|
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: 810015-CCC (Child Care Center) Investigator(s): Van Mulheron Suspected Maltreatment Reported: It was reported that an alleged victim (AV) was left in a school-age room without two staff persons’ (SP1 and SP2) knowledge or supervision for approximately two to three minutes. Date of Incident(s): February 29, 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 7, 2024; from documentation at the facility; and through five interviews conducted with a supervisory staff person (P1), two staff persons (SP1 and SP2), the AV’s family member (FM), and a community person (CP) that provided one on one services to students at the facility. This investigator interviewed the AV, but the AV did not provide any information relevant to the investigation. The AV was four years old at the time of the incident and was enrolled in the preschool B classroom. The facility had multiple classrooms that included preschool classrooms A and B, and a school age classroom. The preschool A and B classrooms were on opposite sides of the hallway and the school age room was connected to preschool A via a door in the classrooms. The school age room also had a door that led onto the preschool playground and door that led to the hallway. Inside the school age classroom on one wall were a row of lockers and a dramatic play area that had a dresser next to the wall. The facility had a video camera in the school age classroom that provided recorded footage. The FM stated that the AV told him/her that s/he was hiding and thought it was “funny.” The FM had no prior concerns about the facility and no concerns about how the facility handled the incident and the AV “loves” attending the facility. The CP said that on February 29, 2024, s/he was in the school age classroom helping a student (S). The CP sat at the round table near the exit door when the preschool B classroom came inside from the playground. The children lined up at the lockers and then left with a staff person (later determined to be SP2) while two other children and SP1 walked into the preschool A classroom. The CP said that “just after [SP1] left,” the CP heard a “rustling” noise, looked around and saw the AV “hiding” in a corner. The AV walked over to the CP who brought the AV to the preschool A classroom and handed the AV to SP1. SP1 was “surprised” and asked the AV, “Why are you in the school age room?” The AV replied, “I was hiding.” The CP said that the AV did not look “upset” and was not crying. P1 provided the following information: · On the morning of February 29, 2024, the AV was left in the school age room without SP1’s and SP2’s supervision or knowledge and the CP found the AV and returned the AV to SP1 in the preschool A classroom. · P1 watched video footage of the incident from the school age classroom and of the hallway. (Note: P1 was not able to provide this investigator with the hallway footage.) P1 said that in the video footage SP1 and SP2 had 17b children. As the preschool B class entered the school age classroom from the playground, the AV also entered and hid behind a dresser in a dramatic play area. SP1 and SP2 lined the children up along the lockers. P1 could not tell if a name-to-face was conducted, but SP2 took 14 children into the hallway towards the preschool B classroom. SP1 then took two children to the preschool A classroom through the connecting school age door. In the hallway video SP2 stopped at the preschool B door and counted children and then realized that the AV was missing. SP2 was seen “counting” the children “a bunch of times” and was seen pointing to children as s/he counted. At this time, via the school age classroom video, the AV “popped [his/her] head out” from behind the dresser and the CP saw him/her, the AV walked over to the CP who brought the AV to the connecting preschool A door and to SP1. · P1 said that SP1 and SP2 told him/her different accounts of how/when name-to-face was completed. SP2 said that SP1 helped line up the children but only SP2 completed the name-to-face and s/he saw the AV in line and that SP1 did not do a name-to-face count. SP1 told P1 that s/he helped line the children up but only counted the children before s/he took two children over to the preschool A classroom. P1 was “unsure” if SP1 and SP2 communicated with each other before they left the classroom. · P1 said that prior to this incident s/he had no concerns about SP1 or SP2, including their supervision of children. Video footage of the incident from the school age classroom was 4 minutes and 54 seconds long and provided the following information: · At 9:36:58 a.m., the CP sat at a table near the exit door with the S. · From 9:37:07 to 9:41:59 a.m., the preschool B classroom entered the school age classroom with 17 children. o From 9:37:17 to 9:37:53 a.m., eight children, including the AV, entered the school age classroom. o At 9:37:40 a.m., eight additional children enter the school age classroom followed by SP2. SP2 held a clipboard and a backpack. The AV walked from the group and hid behind a dresser out of view of the camera. o At 9:38:48 a.m., one other child entered the classroom followed by SP1. SP1 held the rope line and walked to the lockers. o At 9:39:17 a.m., there were 15 children lined up at the lockers and one child stood by SP1. SP1 handed the rope line to one preschool student and straightened the line of children. o At 9:39:55 a.m., SP1 stood by the school age door and watched the preschool B children exit into the hallway with SP2. SP1 kept two children with him/her and walked towards the connecting door to preschool A. o At 9:40:22 a.m., SP1 was at the connecting preschool A door, looked backed toward the classroom door, saw a student at the school age door, and waved at him/her to join the rest of the class in the hallway. SP1 went into the preschool A classroom with two children. o At 9:40:47 a.m., the AV walked out from behind the dresser and into view of the camera and then went behind the dresser again. o From 9:41:16 to 9:41:59 a.m., the AV walked out from behind the dresser, the CP saw him/her, and the AV walked over to the CP. The CP stood and walked to the preschool A door and opened the door. The door remained open, but the CP and SP1 were out of view. The AV then pointed towards the dresser. SP1 and SP2 provided the following information: · SP1 and SP2 provided consistent information that on the morning of February 29, 2024, 17 children, including ( the AV, was one of the children) from the preschool B classroom lined up on the playground outside the school age classroom and SP1 and SP2 each completed a name to face count prior to entering the school age classroom. After the children entered the classroom, the children lined up against the lockers. The CP was in the school age room working with the S at a table near the playground door. · SP2 entered the classroom before SP1 and directed the students to line up at the lockers. SP2 said that once the children were standing by the lockers, s/he completed a name-to-face count while standing by the school age door. SP2 called out the names and SP1 confirmed that each child was in line. SP2 called the AV’s name and SP1 replied, “[s/he] is here, [s/he] is here.” SP2 thought s/he took 