|
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: 1049241-CCC (Child Care Center) Investigator(s): Kim Huettl Anderson kimberly.huett.anderson@state.mn.us Suspected Maltreatment Reported: It was reported that two alleged victims (AV1 and AV2) ran down a hallway and out exit doors to a sidewalk without a staff person. Date of Incident(s): April 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 May 8, 2024; from documentation at the facility; and through six interviews conducted with AV1’s family member (FM1), AV2’s family member (FM2), a facility management person (P), and facility staff persons (SP1 and SP2). The facility was located in the city’s community center; a two-story building that housed a library, several meeting rooms, a community gymnasium, and three childcare centers. Streets ran along all four sides of the community center, each with the speed limit of 30 miles per hour. The entrance door used by parents to enter the facility had a sidewalk and street that was adjacent to the community center. There were angled parking spots by the sidewalk used by the parents and other community members. The parking spots were visible through exit doors from one of the hallways of the community center. The facility occupied classrooms on the lower level of the community center and used an activity room that was a shared space with other occupants of the community center. The activity room was a corner room and had two entry doors from each hallway. AV1’s enrollment file stated that s/he was four years old and enrolled in one of the facility’s preschool classrooms. AV2’s enrollment file stated that s/he was five years old and enrolled in one of the facility’s preschool classrooms. The facility’s written documentation regarding an incident that occurred on April 18, 2024, stated that there were two staff persons (SP1 and SP2) working with seven children in the activity room. AV2 was in the hallway getting a drink of water when AV1 exited the activity room. AV1 and AV2 both ran toward the exit doors and went outside to the sidewalk. FM2 was outside the door when AV2 came outside and FM1 was arriving at the facility in his/her vehicle when AV1 was standing on the sidewalk. Both SP1 and SP2 had visual contact of AV1 and AV2 at all times. FM1 stated that on April 18, 2024, at approximately 5:45 p.m., AV1 was standing on the sidewalk outside the community center when FM1 arrived at the facility. FM1 stated that AV1 was excited to see FM1 and did not appear to be afraid. When FM1 walked AV1 back inside the building SP1 and SP2 were standing in the hallway and told FM1 that they knew that AV1 ran outside the building, but that it was against the facility’s policy to run after the children. SP1 and SP2 said they had their eyes on AV1 at all times. FM1 stated that SP1 and SP2 would not have been able to intervene in the event that something happened to AV1 while s/he was outside by him/herself. At that time, FM1 did not know how long AV1 had been outside. FM2 stated that on April 18, 2024, s/he pulled into a parking spot at the facility and sat in his/her car for a “few” minutes before s/he saw AV2 and AV1 run out of the building. FM2 got out of his/her car and went to AV2 and noticed that FM1’s vehicle was pulling into a parking spot when AV2 and FM2 went inside the facility. FM2 was surprised that neither SP1 or SP2 followed AV1 and AV2 outside because they were close to the street. A facility management person (P) stated that s/he was not at the facility at the time of the incident but received a telephone call from SP1 after the incident. According to the P, the classrooms combined together at the end of the day when there were less than ten children left in the building, in the activity room with two staff persons. The P did not know why SP1 and SP2 did not follow AV1 and AV2 out of the building but was told by SP1 and SP2 that they were trained not to chase children. The P had only been working at the facility for approximately one month so s/he reviewed the policy with SP1 and SP2 and instructed them that safety of the children was most important and that they should have followed the children outside. SP1 and SP2 provided the following information: · On April 18, 2024, SP1 and SP2 were in the activity room with nine children. AV2 asked SP2 for a drink of water and SP2 asked AV2 to wait for a few minutes because FM2 was scheduled to arrive within the next few minutes. AV2 was not happy with SP2’s response to wait and ran out one door into the hallway to the drinking fountain. SP2 typically stood by the door to block it so children did not run out of it but was not standing by it at the time AV2 ran out. SP2 followed AV2 out the door to the drinking fountain. · SP1 saw AV2 run out of the activity room so SP1 opened the other door to see where AV2 and SP2 were and saw them at the drinking fountain. SP1 held the door open and stood in the doorway and hallway while AV2 took a drink. SP1 and SP2 were both standing in the hallway waiting for AV2 who would not come back to the room and then AV1 ran out the door. · Once AV1 was in the hallway, AV1 and AV2 both ran toward the exit doors and then outside to the sidewalk. SP1 and SP2 could see them through a window of the front door and saw FM2’s vehicle parked outside the door with FM2 in his/her car. FM2 got out of the car and brought AV2 inside immediately. Approximately five seconds later, FM1 parked his/her car and was with AV1 on the sidewalk. FM1 brought AV1 inside. · SP2 stated that s/he started to run after AV1 and AV2 but SP1 told him/her not to go after AV1 and AV2 because they were not supposed to chase children when they ran away. · SP1 and SP2 each stated that they had their eyes on AV1 and AV2 at all times. SP1 did not leave the hallway because s/he could not leave the other children in the activity room, SP2 was an aide and could not be left alone with children, and the facility’s policy stated that s/he was not allowed to chase after children when they ran. The facility’s Employee Handbook: What to do if a child runs away from group stated: 1. Remain calm. 2. Call for the child to stop and come back. 3. Call the director for help or anyone extra that is in the building. 4. Call the parent to come pick the child up. 5. DO NOT CHASE. More times than not chasing a child creates a “game” and the child is likely to keep running. 6. Keep a visual on the child at all times if possible. The facility’s Parent Handbook stated that children were supervised at all times and that staff persons were responsible for the safety of the children in their care at all times. Staff persons were to be within sight and sound of children at all times. The facility’s personnel files showed that SP1 and SP2 were each trained on the facility’s Employee Handbook and the Reporting of Maltreatment of Minors Act prior to the incident. The P was trained on 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 April 18, 2024, AV1 and AV2 ran out of the building and were outside without a staff person, for approximately five seconds before their respective family members brought them inside the facility, 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 childcare 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 AV1 and AV2 left the facility without the supervision of a staff person, SP1’s and SP2’s actions or conduct were determined to be a nonmaltreatment mistake for the following reasons: (1) At the time of the incident, although SP1 or SP2 failed to follow AV1 and AV2 outside, they were following the facility policy that stated, “DO NOT CHASE. More times than not chasing a child creates a “game” and the child is likely to keep running;” and each stated that they could see AV1 and AV2 through the door when they were outside. SP1 and SP2 were performing job related duties as required by the facility’s childcare program plan; (2) SP1 and SP2 had not been determined to be responsible for a similar incident that resulted in a finding of maltreatment; (3) SP1 and SP2 had not been determined to have committed a nonmaltreatment mistake under this paragraph; (4) AV1 and AV2 were not injured as a result of the incident; (5) Except for the period when the incident occurred, the facility, SP1, and SP2 were all in compliance with licensing requirements relevant to the incident. The nonmaltreatment mistake regarding AV1 and AV2 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 determined that their policy required some adjustments when using the activity room. Facility management persons reviewed their policies and procedures with all staff persons involved in the incident. Additional training was provided to all staff persons on May 24, 2024. 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 June 20, 2024, the facility was issued a Correction Order for the violation outlined in this report and a Recommendation to review their policy on chasing children to ensure the safety of children who leave the facility without a staff person. 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.
|
