|
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: 1028644-CCC (Child Care Center) Investigator(s): Lindsay Arth/Alice Percy 651-431-6537 Suspected Maltreatment Reported: It was reported that an alleged victim (AV) left the facility and went to his/her nearby home, where s/he was found by a community person (CP). The CP returned the AV to the facility a few minutes later. Date of Incident(s): January 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 February 21, 2024; from documentation at the facility; and through four interviews conducted with a facility staff person (P1), an administrative staff person (P2), the SP, and the AV’s family member (FM). The AV was five years old and enrolled in the school-age classroom at the time of the incident. The facility was located in a business area near the end of a cul-de-sac and was surrounded by several businesses and large parking lots. A veterinary clinic was located next door to the facility. A divided highway was located along the back of the building. The facility’s parking lot was located at the front of the facility and a sidewalk ran along the front of the building. The street in front of the facility also had sidewalks. The AV’s home was in a large apartment building that was located at the end of the street that ran in front of the facility. The apartment building was visible from the facility’s parking lot. The facility’s main entrance opened into a small vestibule. A second door opened into the facility’s lobby, which contained a desk that the administrative staff persons sometimes used. Another door with a keypad provided access to the classrooms. The school-age classroom was located at the front of the facility, next to the lobby. According to Google Maps, the AV’s home was .1 mile from the facility and it would take three minutes to walk from the facility to the AV’s home. The FM stated that on January 18, 2024, the staff persons told the FM that the AV went to his/her home and was returned to the facility by the CP. When the FM asked the AV about the incident, the AV told the FM that s/he left the facility because s/he “didn’t want to be there.” P1, P2, the SP, and the facility’s documentation provided the following information: · On January 18, 2024, at approximately 4 p.m., the SP drove one of the facility’s buses to the facility and brought the children on his/her bus into the center and went into the school age room. A few minutes later, another group of children arrived at the facility on another facility bus. One of the staff persons brought those children to the school-age classroom. The SP then had 11 children in the school-age classroom. After arriving at the facility, the SP began to prepare the children’s snack and once all the children were present, s/he began to distribute the snacks to the children. The door to the classroom was “propped open.” The SP believed that the AV left the school-age classroom while the SP was distributing the snacks and the SP “never even noticed.” The last time the SP recalled seeing the AV, the AV was standing near the classroom “cubbies.” · P1 stated s/he was working in the toddler classroom when at approximately 4:15 p.m., a family member of a toddler child entered P1’s classroom and told P1 that the CP was in the facility’s lobby because s/he found the AV “down the street” and wanted to know if the AV “belonged” at the facility. Another staff person remained in the toddler classroom while P1 went to the lobby. The CP asked P1 if the AV belonged at the facility and P1 told the CP that s/he did. A second community person then arrived at the facility and told P1 that s/he saw the CP find the AV and wanted to ensure that the AV was safe. P1 stated that the AV was crying. The CP and P1 took the AV to the school-age classroom and P1 then returned to his/her classroom. P1 believed the CP brought the AV to the facility because it was the only childcare center in the area. · The SP stated that at approximately 4:17 p.m., the CP brought the AV to the school-age classroom and asked the SP if the AV was enrolled at the facility. The CP told the SP that s/he found the AV near the veterinary clinic, and then drove the AV to the facility. The AV told the SP that the FM was not at his/her home at the time. The SP believed the AV was unsupervised for 5 to 7 minutes, given the time that the SP documented that the AV was brought to the facility on the bus and when the CP returned the AV to the classroom. None of the staff persons asked the CP for his/her name or contact information. · P2 stated that P1 told him/her about the incident and P2 then talked to the SP, who told P2 that at the time of the incident, s/he was preparing the children’s snack and did not realize that the AV left the classroom. The AV did not sustain any injury during the incident. The SP and P2 each stated that the AV never took off his/her coat or hat when s/he arrived at the facility, so the AV had his/her outerwear on when s/he left the facility. · The door to the facility was locked and anyone entering the facility had to enter a code or ring the doorbell. The SP was uncertain who opened the facility’s door and allowed the CP and the AV to enter the facility. The SP stated that s/he typically counted the children every two hours up to 4 p.m., and then every hour after 4 p.m. · Prior to the incident, the AV frequently attempted to run out of the classroom when s/he saw the FM’s car pull into the facility’s parking lot at the end of the day. The staff persons “constantly” reminded the AV to remain in the classroom until the FM arrived at the classroom. After the incident, the SP ensured that the classroom door remained closed. According to the facility’s Child Supervision Record, the SP documented that on the day of the incident, the AV arrived in the classroom at 4:10 p.m. According to the facility’s Child Supervision Record (CSR) policy, when the children arrived at the facility on the school bus from their schools, the staff persons were to sign the children into their classroom on the CSR and then maintain the CSR until the children were signed out of the facility at the end of the day. The staff persons used name-to-face counting whenever they transitioned the children from one area to another. According to the facility’s Risk Reduction Plan, the school-age children were to be within sight and sound of a staff person at all times unless they were using the restroom. At those times, the children could close the restroom door, but the staff persons were to be able to hear the children. According to Weather Underground, Rochester, MN, Weather History, on January 18, 2024, at 4:04 p.m., the temperature was 7 degrees Fahrenheit (F) and there was light snow falling. Facility documentation showed that the SP, P1, and P2 each received training on the Reporting of Maltreatment of Minors Act and on the facility’s policies 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: A. Maltreatment: On January 18, 2024, the AV, who was five years old, left the classroom and the facility without staff persons knowledge or supervision which was a violation of Minnesota Statutes, section 245A.02, subdivision 18, and Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0045, subpart1, item A, and of the facility’s policies. The AV left to walk home, where s/he was found walking near the veterinary clinic by the CP. The CP then drove the AV to the facility to determine if that was where the AV was supposed to be. The AV was crying when s/he was returned, but there was no information provided that the AV sustained an injury. Although the AV was not injured during the incident, the AV left the facility and was unsupervised in the community for five to seven minutes without any staff person’s knowledge, which placed the AV at risk of community dangers and did not allow for a staff person’s intervention in the event of any emergency. Therefore, there was a preponderance of the evidence that there was a failure to supply the AV with necessary care required for his/her physical or mental health and a failure to protect the AV from conditions that seriously endangered his/her physical or mental health. It was determined that neglect occurred (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 and/or 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). 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 the care and supervision of the AV at the time of 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 neglect 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 the AV did not sustain any injury that required the care of a physician. 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 and were followed by the staff persons. 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. On July 26, 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.
|
