|
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: 1005378-CCC (Child Care Center) Investigator(s): Van Mulheron Suspected Maltreatment Reported: It was reported that an alleged victim (AV) was left on the playground for approximately 49 seconds without two staff persons’ (SP1 and SP2) knowledge or supervision. Date of Incident(s): March 19, 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 April 3, 2024; from documentation at the facility; and through five interviews conducted with a supervisory staff person (P1), three staff persons (P2, SP1, and SP2), and the AV’s family member (FM). The AV’s enrollment form stated that at the time of the incident the AV was three years old and enrolled in the preschool program. The facility was a standalone building that had a parking lot in front of the building. To the left of the parking lot was a fenced area that included a playground and a sidewalk that went on the side of the building that had classroom doors. The fence had two gates: one that was located from the playground to the sidewalk, and one that was located from the parking lot to the sidewalk. The preschool door was approximately 28 feet from the playground gate and from the door the parking lot gate was not visible. The preschool exit door had a window located on the upper half of the door and upon entering the preschool room from the sidewalk to the right of the door were the children’s cubbies. Across the room was the classroom door into a short hallway that led into the front lobby. The facility had a camera that captured footage from of the parking lot and a camera that captured footage of the exterior preschool door and the playground. The facility used ProCare [a mobile application (app) platform used to communicate with families and streamline administrative functions]. The facility also had classroom binders that contained daily classroom attendance sheets. The FM provided the following information: · On March 19, 2024, before 5 p.m., the FM was driving in front of the facility and saw the AV and his/her classroom lined up by the facility with SP1 and SP2 getting ready to go inside. When the FM parked the car and walked to the parking lot gate, the AV was at the gate for the FM. The FM said that “[the AV] must have seen my car” as s/he pulled into the parking lot and “snuck past [SP1 and SP2].” When the FM reached the gate the rest of the AV’s class was inside, and the AV was by him/herself. · The FM said that the AV was “crying.” The FM told the AV that “it is okay” and gave the AV an umbrella that the AV had wanted that morning to help calm the AV. Because family members were not allowed to enter from the gate, the FM told the AV s/he would meet him/her in the classroom and then sent the AV toward the preschool door and the FM entered the facility through the front door. · When the FM entered the classroom, SP1 and SP2 were helping the other children. The FM walked over to SP1 and told SP1,“[The AV] is outside just so that you are aware.” SP1 was standing by the door and opened it and let in the AV. The FM said that the AV was “pretty upset” outside but “got over it quick.” · The FM said that the incident lasted less than a minute and it was “common” for the AV to run to the fence to wait for the FM when the AV saw the FM’s car. · The FM had no concerns about the incident, the teachers, or the facility. P1 and P2 and a message in the ProCare app provided the following information: · On March 19, 2024, at approximately 5 p.m., P1 was at the facility attending to other job duties. Prior to 5:30 p.m., SP1 saw P1and reported the incident to him/her. SP1 said that the FM came in and told him/her that the AV was outside and that s/he was not aware that the AV was outside. P1 said that SP1 was “mortified and “sadden” that the incident took place and took “responsibility” for the incident. · P1 and SP1 “immediately” viewed the video footage and P1 saw the following: o SP1 had two children (C1 and C2) and the AV lined up outside with him/her on the sidewalk near the preschool door. At this point, SP2 was inside the preschool classroom with the other children and the FM had pulled into the parking lot. o C1 and C2 then tried to “run off” toward the playground. SP1 stopped C1 and C2 and held their hands walking them to the preschool door. At the same time, the FM was out of his/her car, holding an umbrella, and walking to the parking lot gate. As SP1 engaged with C1 and C2, the AV ran to the gate and out of view of the preschool camera. o The FM slid an umbrella under the gate to the AV and then walked towards the entrance of the facility. At the same time, SP1 entered the preschool room with C1 and C2 and the door shut. Right after the door shut, the AV came into view of the camera holding the umbrella and went to the preschool door. The door opened and the AV went inside. P1 said that it was “49 seconds” from the time SP1 closed the door to the time SP1 opened the door and the AV was brought inside. · P1 spoke with the FM and that the FM was “calm” and told P1 “[s/he] did not think much of it” and that “[s/he] was the one talking to [the AV] that caused [the AV] to stay behind.” · A message from the FM regarding the incident from the ProCare app stated, “I’m positive [the AV] saw my car at the stop sign and ran over. I was watching them go inside [the AV] must have slipped past the teachers.” · P2 was not at the facility at the time of the incident but said that it was “common” for the AV to run to the gate or fence when s/he saw the FM in the parking lot and that the FM “sometimes” walked over and talked to the AV. SP1 provided the following information: · On March 19, 2024, at approximately 5 p.m., SP1 was on the playground with SP2. SP1 and SP2 had the children line up near the playground gate and counted the children using the attendance sheet in the classroom binder. SP1 called out the child’s name and the child saying “here.” SP1 said that there were twelve children, including the AV, in line. · SP2 then opened the gate and led the children to the preschool door. SP1 was at the end of the line and closed the gate after all the children went through and followed the children to the preschool door where the children lined up against the wall. (At this time, SP1, SP2, and all the children were on the fenced sidewalk.) · SP2 opened the classroom door, stood by the open door as nine children went inside. SP2 was standing by the open doorway while SP1 was still outside with C1, C2, and the AV when C1 and C2 tried to “leave” the line. SP1 first gave “verbal reminders” to C1 and C2 to get back inline, but C1 and