|
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: 1063675-CCC (Child Care Center) Investigator(s): Tessa Ripka 651-431-6612 Suspected Maltreatment Reported: It was reported that an alleged victim (AV) was unsupervised in the facility building for at least four minutes and found by a community person. Date of Incident(s): October 5, 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 17, 2023; from documentation at the facility; and through five interviews conducted with four facility staff persons (SP1, SP2, P1, P2), and the AV’s family member. Due to the AV’s age, s/he was unable to provide any information about the incident. The facility was located inside a church on the lower level. The playground was next to the building and was fenced in. Through the main entrance door was an enclosed entryway with a ramp to the lower level and stairs to the upper level. At the bottom of the ramp was a door with a pull handle that opened to the facility hallway. The door had a long narrow window on upper half of the door and pushed open from inside the facility. The first door inside the facility on the right was the toddler classroom. The classroom was a large open room. The AV was 28 months at the time of the incident and enrolled in the Toddler classroom. SP1, SP2, P1, and P2 provided the following information: · On the day of the incident, SP1 and SP2 worked in the classroom. P1 and P2 were doing prep work and working on curriculum during the time of the incident. SP1 and SP2 took the classroom which had nine children including the AV outside to the playground at approximately 10 a.m. · After approximately 40 minutes, SP1 and SP2 lined the children up by the playground gate and counted the children. They counted nine children and then walked into the facility entryway and to the door to the lower level. SP1 and SP2 counted the children as they walked through the lower level door and into the classroom door which was directly to the right of the lower level door and SP1 counted nine children. · At that time, both P1 and P2 walked to the classroom and talked with SP1 and SP2 as they arrived inside. P1 went into the classroom and started taking some art off a bulletin board. P2 walked back to his/her office. P1 said that s/he heard SP1 count the children up to nine as they started to walk into the classroom. · P1 went out the classroom door to put some art in the children’s mailboxes and then went back in the classroom to start circle time. SP1 and SP2 were putting away children’s jackets and assisting children with washing hands or using the restroom. · A community person found the AV outside the lower level door and brought the AV to the classroom. P2 said s/he heard the parent come into the classroom a “few minutes” after SP1 and SP2 returned to the classroom. SP1 said the AV was likely outside the classroom for “three to four minutes or less.” · The AV did not appear to be upset by the incident. When the AV walked in s/he joined the group for circle time and did not have his/her jacket on. · There was confusion among staff persons as to how the AV ended up by the lower level entry door. The AV’s jacket and toy that s/he carried most of the time were in the AV’s cubbie. SP2 collected the jackets from the children as they were coming into the classroom. SP1 and SP2 were not sure if the AV was left in the entryway when the classroom came inside or if the AV was able to open the door and go back out when they were entering the classroom. · Staff persons were to complete a count of the children when leaving the playground and when they had returned inside. Child attendance was listed in the phone application that the facility used and was also documented on a list in the classroom. The Employee Handbook stated that staff persons always knew where each in the group was and how many children were in their care. Children were supervised within sight and sound at all times. The Daily Student Attendance showed that on the date of the incident, there were nine children including the AV in the classroom. The Behavior/Incident Report showed that on October 5, 2023, at 10:40 a.m., the CP noticed the AV outside of the lower level door alone. Facility documentation showed that all staff interviewed were trained on the facilities policies and the Reporting of Maltreatment of Minors Act. Relevant Rule and/or Statute 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 from all sources was consistent that on October 5, 2023, the AV was found by a community person by the lower level door to the facility without the knowledge or supervision of a staff person and was unsupervised for three to four minutes, which was a violation of Minnesota Statutes, section 245A.02, subdivision 18, and Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0045, subpart 1, item A. SP1 and SP2 were each not aware that the AV was not in the classroom, which was inconsistent with the standards of a professional caregiver in a facility licensed by the Department of Human Services and a violation of the facility’s policies and procedures. 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. Consistent information was provided that SP1 and SP2 counted the children as they returned inside the facility and started to put away the children’s jackets and assist the children to wash their hands. SP1 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 duties, as required by the facility’s policies; (2) SP1 and SP2 had not been determined responsible for any previous incident that resulted in a finding of maltreatment; (3) SP1 and SP2 had not been previously determined to have committed a nonmaltreatment mistake under this paragraph; (4) The AV was uninjured and did not require medical care after the incident; and (5) Except for the period when the incident occurred, the facility, SP1, and SP2 were in compliance with all licensing requirements relevant to the incident. The nonmaltreatment mistake to the AV by SP1 and SP2 was not maltreatment. It was determined that neglect did not occur (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). 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. All staff persons were retrained on supervision. Action Taken by Department of Human Services, Office of Inspector General: SP1 and SP2 were each not determined as a perpetrator 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 or SP2 was responsible might not be considered a nonmaltreatment mistake. On December 1, 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.
|
