|
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: 1110078-CCC (Child Care Center) Investigator(s): Lindsay Arth/Alice Percy 651-431-6537 Suspected Maltreatment Reported: It was reported that a staff person (SP) slapped an alleged victim (AV). Date of Incident(s): February 15, 2024 Nature of Alleged Maltreatment Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 260E.03, subdivision 18, paragraph (a), and subdivision 23, paragraph (a): "Physical abuse" means any physical injury, mental injury, or threatened injury, inflicted by a person responsible for the child's care on a child other than by accidental means. "Threatened injury" means a statement, overt act, condition, or status that represents a substantial risk of physical or sexual abuse or mental injury. Summary of Findings: Pertinent information was obtained during a site visit conducted on March 21, 2024; from documentation at the facility; and through five interviews conducted with two facility staff persons (P1 and P2), an administrative staff person (P3) who was also the AV’s family member, the SP, and another one of the AV’s family members (FM). The AV was two years old and enrolled in the toddler classroom at the time of the incident. P1, P2, P3, and the facility’s documentation provided the following information: · On February 15, 2024, P1, P2, and the SP worked in the toddler classroom with nine children. At some point during the morning, P2 left the classroom to prepare lunch for the children. P1 and the SP took the children to play in the gym and at approximately 10 a.m., returned to the classroom. P1 sat on the floor in the carpet area to lead the children in a group activity. P1 saw the AV hit a child (C) and then saw the SP walk up to the AV and “smack” the AV across the left side of the AV’s face with his/her hand. The SP then told P1 that P3 “would have done the same thing.” P1 was approximately 12 feet away from the SP and the AV when the SP slapped the AV’s face and s/he heard the SP’s hand make contact with the AV’s face. P1 stated that the AV cried for approximately one minute until the SP hugged the AV to calm him/her, but then was “kind of just quiet.” · P1 saw red marks on the left side of the AV’s face that looked like a “fingerprint handprint,” but not a “full on handprint.” P1 believed the marks on the AV’s face lasted “maybe 30 minutes” before they faded away. The SP sat on the carpet to proceed with the group activity and saw the mark on the AV’s face. P1 stated that the SP “kind of looked at [his/her] hand and realized what [s/he] had done” and called the AV over to him/her and asked if the C hit the AV’s face. P1 stated that s/he was “shocked” at the SP’s comment and left the classroom to tell P2 about the incident. · P1 stated that a short time after s/he told P2 about the incident, P2 entered the toddler classroom. The mark on the AV’s face “was slowly going away” so P1 believed that P2 did not see the mark on the AV’s face that P1 initially saw. P2 stated that when s/he entered the classroom, the AV was still upset and “kind of whining.” P2 asked the AV what was wrong and the AV immediately went to P2, who picked him/her up. The AV wanted a piece of candy and P2 said, “Okay.” The SP told P2 that P2 “gave [the AV] everything [s/he] wants” and the AV was “spoiled,” which was why the AV “acted like [s/he] did.” P2 took the AV to the bathroom and checked the AV’s face for marks. P2 stated that the left side of the AV’s face was pink, but s/he did not see any finger marks on the AV’s face. P2 asked the AV what happened, but the AV only wrapped his/her arms around P2’s neck and did not say anything. P2 stated that s/he kept the AV close to him/her for the rest of the day. · P2 stated that P3 was not working at the facility at the time of the incident, so P2 sent a text to P3 asking to speak to him/her when s/he returned to the facility later that day. When P3 returned to the facility, P1 and P2 told him/her about the incident. P3 told the SP that s/he did not have to work the following day. P3 stated that s/he had to “process” the incident since the AV was his/her family member. P3 contacted another administrative staff person (P4) and told him/her about the incident. P3 did not see any injury to the AV’s face and the AV did not provide any information about the incident to P3. · That evening, the SP called P2 and told P2 that s/he “might have hit [the AV] too hard.” When P2 questioned the SP about the incident, the SP told P2 that the AV hit the C, so s/he “went and hit [the AV].” When P2 asked the SP why s/he hit the AV, P2 told the SP that s/he “didn’t do anything that [P3] didn’t do.” P2 told the SP that s/he could not hit a child and ended the conversation. · P1 and P3 had no previous concerns about the SP’s interactions with the children. P2 stated that prior to the incident, the SP was sometimes “forceful” or “aggressive” with the children. At those times, P2 told the SP to take a short break. P2 was not aware of any previous incidents where the SP physically injured a child. The SP provided the following information: · The