|
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: 830241-CCC (Child Care Center) Investigator(s): Anna Parkin 651-431-6225 Suspected Maltreatment Reported: It was reported that an alleged victim (AV) was left alone in a toddler room for approximately three minutes. Date of Incident(s): November 6, 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 November 16, 2023; from documentation at the facility; and through five interviews conducted with a supervisory staff person (P1) and four facility staff persons (P2, P3, SP1, and SP2). Attempts were made via phone and mail to contact and interview the AV’s family member, but the family member did not respond. According to the AV’s enrollment information, the AV was 22 months old and enrolled in the young toddler room at the time of the incident. The facility had a young toddler room and an old toddler room that shared a wall that had two small windows. According to the attendance sheet, there were 12 children, including the AV, in the young toddler room at the time of the incident. P3 stated on the day of the incident, when s/he was done with work at approximately 4 p.m., s/he went into the young toddler room to get his/her child (C). When P3 entered the room, s/he saw the AV standing in the middle of the room alone. P3 picked up the AV and brought him/her to the old toddler room and told SP2 and another staff person (P4) that the AV was alone in the room. The AV was not injured. P2 stated that s/he was assisting the school age children coming into the facility when P3 came up to him/her and told P2 that s/he found the AV alone in the young infant room. P2 then called P1 and told him/her about the incident. P1 stated that after talking to P2, s/he reviewed the video camera footage from the young toddler room. The video showed that on November 6, 2023, at 4:07 p.m., SP1 and SP2 led the young toddlers towards the door to the hall and line up. SP1 had the name to face clipboard in his/her hand and when s/he opened the door, two other toddlers ran out into the hall. SP1 went into the hall to assist those two children while SP2 walked out behind the remaining children. The door shut and “immediately” the AV ran out from behind the diaper changing counter to the middle of the room. The AV stood in the middle of the room, holding his/her blanket, for approximately two minutes and 45 seconds when P3 entered the room. The AV did not cry during this time. P1 stated that s/he did not save the video footage for this investigator to review. SP1 provided the following information: · On the day of the incident, at approximately 4 p.m., SP1 and SP2 were transitioning approximately 7 or 8 children from the young toddler room to the old toddler room. SP1 was towards the front of the line with the clipboard in his/her hand when two children ran out into the hall and were “pushing” each other. SP1 went out into the hall and brought the two children into the old toddler room and SP2 and the other children followed. · Once inside the old toddler room, SP1 asked SP2 and P4 if s/he could use the bathroom and they agreed. Staff persons were supposed to use the clipboard to document the children before and after a transition but SP1 was new and had not been trained on it at that time. SP1 did not do a name to face, set the clipboard down, and went to the bathroom. · After approximately two minutes, SP1 returned to the old toddler room and SP2 and P4 told SP1 that the AV was found alone in the young toddler room. The AV was playing on the floor and did not have any injuries. SP2 stated on the day of the incident, at approximately 4 p.m., SP1 was at the front of the line of approximately 14 young toddlers and started to transition the children into the old toddler room. SP1 had the clipboard and did not do a name to face count when leaving the room. SP2 tried counting the children but there was a “mad rush” of children out the door into the hall and into the old toddler room. When SP2 was leaving the room, s/he looked around the young toddler room “for a split second” and saw the AV behind the diaper changing counter looking out a window. Because it happened “so fast” and was “chaotic,” SP2 did not get the AV at that time. SP2 knew the AV was alone so approximately one minute after getting the other children to the old toddler room, s/he went to get the AV but at the same time P3 brought the AV into the older toddler room. The AV did not have injuries. SP2 did not say anything to SP1 about the AV since SP1 left to use the bathroom. SP2 did not say anything to P4 about the AV because SP2 made sure the other children were “okay” with P4. According to the Child Supervision Procedure, children “must” be supervised “in the direct line of sight and within earshot” of a staff person “at all times.” According to the facility’s Face to Name Procedure, staff persons saw children’s faces and said their name when confirming all children were accounted for during the day. Staff persons documented the face to name at every transition when children left one area and went to another. According to the facility’s Risk Reduction Plan, when transitioning from one location to another, staff persons were trained to conduct face to name procedures and document it on the daily attendance sheet. Facility documentation showed that SP1 and SP2 and other staff persons interviewed in this investigation received training on the facility’s Children Supervision Procedure, Face to Name Procedure, Risk Reduction Plan, and the 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: P1 provided information that video footage showed that on November 6, 2023, the AV was left in the young toddler room for two minutes, 45 seconds without the knowledge or supervision of a staff person which was inconsistent with the facility’s Children Supervision Procedure 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, SP1 and SP2 and the children left the young toddler room and went to the old toddler room. Although SP1 was not aware that the AV was left in the young toddler room, given that SP2 stated s/he was aware and left the AV in the room and did not go get the AV prior to P3 bringing the AV info the old toddler room, SP1’s responsibility was mitigated. SP2’s actions or conduct was inconsistent with the standards of a professional caregiver in a facility licensed by the Department of Human Services but were determined to be a nonmaltreatment mistake for the following reasons: (1) At the time of the incident, SP2 was transitioning the kids from the younger toddler room to the old toddler room and stated s/he knew the AV was in the classroom alone. SP2 stated s/he was on her way to get the AV when P3 brought the AV into the classroom. (2) SP2 has not previously been found responsible for a similar incident that resulted in a finding of maltreatment in the past. (3) SP2 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, SP1, and SP2 were in compliance with all relevant licensing requirements. The nonmaltreatment mistake to the AV by 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 policies and procedures were adequate but not followed. SP1 and SP2 received additional training on the Children Supervision Procedure and Face to Name Procedure. Action Taken by Department of Human Services, Office of Inspector General: SP2 was not determined as a perpetrator of maltreatment of the AV because the Department of Human Services found that the incident for which SP2 was responsible met the criteria to be determined a nonmaltreatment mistake. SP2 was notified by the Office of Inspector General that any future incident of possible neglect of an alleged victim for which SP2 is responsible might not be considered a nonmaltreatment mistake. On January 5, 2024, 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.
|
