Minnesota

MALTREATMENT INVESTIGATION MEMORANDUM
Office of Inspector General, Licensing Division
Public Information

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.”

Report Number: 202308795        

Date Issued: November 29, 2023

Name and Address of Facility Investigated:   

Creative Kids Academy, Inc.
19277 Vernon St NW
Elk River, MN 55330

Disposition: A nonmaltreatment mistake to an alleged victim by a staff person was not maltreatment.

License Number and Program Type:

1083770-CCC (Child Care Center)

Investigator(s):

Anna Parkin
Minnesota Department of Human Services
Office of Inspector General, Licensing Division
PO Box 64242
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55164-0242
anna.parkin@state.mn.us

651-431-6225

Suspected Maltreatment Reported:

It was reported that an alleged victim (AV) was left alone in the toddler room for one to two minutes.

Date of Incident(s): October 13, 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 30, 2023; from documentation at the facility; and through four interviews conducted with three supervisory staff persons (P1, P2, and the SP), and the AV’s family member (FM).

According to the AV’s enrollment information, the AV was two years old and in the toddler room at the time of the incident.

The facility had a toddler room that was connected to the infant room by a hallway. Consistent information was provided that the SP usually worked at a different location but was filling for staff persons and had three toddlers including the AV in the toddler room at the time of the incident.

The FM stated that on October 13, 2023, at 5:25 p.m., s/he arrived at the facility and went into the toddler room where s/he found the AV alone. The AV stood beside the door and was not upset or injured. The FM and the AV then walked to the infant room where the FM told the SP that the AV was left alone. The SP told the FM that s/he had left the toddler room “a few minutes before” and apologized.

The SP provided the following information:

· On October 13, 2023, at 5:25 p.m., the SP was alone with three toddlers (the AV, C1, and C2) in the toddler room when they lined up at the door. The SP told C1, C2, and the AV that they were going to the infant room and C1 and C2 ran out of the classroom and into the hallway so the SP followed. The SP thought the AV might follow him/her. As they reached the door to the infant room, C1’s and C2’s family members showed up. The SP had the daily head count form in his/her hand during this time.

· “A couple seconds” after the SP, C1, C2, and the two family members were outside the infant room door, the FM and the AV walked over. The SP apologized to the FM and said s/he had just left the toddler room. The AV was alone for one to two minutes and did not have an injury. When this investigator asked the SP if s/he was aware that the AV was alone in the infant room, the SP said it was a “hard question” because the whole incident “happened so quickly” and s/he was so focused on C1 and C2 and making sure they were safe when s/he saw the FM and the AV.

The children’s attendance showed the following for October 13, 2023:

o The AV clocked out at 5:25 p.m.

o C1 clocked out at 5:30 p.m.

o C2 clocked out at 5:28 p.m.

Consistent information was provided that family members were not consistent on whether they electronically clocked their children out before or after getting the child which could have resulted in their pickup time off by a few minutes.

P1 and P2 provided the following information:

· On October 13, 2023, at 5:30 p.m., the SP texted P1 saying that s/he left the AV alone in the toddler room for “two seconds” and the AV was found by the FM. Since P1 was driving, s/he called P2 and told P2 to call the SP.

· P2 then called the SP who said that at about 5:25 p.m., s/he had C1, C2, and the AV in the toddler room and was about to leave for the infant room with them, when C1 and C2 ran out of the toddler room into the hallway. The SP followed them into the hallway when C1’s and C2’s family members arrived for pick up. The FM and the AV then came into the infant room and the FM and the SP discussed that the AV had been alone in the toddler room. The SP said that the AV was alone for approximately one to two minutes.

· On Monday, October 16, 2023, P1 spoke to the SP who said that during the incident, s/he had C1, C2, and the AV line up at the door when C1 and C2 ran out into the hallway. The SP thought that the AV was possibly following, but when the SP got to C1 and C2, s/he realized that the AV was still in the toddler room. C1’s and C2’s family members arrived at that time so the SP was not able to return to the toddler room before the FM came with the AV. The AV was alone in the toddler room for less than one minute.

According to the facility’s supervision policy, all children were supervised by sight and sound “at all times” so staff persons were able to intervene to protect the health and safety of the child. The facility created a daily head count sheet for any transitions that occurred throughout the day. In addition, when a group transitioned from one area to the next, staff persons “retain[ed] close visual supervision” of the children “at all times during the transition.”

Facility documentation showed that the SP and other staff persons interviewed in this investigation received training on the facility’s supervision policy 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.

Conclusion:

Information from all sources was consistent that on October 13, 2023, the AV was left in the toddler room for approximately one to two minutes without the supervision of a staff person which was inconsistent with the facility’s supervision policy and was a violation of Minnesota Statutes, section 245A.02, subdivision 18, and Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0045, subpart 1, item A.

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 left the classroom to follow C1 and C2 who ran out of the toddler room to the infant room.  The SP believed the AV would follow but the AV did not and was found alone by the FM. 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 supervision policy. The SP knew that s/he had C1, C2, and the AV in the toddler room and decided to follow C1 and C2 out in the hallway assuming that the AV might follow. The SP was aware that the AV had not yet transitioned to the infant room but at the same time, C1’s and C2’s family members arrived to pick them up.

(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 SP was provided a counseling statement and retrained on facility policies.

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.


PO Box 64242 • Saint Paul, Minnesota • 55164-0242 • An Equal Opportunity and Veteran Friendly Employer

https://mn.gov/dhs/general-public/licensing/