SP stated that the day of the incident was stressful for the SP because there were more than eight children in the classroom and P2 had to be out of the classroom for part of the day to prepare food for the children. After returning from the gym, the SP had the children sit on the carpet for group time while P1 stood at the counter getting a drink of water instead of helping settle the children for group time. The SP saw the C scratch the AV’s face and the AV then hit the C. The SP stated that s/he then hit the AV on the left side of the AV’s face. The AV began to cry and the SP “immediately” felt bad. The AV was not crying prior to the SP hitting the AV. The SP did not recall saying anything to the AV during the incident. There was a sound when the SP hit the AV, but the SP was unable to describe the sound. The SP saw straight red lines on the AV’s face, which the SP believed were caused by the C scratching the AV’s face. The SP stated that after the incident, they “went on with our day.” The AV was “fine” for the rest of the day. · The SP planned to tell P3 how the C scratched the AV’s face, but it was busy and s/he forgot to tell P3 or complete an incident report. That evening, s/he received a text from P3 asking the SP not to go to work the next day and telling the SP that s/he would talk to the SP later. · The SP stated that s/he should have redirected the AV away from the C and explained that s/he should not hit his/her friends. The SP believed s/he might have made a comment after the incident that P3 “would do the same thing,” but the SP had not ever seen P3 slap the AV’s face. At times, when the AV “did something” to another child, the SP saw P3 “do that thing back to [the AV].” One example was when the AV pulled a child’s hair, P3 pulled the AV’s hair. The FM stated that P3 told him/her about the incident. The FM did not see the AV until approximately 7 p.m. on the day of the incident. At that time, there were no marks on the AV’s face and the AV did not require the care of a physician. The FM had no previous concerns about the care the AV received at the facility. According to the facility’s Guidance, Protection of and Respect for Children policy, the staff persons were trained to create an environment in which respect for and protection of children was of the highest importance. The staff persons were to use only positive guidance, such as redirection, praise, and modeling of pro-social behavior. The staff persons were not to use any kind of physical discipline or corporal punishment, including hitting, pinching, pushing, biting, or grabbing a child. The staff persons were also trained not to demonstrate to a child what it “feels like” to be the victim of aggression. Facility documentation showed that P1, P2, P3, and the SP 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 Rules, part 9503.0055, subpart 3, item A, states that the license holder must have and enforce a policy that prohibits the following actions by or at the direction of a staff persons: Subjection of a child to corporal punishment, which includes, but is not limited to, rough handling, shoving, hair pulling, ear pulling, shaking, slapping, kicking, biting, pinching, hitting, and spanking. Conclusion: A. Maltreatment: On February 15, 2024, P1, P2, and the SP worked in the toddler classroom with nine children. At some point, P2 left the classroom to prepare lunch for the children. At approximately 10 a.m., P1 and the SP prepared to lead the children in a group activity. P1 and the SP each saw the AV hit the C. The SP then went to the AV and slapped the AV across the left side of the AV’s face with his/her hand. P1 and the SP provided consistent information that the slap was audible. The SP then told P1 that P3 “would have done the same thing.” After the incident, P1 and the SP each saw a red mark on the left side of the AV’s face. P1 believed the mark was caused by the SP because they were finger marks, but the SP believed the mark was caused by the C scratching the AV’s face. The red mark was visible for approximately 30 minutes. The SP’s actions of slapping the AV on the face was inconsistent with the standards of a professional caregiver in a facility licensed by the Department of Human Services; was a violation of the facility’s policies; and was a violation of Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0055, subpart 3, item A. Given that the AV was two years old and that the SP slapped the AV hard enough on the face that it was audible and possibly left a red mark, there was a preponderance of the evidence that slapping the AV on the face represented a substantial risk of physical or mental injury to the AV. It was determined that physical abuse occurred ("physical abuse" means any physical injury, mental injury, or threatened injury, inflicted by a person responsible for the child's care on a child other than by accidental means. "Threatened injury" means a statement, overt act, condition, or status that represents a substantial risk of physical or sexual abuse or mental injury). B. Responsibility pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 260E.30, subdivision 4, paragraph (a), clauses (1) and (2): When determining whether the facility or individual is the responsible party, or whether both the facility and the individual are responsible for determined maltreatment in a facility, the investigating agency shall consider at least the following mitigating factors: (1) whether the actions of the facility or the individual caregivers were according to, and followed the terms of, an erroneous physician order, prescription, individual care plan, or directive; however, this is not a mitigating factor when the facility or caregiver was responsible for the issuance of the erroneous order, prescription, individual care plan, or directive or knew or should have known of the errors and took no reasonable measures to correct the defect before administering care; (2) comparative responsibility between the facility, other caregivers, and requirements placed upon an employee, including the facility’s compliance with related regulatory standards and the adequacy of facility policies and procedures, facility training, an individual’s participation in the training, the caregiver’s supervision, and facility staffing levels and the scope of the individual employee’s authority and discretion; and (3) whether the facility or individual followed professional standards in exercising professional judgment. Facility documentation showed that the SP received training on the Reporting of Maltreatment of Minors Act and on the facility’s policies prior to the incident. The SP was responsible for maltreatment of the AV. C. Recurring and/or Serious Maltreatment: The Office of Inspector General is required to evaluate whether substantiated maltreatment by an individual meets the statutory criteria to be determined as “recurring or serious.” Individuals determined to be responsible for recurring or serious maltreatment are disqualified from providing direct contact services. Minnesota Statutes, section 245C.02, subdivision 16, states: “Recurring maltreatment” means more than one incident of maltreatment for which there is a preponderance of evidence that maltreatment occurred and that the subject was responsible for the maltreatment. Minnesota Statutes, section 245C.02, subdivision 18, states: "Serious maltreatment" means sexual abuse, maltreatment resulting in death, neglect resulting in serious injury which reasonably requires the care of a physician whether or not the care of a physician was sought, or abuse resulting in serious injury. For purposes of this definition, "care of a physician" is treatment received or ordered by a physician, physician assistant, or nurse practitioner, but does not include diagnostic testing, assessment, or observation; the application of, recommendation to use, or prescription solely for a remedy that is available over the counter without a prescription; or a prescription solely for a topical antibiotic to treat burns when there is no follow-up appointment. For purposes of this definition, "abuse resulting in serious injury" means: bruises, bites, skin laceration, or tissue damage; fractures; dislocations; evidence of internal injuries; head injuries with loss of consciousness; extensive second-degree or third-degree burns and other burns for which complications are present; extensive second-degree or third-degree frostbite and other frostbite for which complications are present; irreversible mobility or avulsion of teeth; injuries to the eyes; ingestion of foreign substances and objects that are harmful; near drowning; and heat exhaustion or sunstroke. Serious maltreatment includes neglect when it results in criminal sexual conduct against a child or vulnerable adult. It was determined that the substantiated physical abuse for which the SP was responsible did not meet statutory criteria to be determined as recurring or serious because it was a single incident and although it was likely that the SP caused the red marks on the AV’s face the marks were transitory and did not meet the definition of a serious injury. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 260E.35, subdivision 6, paragraph (c) all investigative data maintained in this report will be kept by the Department of Human Services for at least ten years after the date of the final entry in the report. 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 SP. The SP no longer worked at the facility. Action Taken by Department of Human Services, Office of Inspector General: The SP was not disqualified from providing direct care services as a result of the maltreatment determination in this report. However, the SP was notified by the Office of Inspector General that any further substantiated act of maltreatment, whether or not the act meets the criteria for “serious,” will automatically meet the criteria for “recurring” and will result in the disqualification of the SP. The determination that the SP was responsible for maltreatment is subject to appeal. In addition, on June 14, 2024, the facility received 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.
|
