|
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: 1102085-CCC (Child Care Center) Investigator(s): Danielle Morrison 651-431-5647 Suspected Maltreatment Reported: It was reported that an alleged victim was on the playground without staff person knowledge or supervision for an undetermined amount of time. Date of Incident(s): May 7, 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 site visits conducted on May 17 and 20, 2024; from documentation at the facility; and through five interviews conducted with a supervisory staff person (P1), three facility staff persons (SP1, SP2, and P2), and the AV’s family member (FM). The AV was 21 months old and enrolled in the toddler classroom at the time of the incident. The facility was a stand alone building with four classrooms and served infant through school-aged children. At the back of the building was a playground that was enclosed with a six-foot chain-link fence. The playground was separated into a side for toddlers and a side for preschoolers and the sides were separated by a four-foot chain-link fence with a gate. The FM stated that on the day of the incident around 3:45 p.m., s/he arrived at the facility and walked in the classroom; one staff person was seated on the floor with a child in his/her lap and another staff person was standing about 10 to 15 feet from the door that led outside. The FM started gathering things at the AV’s cubby, while the staff persons called the AV’s name. The AV was not with the rest of the group, so the staff persons looked in the bathroom and then one staff person looked and saw the AV outside, so s/he went outside and brought the AV back inside. There were no other children or staff persons on the toddler playground, but there were on the preschool playground. At first the FM did not think much of it, but then the FM thought about it and the AV was outside alone while everyone else was inside. The FM said the staff persons told him/her it was just a “couple seconds”, but the FM said it looked like the staff persons and the rest of the children had been inside for “awhile.” The FM said it was probably three to five minutes from when s/he entered the classroom to when they found the AV outside.,” The facility’s Incident Report stated that on May 7, 2024, at approximately 3:40 p.m., while bringing the toddler classroom inside, a headcount was performed, but name to face was not completed. When the children came inside the AV slipped back outside. The FM was picking up at that time and a staff person turned and saw the AV was outside. SP1 provided the following information: · On an unknown date, SP1 and SP2 were outside with 12 children including the AV. They lined the children up outside and the AV was in the middle of the line. SP1 counted when the children were against the wall but did not conduct a name to face. SP1 counted as the children came through the door and said that s/he saw the AV come in through the door to come inside. · SP2 was sitting on the carpet getting toys out for the children to play with when SP1 turned around and the door closed as the FM walked into the classroom. SP1 looked around for the AV and did not see him/her. SP1 then looked outside and saw the AV on a piece of play equipment. SP1 thought the AV must have snuck underneath SP1’s arm to go back outside. · SP1 went outside to get the AV. SP1 said the AV was “perfectly fine” and came inside with SP1. The FM “laughed” and did not seem too worried about it. FM1 told SP1 that the AV was learning to open doors, and at that moment the AV opened the door to the classroom which led to the entryway and ran from the FM. After the FM and the AV left, SP1 went to find P1 to let him/her know what happened. · SP1 was trained to line the children up outside along the wall and perform name to face and then perform a headcount as the children were coming inside as well. SP1 stated that s/he “usually” counted the children once inside as well, but it was not part of the training. SP1 did not count the children that day when they came inside because SP2 was a newer staff person and SP1 had to do things by him/herself. SP1 thought the AV was without supervision for less than 90 seconds. SP2 provided the following information: · SP2 did not remember the date but stated it was his/her first time in the toddler classroom. SP2 and SP1 had 12 children and were taking them inside from the playground. SP2 said most of the children were lined up and SP1 performed a name to face and counted as the children went inside. · SP2 had 10 children on the carpet and SP1 was still at the door getting the last two children inside, which SP2 thought included the AV. SP1 propped the outside door open to grab the last child on the playground, not the AV. When SP1 came inside and the door was shut, SP1 walked away from the door toward the snack table. At that time, the FM came inside the classroom. SP2 knew the AV was not in his/her group on the carpet so s/he let SP1 know. SP1 looked around the classroom and in the bathroom, but did not see the AV. SP1 then looked outside and saw the AV by a piece of play equipment. SP1 went outside to the AV brought him/her back inside. · The FM “laughed” and stated that the AV had been trying to open doors. The AV then opened the classroom door to the entryway and “bolted” out of the door. After the AV and the FM left, SP1 went to tell P1 what happened. SP2 said SP1 was “really shaken up” about what happened. · SP2 was trained to line the children up and do name to face count, do a head count as the children came inside, and then do name to face count again. SP2 did not know all of the children, so SP1 performed name to