15 children out of the school age classroom and walked down the hall to the preschool B classroom while SP1 took two children to the connecting school age/preschool A door and went into preschool A to remove their winter clothing. Once the children had removed their winter gear SP1 and the two children were to rejoin the preschool B classroom. · SP2 said that when s/he arrived at the preschool B doorway s/he stopped and conducted another name-to-face count of the children before they entered the classroom. SP2 called out the AV’s name but did not “see” the AV. The SP recounted the children, and when s/he had 14 children s/he “realized” that s/he was missing the AV. SP2 stood by the preschool B’s classroom door and looked into the preschool A classroom and “yelled” to SP1, “I’m missing a child. [The AV] was missing,” then s/he saw the AV standing next to SP1. SP2 said that it was “a blink of an eye” and it was about “20 seconds” from the time s/he left the school age classroom until s/he completed the name-face-transition at the preschool B door. · SP1 said that when the children were lined up at the lockers s/he and SP2 completed a name-to-face check. SP1 gave each child a ring on the walking rope to hold, then SP1 and SP2 completed a “call out” for the name-to-face. When SP1 and SP2 called out the AV’s name they heard the AV say “here” and saw the AV’s face in line. Then they counted the children one more time before leaving the classroom. SP1 kept two children with him/her and waited for SP2 and the rest of the children to leave the room. SP1 then took the two children into the preschool A classroom through the connecting door. (Note: In the video footage the SP handed the rope line to one child to hold and at no time was the AV near the lockers or part of the line of children at the lockers.) · SP1 said that when SP1 was in the preschool A classroom s/he heard SP2 called out and ask, “How many kids do you have?” SP1 said, “Two,” and then SP2 asked, “Have you seen [the AV]?” SP1 replied, “No,” and walked to the door that connected to the school age classroom. As SP1 was about to open the door, the CP opened the door and said, “One was hiding,” and the AV was with the CP. The AV was “giggling” and “smiling.” SP1 asked the AV, “What were you doing in school age?” The AV pointed to the dresser and replied, “I was hiding.” SP1 then took the AV and went to the preschool B classroom. SP1 said that it had been “was less than a minute” since s/he came into the preschool A classroom. · SP1 and SP2, both spoke with the AV about staying in line and that it was “not safe” to leave the line. In addition, since the incident the AV attempted to hide from SP1 and SP2 again, but SP1 and SP2 had completed additional name-to-face counts to ensure proper attendance. · SP1 and SP2 believed that the AV was safe in the school age classroom because there were no hazards, no broken toys, and the exit door was locked. The facility used a Name-to-Face form. The form had rows for each student’s name and columns that listed the place the classroom was transitioning to. Staff persons were to place a check mark in the child’s row to confirm the child was in line before leaving the classroom and them repeated the process when the class arrived at their destination. The name-to-face form for February 29, 2024, showed that the AV was checked in as being in line prior to leaving the school age classroom. The facility’s Safety and Supervision policy stated that “all children must be within sight and sound at all times.” The facility’s Risk Reduction Plan stated that, “When transition [sic] from one area to another, children will form a line using a walking rope. Staff will call the children by name to hold on to the walking rope. Staff will use face to name every time the rope is used. One staff will be at the front of the line and one staff will be at the back of the line. Staff will count the number of children transitioning to ensure all children are present.” 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: On February 29, 2024, 17 children from the preschool B classroom entered the school age classroom with SP1 and SP2 from the playground. SP1 and SP2 provided consistent information that a name to face count was completed outside prior to entering the school age classroom and that the AV was in line and entered the school age classroom. When the children got into the school age room, SP1 and SP2 had the children line up along the lockers but, the AV hid behind the dresser in the dramatic play area unseen by SP1 and SP1. SP1 and SP2 each gave different accounts of how name-to-face was completed prior to leaving the school age classroom but both accounts had the AV in line and accounted for despite the video that showed the AV was never in the line by the lockers. Approximately one and a half minutes after SP1, SP2, and the children left the classroom, the AV came out from behind the dresser and was seen by the CP who returned the AV to the preschool A classroom and gave the AV to SP1. The AV was in the school age room without SP1’s and SP2’s knowledge and supervision for approximately one and a half minutes which was a violation of Minnesota Statutes, section 245A.02, subdivision 18, and Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0045. subpart 1, item A. In addition, because the CP was not a staff person or have a background study completed through the Department of Human Services, the CP’s presence in the classroom did not provide the AV supervision in accordance with the statute. 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 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. Although the AV was without SP1’s and SP2’s supervision for approximately one and a half minutes it was determined that a nonmaltreatment mistake for the following reasons: (1) At the time of the incident, SP1 and SP2 were preforming job-related duties and were transitioning the other children to their classrooms. Although completed incorrectly, SP1 and SP2 each stated they counted the children prior to leaving the school age room. SP2 stated that s/he counted the children when they arrived to the preschool B room and discovered that the AV was missing and s/he immediately notified SP1 who was on his/her way back to the school age room when the CP returned the AV. (2) SP1 and SP2 had not previously been found responsible for a similar incident that resulted in a finding of maltreatment. (3) SP1 and SP2 had 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) Except for this period when the incident occurred, the facility and SP1 and SP2 were in compliance with licensing requirements. The nonmaltreatment mistake to the AV by SP1 and 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 found that their policies and procedures were adequate but not followed. The facility completed training for all staff persons on the facility’s Supervision Policy and the proper steps of the name-to-face procedure. Action Taken by Department of Human Services, Office of Inspector General: SP1 and SP2 were not determined as a perpetrator 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 was 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 May 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.
|
