|
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: 1100180-CCC (Child Care Center) Investigator(s): Lindsay Arth/Alice Percy 651-431-6537 Suspected Maltreatment Reported: It was reported that two staff persons (SP1 and SP2) left an alleged victim (AV) unsupervised in a hallway and a classroom for approximately four minutes. The AV was found by another child’s family member (CFM). Date of Incident(s): November 30, 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 two site visits conducted on January 11 and February 2, 2024; from documentation at the facility; and through six interviews conducted with three administrative staff persons (P1, P2, and P3), SP1, SP2, and the CFM. Attempts were made by telephone and mail to contact the AV’s family members (FM1 and FM2), but FM1 and FM2 did not respond to the requests for an interview. The AV was four years old and enrolled in the preschool classroom at the time of the incident. The facility was located in a long narrow one-story building and had several classrooms located on both sides of a long hallway that ran down the center of the building. The preschool classroom was located near one end of the hallway. Immediately to the right of the preschool classroom was a door that accessed a “coat hallway” that contained coat hooks and bins for small items. A door at the back of the coat hallway led outside to the facility’s playground. The preschool classroom was a long narrow classroom with a door opening to the hallway at each end of the classroom. There were coat hooks on the wall near each door. Several tables and small bookcases were placed around the classroom and contained books and toys. P1, P2, P3, SP1, SP2, the CFM, and the facility’s documentation provided the following information: · On November 30, 2023, SP1 and SP2 worked in the preschool classroom with 11 children. Neither SP1 nor SP2 were the regular staff persons for that classroom. At approximately 8:45 a.m., SP1 and SP2 lined the children up, counted them, and took them to the coat hallway so that the children could put on their coats prior to going to the playground. SP2 was at the front of the line of children and SP1 was at the end of the line. When they got to the coat hallway, SP1 and SP2 assisted some of the children with putting on their coats. At one point, the AV asked SP2 where his/her coat was and SP2 told the AV that it should be in his/her bin. While they were in the coat hallway, another child was dropped off and joined the group. SP1 stood by the door to the coat hallway and talked to the five family members who accompanied the child while SP2 was near the door leading to the playground. SP1 and SP2 then lined the children up and they went outside to the playground. · In the meantime, the CFM stated that s/he entered the preschool classroom when s/he dropped his/her child off at the facility. When s/he entered the classroom, the AV was alone in the classroom and was crying because s/he could not find his/her coat. The CFM helped the AV find his/her coat and then took the AV to the playground, where s/he told SP1 and SP2 that s/he found the AV unsupervised in their classroom. The CFM did not notice any injuries to the AV. · SP1 believed that they counted the children before they went outside, and that the AV was with the group at that time, but s/he did not count the children again once they arrived at the playground. SP1 believed the AV went back to the classroom to look for his/her coat. SP2 did not believe they counted the children prior to leaving the coat hallway and once the group got to the playground, three of the children wanted to use the bathroom, so SP1 told SP2 that s/he was taking three children back inside to the bathroom. SP2 stated that s/he then counted the children who remained on the playground. As s/he was counting the children, the CFM entered the playground with his/her child and the AV. The CFM told SP2 that s/he found the AV unsupervised in the preschool classroom. SP2 stated that the AV was not crying when the CFM brought the AV to the playground. · P1 stated that while s/he was moving toys from one classroom to another, the CFM approached P1 and told him/her that s/he found the AV unsupervised in the preschool classroom and that s/he took the AV to the playground to join the other children from his/her classroom. P1 then told P2 and P3 about the incident. P1, P2, and P3 watched the facility’s video recordings and saw the AV leave the group by walking around the family members dropping off another child and walk to his/her classroom, where s/he looked for his/her coat. When the AV did not find his/her coat, s/he cried. The CFM then entered the classroom and took the AV to the playground. P2 talked to SP1 and SP2 about the incident. P3 told FM1 and FM2 about the incident and they told P3 that the AV “can be very sneaky” and “wandered off all the time.” · SP1 stated that s/he would have counted the children when s/he returned to the playground with the three children s/he took to the bathroom so s/he would