand. However, the SP did not want the things she was holding to fall on AV1 so the SP decided to use his/her foot. · The SP had “no memory” of the incident with AV2 but said that approximately one week later, P1 told him/her about it. This included that P2 saw the SP “forcibly” pick up AV2 by his/her shirt, when AV2 was near the book area and that the SP carried AV2 to his/her cot. The SP was told that AV2’s shirt was ripped as result of the incident. The SP “did not remember” picking AV2 up by his/her shirt and said that was “literally the most unsafe way to pick up a child.” The SP said that s/he would not do this because children’s clothing could rip, it could “cut off their airway,” or children could fall. Additionally, the SP was not aware of AV2’s shirt ripping at any time. The SP said that s/he likely picked AV2 up to diaper him/her but said that s/he did so by picking AV2 up under his/her arms or guiding AV2 by his/her hands. The SP did not know what time the incident occurred but was not aware of any times that s/he brought AV2 from the book area to his/her cot. However, AV2’s carpet square was near the book area and the SP moved AV2 a “couple times [by picking him/her up under the arms]” to move AV2 from other children’s “personal space.” The SP did not recall AV2 crying that day. No staff person, including P2 or P3, expressed concerns with his/her interactions with AV2 during that day. P2 worked in the adjacent classroom but did not typically come into the classroom because it “distracted” AV2. · The SP worked with P2 and they had a “pretty good relationship.” However, the SP and P6 had a “falling out” and P2 got “dragged into it” but the SP did not think that affected the SP’s and P2’s relationship. However, the SP did not know why P2 did not talk to him/her if s/he saw something concerning. The SP thought s/he and P2 had a “good enough relationship” for P2 to talk to him/her if s/he had concerns. · Following the incidents after the SP no longer worked at the facility, the SP was told by P5 that P2 and P6 were “bragging” that the SP would no longer work at the facility. The SP was told by P5 that P2 said that s/he “got [the SP] fired and was very proud of it.” · The SP had worked at the facility for approximately seven years. The only other prior concern with the SP’s interactions with children was in approximately November 2022, where a staff person thought that the SP was using “excessive force” when a child was “kicking” the SP and the SP put his/her hands around the child’s waist to stop the child. The child did not sustain any injuries. · The SP thought that P3 would provide accurate information about the incident. P3 was in the classroom the entire time the SP was. FM1 provided the following information: · On May 19, 2023, around 4:20 p.m., when FM1 and FM2 arrived at the facility to pick AV1 up, AV1’s classroom was outside on the playground and about to head inside. AV1 saw FM1’s and FM2’s car when they arrived and AV1 was “upset” because s/he saw FM1’s and FM2’s car but the staff persons told AV1 to go inside. · Once they arrived inside and got AV1, FM2 held AV1 while FM1 spoke to the SP. The SP told FM1 that around lunch, s/he was holding trays of food and his/her hands were “full.” The SP said that AV1 stood up from his/her chair and was “not listening to instruction.” The SP tried to redirect AV1 by “scooting” or “moving” AV1 with his/her foot, since the SP’s hands were full. The SP thought that AV1 was “maybe” “startled” when the SP did this and AV1 fell or “tripped” and hit the left side of his/her face or head. The SP applied an ice pack and gave AV1 “hugs.” AV1 then napped and was “good” the rest of the day. · When they got home, FM1 and FM2 observed that AV1 had a “little rug burn” on the side of his/her head and a “little bruise” on the left side of AV1’s head. It was “unclear” if both injuries happened from the incident but AV1 did not have the injuries when FM1 dropped AV1 off at the facility earlier that day. FM1 and FM2 took photos of the injuries on that day and also on the following day. AV1 did not receive any medical attention for the injuries. · At some point, AV1 said that the SP “did it” but was not able to “articulate further details about what happened.” · FM1 and FM2 did not have any other concerns regarding the SP or the facility. FM1 thought that the incident was “inappropriate” and not “handled” appropriately” and thought that staff persons did not know how to “deescalate a two-year-old who was not listening.” However, in general, the SP was “very caring and loving” towards the children. Additionally, childcare was a “really big part of [the SP’s] life.” · FM1 “did not know the full story” and had concerns that s/he was only verbally told about the incident and did not receive a written report. FM1 also thought that “something did not quite add up” regarding what the SP told them about the incident. This included that if AV1 was “tripped [or] scooted,” FM1 and FM2 did not know how AV1 sustained a “bump” on his/her head and “rug burn that required ice.” FM1 also had concerns if the classroom was in ratio at the time of the incident (Note: The attendance record for May 19, 2023, showed that there were 13 children on the date of the incident. However, given it was not known exactly what time the incident happened, there may have been fewer children. Either way, the classroom was in ratio on the date of the incident). The Behavior/Guidance Plan said that staff persons were to “model appropriate behavior” and give positive reinforcement. When there was “unacceptable behavior,” staff persons were trained to redirect children and provide “choices.” Staff persons were not to subject a child to corporal punishment including hitting and rough handling. Staff persons were to also not use physical restraint other than to physically hold a child when containment was necessary to protect a child or others from harm. The Teacher Handbook said that accidents that required