|
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: 830978-CCC (Child Care Center) Investigator(s): Judith Schwanke 651-431-4033 Suspected Maltreatment Reported: It was reported that an alleged victim was left outside between one to three minutes without staff persons’ (SP1, and SP2) knowledge or supervision. Date of Incident(s): July 19, 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 August 17, 2023; from documentation at the facility; and through eight interviews conducted with a supervisory staff person (P1), facility staff persons (P2, P3, P4, and SP1), the AV, and the AV’s family members (FM1 and FM2). This investigator attempted to contact SP2 through various means: telephone, text message, and US mail to set up an interview. Those attempts were unsuccessful. Facility documentation showed the AV was three years and five months old and enrolled in the Preschool 1 classroom at the time of the incident. This investigator spoke with the AV but because of his/her age, s/he did not provide pertinent information regarding this incident. The facility was located at a “T” intersection of two residential roads. Surrounding the facility were homes, businesses, and soccer fields. Inside the facility, a hallway led to each classroom, a large muscle gymnasium called “open court,” an open play area, and one of the facility’s outdoor playgrounds that was used by the preschool and toddler children. That playground was located on two sides of the facility with the preschool playground on one side of the building and the toddler playground on another side. There was no physical barrier that separated the two playgrounds. On the preschool side of the playground was a climber and a blue sphere with round holes that the children could climb in and on. Outside the fence was a community sidewalk and beyond the sidewalk were the residential roads with a speed limit of 20 miles per hour. The playground was surrounded by a chain link fence that was approximately five feet high. The fence had a gate that was located near a locked, glass, facility back door that was not within the fenced area. Inside that door was a small vestibule and another glass door that led to the hallway. FM1 stated that when s/he arrived at the facility on July 19, 2023, FM2, who was the AV’s sibling, told him/her that the AV had been left outside. Then FM1 asked SP1 about the incident and SP1 told FM1 that the AV had been left on the playground. FM1 thought the AV had been left out on the playground with the toddler staff persons. Days later when FM1 talked with P1 at the facility, s/he learned that the AV had been outside alone, had left the playground, and was found by P3 and FM2 at the exterior, facility back door. FM1 was concerned that the AV was outside of the facility playground fence. FM2 stated that on July 19, 2023, s/he was in the open gym area when s/he and P3 heard someone “pound” on the facility back door. FM2 and P3 looked at the door and saw the AV, so they walked to the door, opened it, and let the AV in. Then they brought the AV to his/her class. FM2 stated the AV was not crying but was not happy. P1 stated that on July 19, 2023, at approximately 5:10 p.m., two preschool classrooms, including P2, SP1, SP2, and the AV, and two toddler classrooms were on the “back” playground. As the two preschool classrooms transitioned from the playground to the interior of the facility, two children were arguing, and a third child ran out of the fenced playground area. Because it was “so busy,” the AV was left on the playground unsupervised between one to three minutes before the AV walked to the exterior, back door of the facility and was let inside by P3. Then P3 walked him/her to where the classroom was at that time. At the time of the incident, the gate on the playground fence was not locked but the AV was too short to open the gate, so the gate must have been left open. The facility utilized a “head count sheet” in the classroom and as they went inside or outside, a head count was completed before and after the transition. When two staff persons were present, one staff person was at the front of the line, and one was at the back. P3 stated that on July 19, 2023, toward the end of the day, s/he was supervising children, including FM2, in the open court when s/he heard banging on a door. P3 turned to look at the door and saw the AV standing outside the exterior back door. P3 and FM2 walked to the door and let the AV in. The AV was not crying and waited for P3 to open the door. Then P3 and FM2 walked the AV to the open spot off the hallway and left the AV with P2. The AV did not say anything to P3. P3 and FM2 then went back to the open court. P3 stated the gate to the playground was closed and did not think the AV could open or shut the gate. P2 stated that on July 19, 2023, at approximately 5:20 p.m., s/he was on the playground supervising the Preschool 2 children. The Preschool 1 children and SP1 and SP2 were also on the playground. When it was time to go inside, both groups formed one line with SP1 at the front of the line and P2 at the back. As they exited the playground and walked to the exterior, facility back door, P2 looked around the playground but did not see any children but P2 did not go to the portion of the playground that was behind the facility. P2 shut the