|
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: 810886-CCC (Child Care Center) Investigator(s): Kim Anderson/Van Mulheron Suspected Maltreatment Reported: It was reported that two alleged victims (AV1 and AV2) left the classroom and went into a great room, that was not occupied at the time, for approximately two to five minutes without a staff person’s (SP) supervision or knowledge. 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 two supervisory staff persons (P1 and P2), and three staff person (the SP, P3 and P4). P3 was also AV1’s family member and P4 was AV2’s family member. AV1’s enrollment form stated that at the time of the incident, AV1 was four years old and enrolled in the pre-kindergarten classroom. At the time if incident AV1 was visiting the preschool classroom in order to maintain ratios. AV2’s enrollment form stated that at the time of the incident, AV2 was three years old and enrolled in the preschool classroom. AV2’s Individual Child Care Program Plan (ICCPP) was created on October 23, 2023, stated that AV2 was diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder that resulted in developmental delays. AV2 required frequent direct adult guidance for physical safety, following directions, and transitions. AV2 would attempt to leave from the classroom to gain access to a preferred adult or when feeling upset about something less preferred. AV2’s ICCPP also stated that staff persons would increase monitoring and tracking of AV2 for physical safety. Staff persons also provided visuals that included pictures also known as Daily Commitment Cards to help AV2 express feelings and to remind AV2 of classroom rules. AV2 was not able to provide information to this investigator due to his/her diagnoses. The facility was a standalone building and provided care for children six weeks to five years old. Through the front door was a lobby area with a half wall and two gates on either side. On the other side of the half wall was a great room that contained an indoor play structure, a slide, and an open area for running. a video camera located in the great room. There were five classrooms connected to the Great Room including a preschool classroom and an older toddler classroom. The preschool classroom door was located on the left side of a corner and toddler classroom door was located on the right side of the same corner. Both classroom doors had a window on the upper half and lever door handles that pushed down to open the doors. The preschool classroom was shaped like an “L.” Upon entry into the preschool classroom to the right was a wall that had the Daily Commitment cards velcroed to it. Past the wall were tables used for meals and activities with the children’s lockers located on the left wall. Upon reaching the tables the classroom opened into a large rectangle. In the upper right-hand corner of the classroom was the group time/library area. A teacher’s chair was faced towards the corner of the preschool room. Across from the group time area were three floor to ceiling windows. Through the windows the older toddler classroom was visible. There was a camera located in the upper right-hand corner of the preschool room. The classroom door and Daily Commitment card area was out of view of the camera. The camera had a view of large rectangle area of the classroom and the older toddler room through the window. The facility’s Incident Report stated that on November 6, 2023, AV1 and AV2 left the preschool room and entered the great room unsupervised. It was estimated that AV1 was unsupervised for two to three minutes and AV2 was unsupervised for three to five minutes.