care of a doctor or resulted in a significant injury such as broken bones, broken teeth, and eye injuries required a written “accident report.” The staff person who witnessed the incident was to write the report. If a “minor” accident occurred, it was to be written in an accident log which was located in each classroom. Facility documentation showed that the SP, P1, P2, P3, P4, and P5 were trained on facility policies and procedures including behavior/guidance plan and the Reporting of Maltreatment of Minors Act. Conclusion: Regarding AV1: The SP told this investigator and P4 that on May 19, 2023, the SP used his/her foot to “tap” AV1’s foot, to have AV1 “continue moving” towards his/her carpet square. P4 said the SP told him/her s/he used his/her foot to “bump” AV1’s bottom. P3 said that the SP told him/her that s/he “accidently bumped or moved” AV1. FM1 said that the SP told him/her that AV1 was not listening so the SP tried to redirect AV1 by “scooting” or “moving” AV1 with his/her foot. The SP told this investigator that when s/he did this, AV1 had been on his/her hands and knees and was “bouncing.” The SP thought that the “momentum” of the SP “tapping” AV1 “pushed [AV1] forward” which caused AV1 to fall forward and hit his/her head on the carpeted floor. FM1 also said that the SP thought that AV1 may have been startled which caused AV1 to fall. The SP said that s/he “barely” took his/her own foot off the floor when s/he did this. AV1 began crying and the SP observed a bump on AV1’s forehead that the SP described as rug burn and a scratch on AV1’s nose. AV1 applied an ice pack to these injuries. AV1 did not require further medical attention. P4 saw the SP right after the incident and described the SP as “calm.” P3 did not have any concerns with the SP’s interactions with any child, including AV1, on the date of the incident. Minnesota Statutes, section 260E, subdivision 3, paragraph (b) states, a nonmaltreatment mistake means: (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 SP “tapped” AV1 causing AV1 to fall forward and sustain an injury, the SP’s action or conduct was determined to be a non-maltreatment mistake for the following reasons: (1) At the time of the incident, the SP was performing job-related duties by assisting the children with activities and cleaning up from snack; (2) The SP had not been determined responsible for any previous incident that resulted in a finding of maltreatment; (3) The SP had not been previously determined to have committed a non-maltreatment mistake under this paragraph; (4) Although AV1 received an injury, AV1 did not require treatment; and (5) The facility and the SP were both in compliance with all licensing requirements relevant to the incident. The nonmaltreatment mistake to AV1 by the SP was not maltreatment. Regarding AV2: According to P2, on May 19, 2023, while P2 was changing a child in the bathroom, P2 said that s/he saw the SP pick AV2 up by his/her shirt and carry AV2 to his/her cot, which caused a rip in AV2’s shirt. There were no injuries to AV2. P3 also said that P2 told him/her that the SP put AV2 on the floor. P3 who was in the classroom with the SP, did not see the SP pick up AV2 or any child in this manner (including on the date of the incident or prior), was not aware of any injuries to AV2, was not aware of AV2 crying, and was not aware of damage to AV2’s shirt. Information was consistent from P1, P4, and P5 that there were interpersonal conflicts between P2, P6, and the SP, and that P2 and P6 “hated” the SP and following the incidents said that P2 and P5 were “bragging” about getting the SP fired. P1 also said that P2 had a history of lying, including for P2’s own benefit. Therefore, P2’s credibility regarding the incident in part, is diminished. The SP denied that s/he carried AV2 by his/her shirt. The SP acknowledged the incident with AV1 and would have no motive to not be truthful about the incident with AV2, given that AV2 did not sustain any injury. Additionally, given that P2 did not have enough concern to immediately intervene with the SP and AV2 when s/he saw the incident; that P2 said that s/he was “far enough away” from the SP and AV2, including that s/he would not have been able to hear if AV2 was crying and did not see the entire incident; that P3 was also present and was not aware of the incident; that there were interpersonal conflicts between the SP and P2; and that the SP denied the incident, there was not a preponderance of the evidence that the SP handled AV2 in a manner that represented a substantial risk of physical injury. It was not determined that physical abuse occurred ("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). 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. This included that the SP did not follow the behavior guidance policy when children were not listening and used “some of the prohibited corporal punishments.” Additionally, the accident policies and procedures were not followed as no accident report was written. The facility followed the maltreatment procedures but staff persons who witnessed it did not tell P1 until “almost a week later.” The SP no longer worked at the facility. Additionally, staff persons were retrained on the accident policies, including writing accident reports, the behavior guidance, and mandated reporting. There were no similar incidents with AV1, AV2, or the SP. The facility was also working on hiring additional staff persons, so the center director was not always working in the classrooms and able to support staff persons as needed. Action Taken by Department of Human Services, Office of Inspector General: The SP was not determined as a perpetrator of maltreatment of AV1 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 October 18, 2023, the facility was issued a Correction Order for failing to complete an incident report for AV1’s injury and for failing to document separations on a separation log. 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.
|