gate as s/he left the playground. Before entering the facility, SP1 counted the number of children present for the Preschool 1 children and P2 counted the number of children present for the Preschool 2 children. Then the group went inside through both sets of doors. Once the group was inside the facility, they walked down the hallway to an open play area and stopped there. When P3 brought the AV to the open play area, the AV was happy and joined a group of friends and played. Then the AV saw FM1 walk down the hallway and the AV ran to meet him/her. P2 stated that prior to July 19, 2023, s/he had seen the AV open the playground gate. SP1 stated that on July 19, 2023, at approximately 5 p.m., s/he went out to the playground so that P4 could leave. P2 and SP2 were on the playground with thirteen children, including the AV, from the Preschool 1 and Preschool 2 classrooms. The toddler children were outside in their playground area. Some of the preschool children went to the toddler play area and SP1 directed them back to the preschool side. SP1 stated there were several “big behaviors” on the playground and s/he was afraid that a child was going to get hurt so s/he made the decision to bring the children inside. As SP1 had the children line up, P2 held a child while also bringing two children who had run off back into the line, and SP2 gathered children off the play structure and moved them toward the line. SP1 counted the children, thought s/he had counted all thirteen children, and then opened the exterior door. As children entered the vestibule, SP1 was at the front of the line, P2 was in the middle, and SP2 was at the back of the line. While the group was in the vestibule, other family members opened the interior set of doors and some children tried to run through that set of doors. Then SP1 led the children down the hallway to the open play area as other parents also picked up their children. When they arrived at the open play area, P2 assisted a child, SP2 was engaged with other children, and SP1 began to count the children. As SP! was counting, s/he looked up and saw P3, FM2, and the AV walking toward him/her. P3 told SP1 that the AV had been left outside. SP1 was unsure if the AV was left on the playground or on the sidewalk. SP1 estimated the AV was unsupervised “only a couple of minutes” because P3 brought the AV to the open area just after the preschool group arrived there. The AV was exposed to community dangers while unsupervised. The facility Parent Handbook stated that all children must be supervised by sight and sound at all times and the facility Program Plan stated that children are supervised during all hours of operation. Facility documentation showed that SP1 and SP2 received training on the facility’s policies and procedures, including the Parent Handbook and the Program 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, 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: Information was consistent that on July 19, 2023, the AV was left outside when two preschool groups transitioned from the playground to indoors, which was a violation of Minnesota Statutes 245A.02, subdivision 18, and Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0045, subpart 1, item A. SP1 counted the number of children at the door to the facility, as they entered, and as they arrived to the open area which was their final destination. During this time, SP2 and P2 assisted other children and family members picked up children. When the group entered the open play area indoors, SP2 was engaged with other children and SP1 was in the process of counting children again when P3 brought the AV to the group after s/he found the AV outside the facility back door. SP1 thought the AV was unsupervised outside between one to three minutes. 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 outside between one and three minutes, SP1’s and SP2’s actions or conduct were determined to be a nonmaltreatment mistake for the following reasons: (1) At the time of the incident, SP1 and SP2 were performing job related suites as required by the facility’s child care program plan. SP1 counted at the beginning of the transition and was in the process of counting at the end of the transition when the AV was brought back to the class. In addition, SP2 was engaged with other children during the entire transition, by trying to keep them in line and from running away from the group. (2) SP1 and SP2 had not been determined to be responsible for a similar incident that resulted in a finding of maltreatment; (3) SP1 and SP2 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; and (5) Except for the period when the incident occurred, the facility, SP1, and SP2 were both in compliance with all licensing requirements relevant to the incident. The nonmaltreatment mistake regarding the AV by SP1 and SP2 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 during transitions and the toddler children and preschool children no longer used the playground at the same time. Action Taken by Department of Human Services, Office of Inspector General: SP1 and SP2 were not determined as perpetrators 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 SP2 is responsible might not be considered a nonmaltreatment mistake. On October 31, 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.
|