P1-P3 provided the following information: · On November 6, 2023, the SP and P2 worked in the young preschool classroom. At 4:45 p.m. P2 told the SP that s/he was leaving the classroom. The SP had ten children, including AV1 and AV2, remaining in the classroom. P2 said that when s/he left, AV1 was standing by the window looking into the older toddler classroom and AV2 was playing with the Daily Commitment Cards by the classroom door. The SP was reading a story on the group time rug. The SP was facing the children and the corner of the classroom and behind the SP’s back was AV1. · P2 left the classroom and went to another classroom. In the meantime, P3 was working in the older toddler room and saw AV1 at the classroom door. P3 went to the door, opened the door, and AV1 walked into the older toddler classroom and P3 then saw AV2 in the great room. · P3 immediately returned AV1 to the preschool room by opening the preschool door and AV1 walked into the classroom. P3 did not speak with the SP because s/he was reading a story to the children on the group rug and said that s/he did not think the SP was aware that AV1 and AV2 had left the classroom. · P3 then saw P2 who had just come out of another classroom. P3 told P2 that AV1 and AV2 left the classroom and were in the great room. P2 got AV2 who was still in the great room and brought AV2 back to the preschool classroom. P2 told the SP that AV1 and AV2 were “out in the hallway” and the SP said that s/he “did not know.” P2 and P3 said that AV1 and AV2 were both happy when P2 and P3 found them prior to returning to their classroom. · P2 viewed the video footage and determined that AV1 and AV2 were unsupervised for approximately two minutes. P2 said that there was no video footage of the preschool door and therefore, was not able to determine if a family member opened the door and AV1 and AV2 followed them out or if AV1 or AV2 opened the door by themselves and left the classroom. · P2 said that from the group rug a person could not see the classroom door and in order to do so a staff person would need to stand up and walk over towards the door. · AV2 did not typically participate in group activities and often walked around the classroom. AV2 had attempted to leave the classroom before but P2 had always been able to stop and redirect AV2. · P1 and P2 had no prior concerns with the SP’s supervision of the children. · P1 and P2 said that AV1 and AV2 were not able to open the great room gates so would not be able to leave the building. Video from the preschool classroom was 7 minutes and 54 seconds long and video from the great room and was 5 minutes and 24 seconds long. (Note: Video from the great room was blurry but AV1, AV2, and parents were seen moving through the room and identified by the color of their clothing. The views from either camera did not include the classroom doors.) · The classroom video begins at 16:42:49 with AV1 was standing at and looking into the older toddler classroom, the SP was sitting on a chair reading a book to a group of children, and P2 was sitting at a table working. A parent and his/her child were at the cubbies, and AV2 walked near the cubbies from the hallway leading to the door. · Between the opening and 16:45:36, the SP continued reading to the group of children with his/her back to classroom. AV1 remained by the window next to the older toddler room and AV2 was walking around the classroom and near the cubbies. Two parents arrived to pick up their respective children and P2 remained working but at times got up from the table. · At 16:45, P2 walked to the hallway/door followed by AV2 and they were both out of view of the camera. At 16:45:43, P2 walked through the great room. · At 16:46:02, AV1 walked to the hallway/door and were out of view of the camera. The SP quickly glanced over his/her shoulder and went back to reading stories. The two parents remained at the cubbies with their respective children. · Between 16:46:40 to 16:46:56, both parents leave to the hallway/door and out of view of the classroom followed by AV1. During this time AV1 and AV2 are seen at times in view of the camera. · At 16:47:08, AV1 and AV2 are in the hallway/door and out of view of the camera as the SP continued reading. · Between 16:47:14 and 16:47:23, parents came into the great room leaving with their children and/or arriving to pick their children up. At 16:47:53, a child size shadow (likely AV2) appeared to come from the classroom area into the great room and past the play structure. AV2 moved throughout the great room play equipment. · At 16:48:18, another child size shadow (likely AV1) came into view in the great room and went into the play structure. As AV2 was running around the great room an adult came into and then out of view. · At 16:48:25, the SP looked towards the hallway/door but remained seated and continued to read. · At 16:48:38, AV1 walked out of the play structure and went off camera as AV2 continued to run throughout the room. · At 16:49:08, a parent arrived in the classroom and the SP turned and saw them walking in. During this time, through the toddler window, AV1 was seen running in the older toddler room. At 16:49:29, AV1, who was still in the toddler room, walked out of view of the camera. · At 16:49:35, P2 entered great room, picked up AV2 and walked out of view of the camera. · At 16:49:48, as the parent and his/her children left the classroom, AV1 walked into view in the preschool classroom. At 16:49:57, the SP looked over his/her shoulder