|
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: 1101525-CCC (Child Care Center) Investigator(s): Anna Parkin 651-431-6225 Suspected Maltreatment Reported: It was reported that a staff person (SP) left an alleged victim (AV) alone outside for approximately two to five minutes. Date of Incident(s): October 4, 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 October 27, 2023; from documentation and surveillance video at the facility; and through five interviews conducted with two supervisory staff persons (P1 and the SP), a facility staff person (P2), a community person (CP1), and the AV’s family member (FM). This investigator contacted another community person (CP2) and arranged a time to interview CP2 via telephone. CP2 did not answer the telephone at the prescheduled time and did not respond to a voicemail left for CP2 to contact this investigator. CP2 was interviewed by P1 as part of the facility’s internal investigation and that information was included below. According to the AV’s enrollment information, the AV was three years and two days old at the time of the incident and enrolled in the preschool/toddler room. The facility had a playground that was separated from the facility by grass and a parking lot. There was a glass door on the south side of the facility that was the main entrance and was locked during the day. The facility shared a building with an ambulance garage and was also part of a hospital complex that included a hospital and other buildings. Inside the facility entry was small hall with a bathroom. The small hall led to an open area that had the preschool/toddler room and a toddler room separated by a half wall. P2 provided the following information: · On October 4, 2023, at approximately 4 p.m., P2 was about to clock out when s/he heard a noise by the front door. P2 saw the SP with six preschool and toddler children standing outside. The SP said s/he had forgotten his/her badge that allowed him/her to enter the front door so P2 opened the door for the SP. P2’s attention was then drawn somewhere else, so s/he went to a different area of the facility. · A few minutes later, P2 heard the SP with the preschool children in the bathroom and the SP sounded “frustrated” so P2 went over and asked if s/he needed help. The SP responded, “Yes,” so P2 asked what s/he could assist with. The SP, who was inside the bathroom, said that two of the older preschool children needed assistance in the bathroom and two of the toddler children including the AV had “accidents” and needed diaper changes. · P2 did not see the AV, called his/her name, and then asked the SP where the AV was. Simultaneously, P2 heard a “tap” on the front door. P2 and the SP went to the front door and saw the AV standing alone outside so they opened the front door and brought the AV inside the facility. It had been approximately three to five minutes from when the SP came inside until the AV returned inside. The SP was “frustrated” and said that was “what happened” when the SP was left alone with six children. P2 “comforted” the AV and did not see any injuries to the AV. The SP said s/he would write up an incident report and notify the FM. · The following day, P2 spoke to the AV’s primary staff person (P3) and asked if s/he was aware of the incident and P3 responded that s/he was not. P2 checked and there was no incident report completed. P2 then called and notified P1 about the incident. P1 provided the following information: · In the morning of October 5, 2023, P1 saw an email from P2 that provided information that was consistent with the information P2 told this investigator. · P2 called the SP who said that the previous day, s/he brought six children inside to use the bathroom. The AV held the SP’s hand as they walked from the playground to the facility. Because the SP forgot his/her badge, P2 let them inside. The SP said that as the door was closing s/he realized that the AV was not with him/her and that the AV was alone outside for less than one minute. The SP assisted the children in the bathrooms and then brought them back outside to the playground. After talking to the SP, P1 called the FM and notified him/her about the incident. · Later that day, P1 was made aware that CP1 and CP2 saw parts of the incident so P1 spoke to each of them individually. CP1 said that s/he was in the ambulance garage connected to the facility and had not seen the AV prior to going inside. CP1 was inside the garage for approximately four to five minutes, and when s/he left, s/he heard someone crying. CP1 said s/he looked over and saw the AV standing alone outside the front door. P1 then spoke to CP2 who said s/he was in a meeting room inside the hospital that had a window facing the facility. During the meeting, CP2 looked out the window and saw the AV alone outside the front door of the facility “for a minute or so” before a staff person got the AV and brought him/her inside the facility. Video footage provided by the facility showed the side of the building where the facility’s front door was located. The video was far away, and this investigator was unable to see definitive persons or objects near the front door of the facility. CP1 stated that on the date of the incident, s/he went into the ambulance garage that was in the same building as the facility. When walking there, s/he did not see the AV. CP1 was inside the ambulance garage two to three minutes and when s/he left the garage and was walking out, s/he heard crying. CP1 looked and saw the AV standing alone outside the front door of the facility. CP1 started walking toward the AV but within ten seconds, the SP opened the front door and brought the AV inside the facility. The SP provided the following conflicting information: · In the SP’s original information provided to the Minnesota Department of Human Services, the SP provided the following information: o On October 4, 2023, the SP brought six children including the AV from the playground inside the facility. While the SP walked to the facility, s/he counted the six children and when going inside the facility s/he counted and realized s/he had five children.