C2 did not “listen” so SP1 took and held their hands to “guide” them inside. Before reaching the door, C1 went “limp” and lay on the ground. SP1 lifted C1, held C1, and brought C1 inside the door. SP1 then went back out and “helped” C2 get inside the classroom. SP1 said s/he did not see any other children outside and “assumed” that the AV had entered the preschool classroom. · SP1 went inside the room with C2 and shut the door when the FM entered the room. SP2 was helping the other children hang up their outdoor gear. The FM came to SP1, who was near the door, and said that “the [AV] was still outside.” SP1 turned around, opened the door, and saw the AV standing outside holding an umbrella. · SP1 “apologized” to the FM who said, “It’s ok. I saw [the AV] and [s/he] must have seen me pull in because [s/he] came to me.” The FM said that s/he crossed the parking lot and handed the AV the umbrella before the s/he came in to get the AV “officially” from the facility. The AV was “teary eyed” when SP1 opened the door and immediately went to the FM. · SP1 said that if the preschool class was on the playground, it was “very common” for the AV to see the FM’s car pull into the parking lot and run to the gate to greet the FM. · SP1 said that s/he “normally” completed a final name to face count when s/he entered the classroom from the playground but had not yet done so because the FM entered the classroom and it “threw me off.” · At approximately 5:30 p.m., SP1 notified P1 about the incident and they watched the video from the playground. SP1 provided information regarding the video that was consistent with the information provided by P1. SP2 provided the following information: · On the day of the incident, in the afternoon, SP1, SP2 and ten children, including the AV, were on the playground. SP1 and SP2 lined the children, and each counted the children which “matched” the number on the attendance sheet in the binder. · SP1 and SP2 then walked the children through the playground gate and they lined up against the wall by the preschool door. SP1 and SP2 had the children check their shoes for rocks. SP2 then took eight children inside the classroom and SP1 stayed outside with the AV and another child (SP1 could not remember the name of the child) who was having “a fit.” SP2 stayed near the door in case SP1 “needed help.” · SP2 was directing children in the classroom to wash their hands and hang up their coats when SP1 entered the classroom with the other child. SP2 did not realize that the AV was not in the room. As soon as SP1 came into the classroom the FM entered the room and spoke with SP1. · SP2 did not hear the conversation between SP1 and the FM and continued to help the children hang up their coats. SP2 did not know that the AV was left outside until the next day when P1 told him/her. SP2 said that at the time of the incident, SP1 and SP2 only completed a head count at the playground and had not completed a name to face count before the FM entered the classroom. The facility provided three time-stamped pictures taken from their video cameras. Due to technical difficulties the facility was not able to provide video footage. (Note: The time stamp on the pictures were an hour behind and the times below were changed to reflect the correct time of the images.) · At 16:59:26 p.m., the FM walked across the parking lot to the playground holding an umbrella. · At 16:59:27 p.m., the AV was out of view of the cameras. · At 17:00:16 p.m., the preschool exit door was open, and the AV was at the door folding an umbrella. The facility’s Supervision Policy and Risk Reduction Plan stated, “Children should be supervised by sight and sound at all times,” staff persons “ should be aware of how many children are in their care and where all the children are, at all times,” and staff persons are to use “name to face attendance for each transition of children when leaving a room/new physical area … when coming inside.” Facility personnel files show that P1, P2, SP1, and SP2 were trained on the facility’s Supervision Policy, Risk Reduction Plan, and the Reporting of Maltreatment of Minors 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, 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 March 19, 2024, at approximately 5 p.m., SP1, SP2, and 12 children, including the AV were on the playground. SP1 and SP2 completed a “count” of the children and then SP2 led the children through the playground gate to the preschool door. SP1 was at the end of the line and closed the gate. SP2 opened the preschool door, and nine children went inside while SP1 was outside with the AV and “helped” C1 and C2 to get inside. SP1 brought C1 and C2 inside the classroom and “assumed” that the AV had already entered the classroom. SP2 was helping the children put away winter clothing when the FM came into the room and told SP1 that “the [AV] was still outside.” SP1 opened the door, and the AV was outside the door holding and umbrella. The FM, P1, and SP1 provided consistent information that the AV saw the FM pull into the parking lot and the AV walked to the parking lot gate when SP1 was “helping” C1 and C2. The FM met the AV at the entrance gate and gave the AV an umbrella and sent the AV back to the preschool door. SP1 had just closed the door and had not completed the name to face count when the FM entered the classroom. The AV was without supervision of SP1 and SP2 for “49 seconds” which 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 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 and knowledge for 49 seconds it was determined that a nonmaltreatment mistake for the following reasons: (1) At the time of the incident, SP1 and SP2 were performing job-related duties and were transitioning the children from the playground into the classroom. SP1 and SP2 completed a “count” on the playground and the AV was in line outside the preschool door. SP1 was helping C1 and C2 get into the classroom, while SP2 was at the classroom door supervising the children inside the classroom, when the AV saw the FM and walked away from the group to the parking lot gate to see the FM and was out of site of the preschool door. SP1 and SP2 had not yet had the opportunity to count the children prior to the FM entering the classroom and telling them the AV was outside. (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, 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 at the time of the incident. Staff persons were retrained on the facility’s Supervision Policy. 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 June 12, 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.
|
