|
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: 1011981-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 preschool room for approximately five minutes. Date of Incident(s): March 18, 2024 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 March 27, 2024; from documentation at the facility; and through four interviews conducted with a supervisory staff person (P1), two facility staff persons (P2 and the SP), and the AV’s family member (FM). According to the AV’s enrollment information, the AV was three years old and enrolled in the preschool B room at the time of the incident. The facility had a preschool A and preschool B room. Each room had a door that led outside to a playground. Consistent information was provided that on the day of the incident, P2 worked in the preschool A room and the SP worked in the preschool B room. According to the facility’s Child Supervision Record (CSR), on March 18, 2024, at 4:50 p.m., P2 signed out for the day and the SP did name to face of ten children including the AV during the “transition.” In the “depart time” column, the SP wrote down 4:58 p.m. for the time the AV left the facility. P2 provided the following information: · On March 18, 2024, at approximately 5 p.m., the SP had ten children in the preschool A room, including the AV, getting ready to go outside to the playground. P2 cleaned around the facility prior to leaving for the day. · Approximately five to ten minutes later, P2 went to the preschool A room to get a mop when s/he saw the AV standing at the window toward the playground. P2 went over to the AV, took his/her hand, and walked him/her outside. The AV was crying but did not have any injuries. · When P2 and the AV got to the SP, P2 told the SP that the AV was alone in the preschool A room. The SP looked at the CRS and said s/he did not know how that happened. P2 then went inside and told P1 about the incident. P1 stated on March 18, 2024, at approximately 5 p.m., while in the preschool B room, P2 came to P1 and said that s/he had found the AV alone in the preschool A room. The AV was near the door to the playground and the SP and the other children were outside on the playground. P2 then went outside to supervise the children while the SP and P1 went to P1’s office to talk. The SP said that s/he did name to face of each child. The children that already left for the day were not highlighted on the CRS and the SP “must have skipped” over the AV’s name but checked it off. The SP did not do a visual check around the room and did not do a name to face once they were outside. P1 provided verbally training to the SP on how to prevent missing a child on the CSR and also provided additional highlighters for the SP. By that time, the AV had been picked up and went home for the day, so P1 did not see the AV. The SP provided the following information: · On the day of the incident, the SP had between eight and ten children, including the AV, dressed to go outside. The children, including the AV, went and sat at tables. The SP stood by the door to the playground, had the CSR, and completed a name to face. The SP “must have missed [the AV’s] name” but read the one under the AV’s then checked off the box that was next to the AV’s name. The SP usually highlighted the name of the child when s/he said their names out loud but on the day of the incident did not have a highlighter. The SP usually looked around the room prior to going outside but did not this day because one of the other children ran outside toward the basketball area so the SP followed that child and told the children to line up along the wall outside. · The SP used the CSR to do a second name to face count and was in the process of doing so when P2 brought the AV outside and told the SP that the AV was alone inside. The AV was crying but did not have any injuries. The SP stated that approximately five minutes passed between the time s/he went outside until the time that P2 brought the AV outside. The FM stated on the day of the incident, the FM had already picked up the AV when shortly after, P1 called the FM and notified him/her about the incident. The AV was “fine” and did not have any marks or injuries. The FM did not have previous concerns with the facility. According to the Child Supervision Record (CSR) training, the CSR was used to track where children and staff persons were throughout the day. Name to face was used to account for children and staff persons compared each child’s name on the CSR to his/her face confirming each child was present. The name to face check was documented on the CSR during routine checks and transitions throughout the day. Transitions between locations, such as classrooms to outside areas, were the “most vulnerable” times for staff persons to leave a child unattended. Staff persons used the CSR “as a tool to promote safe transitions” and “decrease the chance of an adverse incident.”
According to the facility’s Risk Reduction Plan, all staff persons used the CSR which assisted with keeping accurate count of all children physically in attendance; provided program specific attendance; and established accountability. Facility documentation showed that the SP and other staff persons interviewed for this investigation received training on the facility’s Child Supervision Record (CSR) training, the facility’s Risk Reduction Plan, 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 March 18, 2024, the AV was left in the preschool room for approximately five minutes without the knowledge or supervision of a staff person which was inconsistent with the facility’s Child Supervision Record (CSR) training and Risk Reduction Plan; 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 and the children left the classroom, and s/he was supervising children on the playground. Although the SP was not aware that the AV was left in the preschool room, the SP’s actions or conduct were determined to be a nonmaltreatment mistake for the following reasons: (1) The SP stated s/he completed a name to face and documented it on the CSR prior to leaving the classroom. Another child ran out of the room to the playground and the SP followed and was in the process of doing another name to face when P2 brought the AV outside. (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 by the staff person. P1 provided the SP with additional verbal training on the CSR. 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 April 17, 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.
|