have become aware that the AV was not with the group at that time. SP2 believed that if the CFM had not brought the AV to the playground, SP2 would have realized that the AV was not with the group once s/he finished counting the children on the playground. The staff persons had a list of the children in their classroom that they used when counting the children. · After the incident, SP1 and SP2 received additional training on supervision and all of the staff persons talked about supervision at a staff meeting. Video cameras were located in the classrooms and in the hallway outside the classrooms. P1, P2, and P3 reviewed a video recording from November 30, 2023. According to P3’s notes on what was shown when s/he reviewed the facility’s video recording of the incident: · At 8:45:43 a.m., SP1 and SP2 took the children out of the preschool classroom to the coat hallway and eventually to the playground. · At 8:47:50 a.m., the AV left the coat hallway and walked back to the classroom to find his/her coat. The AV looked on both ends of the classroom, but did not find his/her coat. · At 8:51:03, the AV left the classroom and walked back to the coat hallway. Since the other children and the staff persons were no longer there, at 8:51.30 a.m., the AV returned to his/her classroom. · At 8:51:55, the CFM and his/her child entered the preschool classroom and found the AV crying. The CFM and the AV looked for the AV’s coat. (Note: It was not documented what time the CFM returned the AV to the playground.) · At 8:57 a.m., the CFM found P1 and told him/her that s/he found the AV unsupervised in his/her classroom and took him/her to the playground. A review of a portion of the video recording of the incident showed the AV walk out of the coat hallway, walk between three people standing in the hallway and then immediately enter the classroom door, which was next to the door to the coat hallway. According to the facility’s Procedures for Supervision Policy, children were to be supervised by sight and sound at all times. The staff persons were to use a name and face method for counting the children during each transition, including taking the children outside the facility. Facility documentation showed that SP1, SP2, P1, P2, and P3 each received training on the Reporting of Maltreatment of Minors Act and on the facility’s policies 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, state that “supervision” means 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; and that children are required to be supervised at all times. Conclusion: On November 30, 2023, at 8:45 a.m., SP1 and SP2 took 11 preschool children, including the AV, to the coat hallway to put on their coats to go to the playground. At approximately 8:48 a.m., the AV left the coat hallway and returned to the preschool classroom without staff persons 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 AV remained unsupervised and at approximately 8:52 a.m., the CFM entered the classroom and found the AV alone. After helping the AV find his/her coat, shortly before 8:57 a.m., the CFM took the AV to the playground, where s/he rejoined his/her group. The AV was unsupervised in the preschool classroom and coat hallway for approximately four minutes and did not sustain any injury while s/he was unsupervised. 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 the AV left the coat hallway and went into the preschool classroom where s/he was unsupervised by SP1 and SP2 for approximately four minutes, SP1’s and SP2’s actions or conduct were determined to be a nonmaltreatment mistake for the following reasons: · At the time of the incident, SP1 and SP2 were performing job-related duties as required by the child care program plan. SP1 and SP2 counted the children prior to leaving the classroom and had just gotten to the playground when three children had to use the bathroom. Once SP1 took the children to the bathroom, SP2 began counting the children when the CFM brought the AV to the playground; · SP1 and SP2 had not been determined responsible for any incident that resulted in a finding of maltreatment. · SP1 and SP2 had not been determined to have committed a nonmaltreatment mistake under this paragraph; · The AV sustained no injury during the incident; and · Except for the period when the incident occurred, the facility and SP1 and SP2 were all in compliance with all licensing requirements relevant to the incident. The nonmaltreatment mistake by SP1 and SP2 to the AV 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 the facility’s policies were adequate, but were not followed by the staff persons. After the incident, SP1 and SP2 each received additional training on the facility’s supervision policies. Action Taken by Department of Human Services, Office of Inspector General: SP1 and SP2 were not determined as perpetrators 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 is responsible might not be considered a nonmaltreatment mistake. On April 24, 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.
|
