|
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: 1015164-CCC (Child Care Center) Investigator(s): Anna Parkin 651-431-6225 Suspected Maltreatment Reported: It was reported that an alleged victim (AV) was found alone in the staff office. Date of Incident(s): December 28, 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 January 3, 2024; from documentation at the facility; and through six interviews conducted with two supervisory staff persons (P1 and P2), two facility staff persons (P3 and the SP), the AV’s family member (FM1), and a family member (FM2) of another child. According to the AV’s enrollment information, the AV was two years old and enrolled in the discovery preschool B room at the time of the incident. The facility had a front door with an entry way and lobby. Off to the one side of the lobby was the staff office and the other side had a hall that led to a large motor room. The motor room had a half door from the hall that locked when it was shut. Off each side of the motor room were discovery preschool rooms (A and B). Inside the facility office was furniture, including desks and chairs; an easel; and a box of clothing. At the time of the site visit, there were no hazards seen in the office. According to the facility’s Child Supervision Record, on December 28, 2023, at 4:14 p.m., there were ten children including the AV in the discovery preschool room B. The SP came from another preschool room and worked in the discovery preschool room B from 4:14 to 4:19 p.m. and during that time two children (C1 and C2) were picked up. P3 was also assigned to the discovery preschool room B at that time. FM2 stated on the day of the incident, after s/he walked in the front door of the facility, s/he saw a child (later determined to have been the AV) coming out of the facility office. The AV shut the office door behind him/her. FM2 went over and helped the AV open the half door to go into the motor room. FM2 asked the SP, who was in the motor room, if s/he knew the AV was alone in the office and the SP did not know. P3, who was also in the motor room, then went over and checked the AV. FM2 asked P3 if s/he was aware the AV was in the office alone and P3 did not know. FM2 stated the AV did not have any injuries. FM2 then told P2 about the incident. P2 provided the following information: · On December 28, 2023, P2 was in the kitchen washing dishes when s/he heard the facility phone ring. P2 ran to the office and answered the phone. While s/he was talking on the phone, FM2 came into the office and said s/he needed to speak with P2. FM2 told P2 that when s/he came into the facility, s/he saw a child later, identified as the AV, run out of the office alone. FM2 opened the half door for the AV to go back into the motor room and FM2 followed. · P2 asked FM2 to show him/her who the AV was so they walked to the motor room. FM2 pointed out the AV and P2 assessed the AV but did not see injuries to the AV. · P2 called P1 (who was already off work for the day) and notified P1 about the incident. P2 then called FM1 and notified him/her about the incident. P2 said that many families have a history of not closing the half door to the motor room and multiple families were picking up within a few minutes prior to the incident. P3 stated on the day of the incident, at approximately 4 p.m., P3 and the SP were in the motor room with either seven or eight children including the AV. P3 noticed that a family member (FM3) who came to pick up C2 had left the half gate open. P3 walked over and closed the half gate while FM3 was still inside the motor room. P3 told the SP s/he was going to go a discovery preschool room to get a drink of water. Right before s/he walked out of the motor room, P3 saw the AV playing in the room. P3 went inside the discovery preschool room, took a drink of water, and returned to the motor room less than one minute later. When P3 returned to the motor room, FM2 was in the motor room and told P3 that s/he found the AV alone in the office. The AV was back inside the motor room and did not appear to have an injury. P3 thought that when FM3 left the motor room, s/he possibly left the half gate open again and that is when the AV left the area. The SP provided the following information: · On the day of the incident, approximately five minutes after the SP came to the motor room, P3 asked if s/he could go to the discovery preschool room and left. There were possibly 11 or 12 children including the AV in the room. FM2 and FM3 came in to pick up C1 and C2. During that time, the SP saw the AV playing with toys. FM2 and FM3 then left the motor room with C1 and C2. · Shortly after, FM2 returned to the motor room with the AV and asked if the AV belonged there. FM2 told the SP that the AV was alone in the office with the door closed. The SP told FM2 that the AV belonged in the motor room but that s/he did not know how the AV got to the office. The AV did not have an injury. The SP had not seen the AV leave the motor room. P3 returned to the motor room when FM2 was still there and had been gone for approximately two minutes. FM1 was made aware of the incident by P2 and did not have concerns about the facility. According to the facility’s Risk Reduction Plan, children could exit rooms through the doors. Staff persons used the Child Supervision Record for “regular attendance.” Staff persons also positioned themselves to ensure children were “never out of sight and sound.” 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 December 28, 2023, at approximately 4 p.m., the AV was found alone coming out of the office 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. According to the Child Supervision Record, at 4:14 p.m., when the SP entered the motor room, there were ten children including the AV. The SP worked in the discovery preschool room until 4:19 p.m. and during that time, C1 and C2 were picked up. P3 and the SP provided consistent information that the AV was in the motor room after P3 left to get a drink of water, therefore P3’s responsibility was mitigated. P3 said that s/he returned less than one minute later and FM2 was with the AV back in the motor room. The SP stated that P3 was gone for approximately two 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. Information provided by the Child Supervision Record showed that the SP and between eight to ten children were in the motor room when the AV left the room. Although the SP was not aware the AV left the motor room, the AV was gone for one or two minutes, and 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. Although the SP did not see the AV leave the room, the SP saw the AV playing with toys when FM2 and FM3 were in the motor room immediately prior to them leaving. (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 last seven years. (3) The SP has not previously been found responsible for a similar incident that resulted in a finding of a nonmaltreatment mistake for at least four years. (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 and followed. The SP received additional training on proper supervision and the Child Supervision Record. 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 February 2, 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.
|
