|
June 27, 2024 Jenna Lofquist, Authorized Agent Lil' Explorers Childcare of Rogers 8800 N Gainey Center Dr., Ste. 300 Scottsdale, AZ 85258-2165 License Number: 1113171 (Child Care Ctr) Program Location: 21830 S Diamond Lake Rd, Rogers, MN 55374-4641 Report Number: 202303788 Dear Jenna Lofquist: The Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS), Division of Licensing, received your request for reconsideration of Citations 1 and 2 from the Correction Order issued by DHS on January 31, 2024. You did not request reconsideration of any other citations, therefore, those citations are final and not subject to review. SUMMARY OF CITATIONS AND RECONSIDERATION DETERMINATION: Citation 1. The program violated the behavior guidance policy prohibiting certain disciplinary actions. On May 3, 2023, a staff person (SP) interacted with an alleged victim (AV) in a rough manner by forcing food into the AV’s mouth, grabbing and holding the AV by one arm, lifting the AV off of the floor, and physically restraining the AV. The AV was not a danger to him/herself or others. As a result of the interaction the AV sustained red marks that turned to bruises. (PreCombo: Preschool classroom) Applicable Law. Under Minnesota Rule 9503.0055, subpart 3, items A and F, a license holder must have and enforce a policy that prohibits a staff person from subjecting a child to corporal punishment (including rough handling of a child), and from using physical restraint against a child, other than to physically hold a child when containment is necessary to protect a child or others from harm. Your Response. You challenge the citation, arguing there is no evidence that the alleged conduct occurred. Reconsideration Determination. DHS conducted an administrative reconsideration for maltreatment report number 202303788, which involved a full review of the available record. Following the reconsideration process, DHS concluded there is preponderant evidence to affirm the following facts. On May 3, 2023, the AV was not complying with the SP’s directions to eat his/her lunch. In response, the SP grabbed the AV’s arm to remove him/her from the table. When the AV struggled against being grabbed, the SP lifted the AV by his/her armpit area and carried him/her to a corner of the classroom, away from the rest of his/her classmates. The SP also brought the AV’s spoon to the corner. While in the corner, the SP physically kept the AV to the spot, and used the spoon to feed the AV, who was unwilling and expressing distress about the situation. DHS affirmed that the above-described conduct violated Rule 9503.0055, subparts 3 and 4 (prohibitions against corporal punishment, and unwarranted separation and physical restraint of a child) and rose to the level of neglect and physical abuse of a minor under Minnesota Statutes, section 260E.03, subdivision 15, paragraph (a), and subdivision 18, paragraph (a). DHS determined upon review, however, that there is insufficient evidence to support that the AV suffered bruises or other physical injuries due to the SP’s conduct. But while the finding on the issue of injuries was changed, that did not impact the underlying determinations regarding the rule violations and maltreatment. DHS’s decisions made upon administrative reconsideration are explained in further detail in the Amended Investigation Memorandum. Citation 1 is affirmed. Citation 2. The program violated the behavior guidance policy for separation: · Children who were being separated from the group did not remain in an unenclosed part of the classroom within continuous sight and hearing of a program person; and · Children were separated when their behavior did not threaten the well being of the child or other children in the program. On May 3, 2023, the AV who was not a danger to him/herself or other was separated from the group. (Precombo: Preschool classroom) Applicable Law. Under Minnesota Rule 9503.0055, subpart 4, no child may be separated from the group unless the license holder has tried less intrusive methods of guiding the child’s behavior, which has been ineffective and the child’s behavior threatens the well being of the child or other children in the center. A child who requires separation from the group must remain within an unenclosed part of the classroom where the child can be continuously seen and heard by a program staff person. When separation from the group is used as a behavior guidance technique, the child’s return to the group must be contingent on the child’s stopping or bringing under control the behavior that precipitated the separation, and the child must be returned to the group as soon as the behavior that precipitated the separation abates or stops. Your Response. You challenge the citation, arguing the child was separated to prevent him/her from kicking or otherwise harming his/her classmates, and that, while the child was separated, s/he was kept in the same room in an unenclosed area. Reconsideration Determination. Near the beginning of the video footage of the incident, the SP is sitting next to the AV at a table. The AV and the SP are seated near the head of the table, and on either side of them are two classmates sitting across from each other. The SP is seen trying to get the AV to eat some food from his/her plate, while the AV refuses. After about a minute of this interaction, the SP grabs the AV’s right hand/forearm area, then carries him/her to a corner of the room that is out of the camera’s view and away from the rest of the class. In those moments prior to being removed from the table, the AV is not seen kicking or hitting anyone. the AV’s legs are obscured under the table, but the classmates sitting adjacent to him/her do not exhibit any physical signs or reactions of being kicked or hit. In fact, one classmate sitting on the AV’s right side is seen continuously swinging his/her legs under the table, encroaching the space of the classmate sitting across, but no staff persons appear to notice or redirect him/her. In all, the video footage does not support the program’s assertion that the AV’s behavior threatened the well being of others in the classroom, and therefore his/her separation was warranted. It appears accurate that the AV was removed to an unenclosed part of the classroom, in the presence of the SP, but that does not mitigate the fact that the separation was inappropriate from the beginning. Citation 2 is affirmed. Disposition: The Commissioner has reviewed the relevant laws and all of the information you submitted in response to the Correction Order. Citations 1 and 2 are affirmed. This is a final agency decision. Previously Ordered Corrective Action: In the Correction Order issued on January 31, 2024, you were ordered to correct the violations cited, and submit documentation of such action to your licensor. A request for reconsideration does not stay any provisions or requirements of the correction order. Minnesota Statutes, 245A.06, subdivision 2, paragraph (a). If you have not done so already, please immediately comply with the previously ordered corrective actions for all uncontested and affirmed violations. The Commissioner appreciates your response and encourages you to continue to work cooperatively with your licensor to ensure the safety and well-being of the children you serve. Sincerely,
So Yeon Woo-Bockman, Attorney Legal Counsel’s Office Office of Inspector General
|