face count while SP2 counted outside. SP2 said that SP1 did not do name to face when they came in, but SP2 saw SP1 pointing at children. SP2 thought the AV was outside without supervision for 15 to 25 seconds. SP2 said the two preschool classrooms were still outside on their playground. P1 provided the following information: · On May 7, 2024, P1 was in the entryway when the AV ran out of the toddler classroom with the FM behind him/her. P1 and the FM had a brief conversation and the FM mentioned that the AV liked to play with door handles. · After the FM and the AV left, SP1 came out of the toddler classroom and told P1 the AV had been alone on the playground. P1 went into the toddler classroom and asked SP1 and SP2 to tell him/her what happened. SP1 and SP2 provided information to P1 that was consistent with the information each provided during their interviews. · P1 said staff persons were trained to line the children up outside, perform a name to face count, and count the children before coming inside. P2 was outside on the preschool playground which had a “pretty good view” of the toddler playground, but P2 did not see the AV outside by him/herself. P2 was trained to line the children up by the door, do name to face count, then count heads as the children walked through the door, and once inside do name to face count again. The facility’s Supervision Policy stated, “When going inside a visual rollcall (or name to face check) should be taken on the playground before leaving, a headcount should be done by the staff person in the back on the line, along with a visual sweep of the playground, and another name to face check once when coming into the building, and then once more after getting into the classroom.” The facility’s Risk Reduction Plan stated that during transitions, staff persons were to have sight and sound supervision of all children in the group and referenced the Supervision Policy for more details. Facility records showed that SP1, SP2, P1, and P2 were each trained on the facility’s Risk Reduction Plan and the Reporting of Maltreatment of Minors Act. Relevant Rule and/or Statute:
Minnesota Statutes, section 245A.02, subdivision 18, and Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0045, subpart 1, item A, states 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: Information was consistent that on May 7, 2024, the AV was outside on the playground with SP1 and SP2. SP1 counted prior to bringing the children inside and then counted as they were coming through the door. SP2 was seated on the carpet with children getting toys out to play and SP1 was the last one through the door. SP1 said s/he was standing by the door but SP2 stated SP1 started to walk away from the outside door, when the FM walked into the classroom. SP1 and SP2 looked around the classroom and in the bathroom but did not see the AV. SP1 then saw the AV outside. SP1 went outside and brought the AV back inside. SP1 and SP2 stated that the AV was outside from between 15 to 90 seconds which was a violation of Minnesota Statutes, section 245A.02, subdivision 18, and Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0045, subpart 1, item A. The FM stated that when s/he arrived at the classroom there was a staff person seated on the floor with a child in his/her lap and another teacher standing about 10-15 feet away from the outside door. The FM gathered items from the AV’s cubby while a staff person called the AV’s name. The AV was not with the rest of the group, so a staff person checked the bathroom and then saw the AV alone outside. The FM thought the AV was alone for three to four minutes. 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; (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. SP1’s and SP2’s actions were determined to be a nonmaltreatment mistake for the following reasons: (1) At the time of the incident, SP1 and SP2 were performing duties as required in the facility’s policies. SP2 was engaged with children on the floor. SP2 stated that SP1 counted the children outside and SP1 stated that s/he remembered seeing the AV walk through the door, so SP1 thought the AV must have snuck underneath SP1’s arm to go back outside as SP1 held the door open for the remaining children to return inside. In addition, SP1 had only moments before shut the door so was still in the process of transitioning when the FM arrived to get the AV; (2) SP1 and SP2 had not been determined responsible for a similar incident that resulted in a finding of maltreatment; (3) SP1 and SP2 had not been determined to have committed a similar nonmaltreatment mistake under this paragraph; (4) There were no injuries to the AV as a result of this incident; and (5) Except for the period when the incident occurred, the facility, SP1, and SP2 were in compliance with all licensing requirements relevant to the incident. 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 their policies and procedures adequate, but not followed. All staff persons were retrained on name to face protocols and the facility’s Supervision Policy. Action Taken by Department of Human Services, Office of Inspector General: SP1 and SP2 were not determined as perpetrators 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 were notified by the Office of Inspector General that any future incident of possible neglect of an alleged victim for which SP1 or SP2 were responsible might not be considered a nonmaltreatment mistake. On July 10, 2024, the facility was issued a Correction Order for the violation outlined in this report and for failure to report suspected maltreatment as required. 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.
|
