|
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: 802320-CCC (Child Care Center) Investigator(s): Tessa Ripka 651-431-6612 Suspected Maltreatment Reported: It was reported that two alleged victims (AV1, AV2) were left unsupervised outside of a classroom for two minutes. Date of Incident(s): June 17, 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 July 10, 2024; from documentation at the facility; and through seven interviews conducted with five facility staff persons (SP1, SP2, P1, P2, P3), AV1’s family member (FM1), and AV2’s family member (FM2). Due to their ages AV1 and AV2 were not able to provide information about the incident. The facility was located in a larger building with other programs. There was a motor room through the entrance to the left. From the motor room there was a long hallway. Along the hallway were lockers and doors to other classrooms. The Room 317 classroom was located along the left side of the hallway. AV1 was 28 months old at the time of the incident and enrolled in the Room 137 classroom. AV2 was three years old at the time of the incident and enrolled in the Room 137 classroom. P2, P3, and a written review of the incident provided the following information: · On June 17, 2024, sometime likely after 3:21 p.m. P2 was walking down the hallway and saw AV1 and AV2 outside the Room 137 door. AV1 and AV2 just stood by the door. P2 knocked on the door but did not get an answer so opened the door and brought AV1 and AV2 inside. · P2 saw SP1 sitting at a table and SP2 standing near the table. All the other children were standing or sitting nearby. P1 appeared to be putting away cots. P2 asked if AV1 and AV2 were supposed to be in this room. SP1 or SP2 confirmed and then P2 left the classroom. · P3 had no previous concerns with SP1 or SP2. The facility policy was to complete name to face counts before leaving an area and when back in the classroom. P3’s understanding was that during this incident the name to face count was done while the classroom was walking down the hallway. P1 provided the following information: · On the day of the incident, P1 worked in the classroom with SP1 and SP2. Sometime during naptime, SP1 and SP2 took the children that woke up early to the motor room while P1 stayed behind with three or four children that were still napping. · At approximately 3:15 p.m., the last few children woke from their naps and P1 was putting their cots away. SP1 and SP2 came into the classroom with the other children. A “few seconds later” P2 came in with AV1 and AV2. SP1 and SP2 did not even have “time to go through the name to face yet.” SP1 and SP2 provided the following information: · On the date of the incident, SP1 and SP2 took seven or eight children to the motor room during naptime while P1 waited in the classroom with the children that were still sleeping. At approximately 3:20 p.m., SP1 and SP2 left the motor room to go back to the classroom for snack time. · The children lined up in the motor room and SP2 walked backwards down the hallway at the front of the line. SP1 walked in the back of the line. When they got to the door of the classroom, SP2 went inside with the children following. SP1 stopped at the door to wipe off the white erase board that noted the children that had gone to the motor room. · SP1 then came inside the classroom and closed the door. The children started sitting down and washing their hands. P2 came into the classroom with AV1 and AV2. · SP1 said that s/he used his/her phone to complete a name to face count before they left the motor room. After arriving at the classroom as SP1 was erasing the white board, s/he thought AV1 and AV2 must have “slipped out.” AV1 and AV2 were outside the door for less than a minute. SP1 said s/he was starting to complete a name to face count in the classroom when P2 came in with AV1 and AV2. · SP2 said that SP1 had his/her phone out while in the motor room and as they walked down the hall and was doing the attendance on the attendance application. SP2 said that all the children were at the door to the classroom before s/he went inside. AV1 and AV2 were outside the door for one to two minutes. FM1 and FM2 each had no prior concerns. Attendance Daily Summary forms showed that on June 17, 2024, at the time of the incident there were ten children in attendance. At 3:21 p.m., seven children including AV1 and AV2 were moved from the motor room to the Room 137. The Sight And Sound Supervision policy indicated that staff persons were within sight and sound of all children at all times. A name to face count was completed at every transition. During a transition a staff person led the group and another staff person was behind the group. When arriving at the destination, the children were counted with a name to face count. Staff persons did a count anytime children were leaving and/or returning to a classroom from a transition. Staff persons used an attendance application for large and small groups to ensure accurate face to name counts. Facility documentation showed that all staff persons were trained on the facility’s policies 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 June 17, 2024, AV1 and AV2 who were 28 months old and three years old were left outside the classroom without the knowledge or supervision of a staff person for one to two minutes, which was a violation of Minnesota Statutes, section 245A.02, subdivision 18, and Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0045, subpart 1, item A. SP1 and SP2 were each not aware that AV1 and AV2 remained outside the classroom door when the rest of the class went inside, which was inconsistent with the standards of a professional caregiver in a facility licensed by the Department of Human Services and a violation of the facility’s policies and procedures. 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 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. Consistent information was provided that SP1 counted the children as they left the motor room, but that both SP1 and SP2 failed to or had not yet counted the children when the children were back in the classroom. Within one to two minutes, P1 walked by the classroom and saw AV1 and AV2 outside the door and brought them inside. SP1 and SP2’s actions or conduct were determined to be a nonmaltreatment mistake for the following reasons: (1) At the time of the incident, SP1 and SP2 were performing job related duties, as required by the facility’s policies; (2) SP1 and SP2 each had not been determined responsible for any previous incident that resulted in a finding of maltreatment; (3) SP1 and SP2 each had not been previously determined to have committed a nonmaltreatment mistake under this paragraph; (4) AV1 and AV2 were uninjured and did not require medical care after the 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 AV1 and AV2 by SP1 and SP2 was not maltreatment. It was determined that neglect did not occur (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). 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 policies and procedures were adequate but not followed in the correct order. Staff persons involved received retraining on supervision and transition policies. Action Taken by Department of Human Services, Office of Inspector General: SP1 and SP2 were each not determined as a perpetrator of maltreatment of AV1 and AV2 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 each notified by the Office of Inspector General that any future incident of possible neglect of an alleged victim for which SP1 and SP2 were responsible might not be considered a nonmaltreatment mistake. On August 7, 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.
|