as AV1 stood by the cubbies. · At 16:50:12, P2 entered the classroom carrying AV2. P4 said s/he was told about the incident by P3, that P2 followed up with the P4 later but s/he was not told details of how the incident occurred. P4 had prior concerns about the level of supervision AV2 received in the classroom. AV2 was diagnosed with autism and required more supervision. There were several times when P4 picked up AV2 during group and the staff person had his/her back towards AV2. One-time AV2 was playing in the sink with water everywhere and the staff person had not noticed because his/her back was to AV2 while s/he was reading a book. The SP provided the following information: · On the afternoon of November 6, 2023, the SP worked with P2 in the preschool classroom. P2 was at a table completing paperwork and the SP was reading a story to a group of children at the group time rug. P2 left the classroom when there were only ten children (including AV1 and AV2) left in the classroom. · The SP was facing the corner of the room while reading a story and his/her back was towards AV1 and AV2. The last time the SP saw AV1 and AV2 they were both at the window where they could see into the older toddler classroom. · The SP was unaware that AV1 and AV2 had left the room until P2 brought them back. The SP thought AV1 and AV2 were unsupervised for about 1 minute. · The SP said that there was a parent in the classroom at approximately 4:30 p.m. but was not sure when the parent left the classroom. The SP “guessed” that when the parent went through the doorway that was when AV1 and AV2 left the preschool classroom. · The SP said that AV1 had a hard time being separated from P3 but had never left the room before. · The SP said that AV2 was “nonverbal” and autistic and would wander around the class during group time. The SP was told that AV2 had tried to get out of the doors before but was unsuccessful. · The SP said that s/he was unaware of any accommodations for AV2 but said that someone needed to be with AV2 all the time. The facility’s Safety and Supervision Policy stated that all children must be within sight and hearing at all times. Facility records showed that P1-P4 ,and the SP were trained on the facility’s Safety and Supervision policy and the Reporting of Maltreatment of Minors Act. P1, P2, and the SP were also trained on AV2’s ICCPP. Relevant Rules and/or Statutes: Minnesota Statutes, section 245A.02, subdivision 18, and Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0045, subpart 1, item A, state 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 obtained showed that on November 6, 2023, AV1 and AV2 left the classroom without the SP’s knowledge or supervision which was a violation of Minnesota Statutes, section 245A.02, subdivision 18, and Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0045, subpart 1, item A. The SP and P2 were each working in the preschool classroom when P2 left the classroom because only remained. At that time, the SP was reading stories on the group rug with his/her back to AV1 and AV2. Because the doors were not visible to either camera it is unknown whether AV1 and/or AV2 left the classroom because the door was left open by a parent or if they opened the door themselves. However, AV1 and AV2 played in the great room before AV1 went to the older toddler room door. P3 saw AV1 and then AV2 and returned AV1 to the preschool classroom and P2 returned AV2 to the preschool classroom. Based on the video, AV1 and AV2 were unsupervised for between one to two minutes. 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. Although AV1 and AV2 were unsupervised in the great room for approximately two to five minutes, the great room where the AVs went to, was directly outside the classroom and designed in a manner that did not allow the AVs to leave the facility and that staff persons frequently walked through. It was determined that a nonmaltreatment mistake for the following reasons: (1) At the time of the incident, the SP was preforming job-related duties and engaged with a group of children. The classroom was set up in a manner that did not allow the SP to supervise all the classroom and at the time of the incident, the SP was actively engaged with a group of children on the carpet. (2) The SP had not previously been found responsible for a similar incident that resulted in a finding of maltreatment. (3) The SP had not previously been found responsible for a similar incident that resulted in a finding of a nonmaltreatment mistake in the past. (4) AV1 and AV2 were uninjured and did not require medical care after the incident. (5) Except for this period when the incident occurred, the facility and the SP were in compliance with licensing requirements. The nonmaltreatment mistake to AV1 and AV2 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 conducted an internal review and determined that policies and procedures were adequate and were followed at the time of the incident. The facility changed where a teacher sat at group time and now required the teacher to sit in the corner and face the classroom instead of having their back to the classroom. A child safe lock was placed on the door to prevent children from exiting the room. 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 March 6, 2024, the facility was issued a Correction Order for the violations outlined in this report and for failing to submit a background study as required. 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.
|