o The SP was inside the entryway and looked at the door and saw the AV alone outside. It had been “30 seconds maybe a minute” before the SP realized the AV was not inside the facility. The AV was not injured but was “a little scared.” · The SP told this investigator the following: o On October 4, 2023, at approximately 4 p.m., s/he went out to the playground and four staff persons (P3-P6) were outside with the preschool and toddler children. The SP asked if they needed anything and P3 and P4 said that some of the children including the AV needed to use the bathroom. The SP took the AV’s and another child’s hand and walked with four other children (six total) to the front door. o When the SP got to the front door, s/he realized s/he did not have his/her badge to get back inside, so s/he knocked on the door and P2 opened the door. The SP and the children went inside the door and were still inside the entryway when P2 asked if the SP needed help and the SP responded that s/he did. The SP looked for the AV and did not see him/her inside so looked at the door and saw the AV standing outside. The SP then opened the door, asked the AV if s/he was “okay,” and did not see any injuries to the AV. The AV was alone outside for “less than a minute.” o The SP then assisted some of the children in the bathroom and since P2 was supposed to have left the facility, the SP called P3 inside from the playground to assist with the children. The SP and P3 then walked the children including the AV to the playground. o Once at the playground, P4 ran over to the SP with a child (C) who had gotten stung by a bee and also had a cut on his/her finger. The SP assisted the C, went inside the facility to cover a room while P3 was gone for the day, went to his/her office to see what steps s/he should take about the incident, and then left the facility. The SP did not tell P3-P6 or the FM about the incident. o The SP stated that staff persons were trained to count the children before and after every transition. The SP counted when leaving the playground and “thought [s/he] did” once inside the facility “but obviously did not” because s/he would have realized that the AV was not with them. According to the facility’s Risk Reduction Plan, children were within sight and sound of staff persons “at all times.” Attendance of the children was taken before leaving the facility and upon arrival at the playground as well as when returning to the facility. Facility documentation showed that all staff persons, including SP, received training on the Risk Reduction Plan and the Reporting of Maltreatment of Minor’s Act prior to the incident. Relevant Rules and 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 was 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: Consistent information was provided that on October 4, 2023, at approximately 4 p.m., the AV was left alone outside the facility’s front door without the knowledge or supervision of a staff person which was a violation of Minnesota Statutes, section 245A.02, subdivision 18, and Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0045, subpart 1, item A. P2 said the AV was alone for approximately three to five minutes, CP1 stated s/he was inside the attached ambulance garage between two to three minutes and that the AV was not outside when s/he went in but when s/he came back out, s/he heard the AV crying and ten seconds later the AV was let inside, and CP2 saw the AV alone “for a minute or so.” Based on information provided by P2, CP1, and CP2, the SP’s initial information provided that s/he immediately saw the AV outside and the SP’s subsequent information that the AV was outside “less than a minute,” the SP had reason to minimize his/her actions for fear of repercussions. Given the information provided, it was more than likely that the AV was alone outside somewhere between two to five minutes. 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.
Consistent information was provided that at the time of the incident, the SP and the six children left playground, and s/he was supervising children using the bathroom. The SP held the AV’s hand as they walked from the playground and although the SP was not aware that the AV was left outside the front door, the SP’s actions or conduct were determined to be a nonmaltreatment mistake for the following reasons: (1) Supervision was defined in the facility’s Risk Reduction Plan. The SP stated s/he counted the six children prior to leaving the playground. Although the SP did not count upon entering the facility, the SP had children who needed to use the bathroom and children who needed their diapers changed. (2) The SP has 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 has 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 facility created an updated supervision policy that was discussed with all staff persons. The SP no longer worked at the facility. 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 November 29, 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.
|
