|
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: 1035184-CCC (Child Care Center) Investigator(s): Tessa Ripka 651-431-6612 Suspected Maltreatment Reported: It was reported that an alleged victim (AV) was alone in a classroom without supervision for five minutes. Date of Incident(s): June 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 June 25, 2024; from documentation at the facility; and through five interviews conducted with four facility staff persons (SP1, SP2, SP3, P), and the AV’s family member (FM). Due to the AV’s age, s/he was unable to provide any information about the incident. The AV was 22 months at the time of the incident and enrolled in the Fox Toddler classroom. The facility was located in a wing of a larger business building. The facility contained six classrooms. The Fox Toddler classroom had a large window next to the door that opened up to a hallway. The hallway ran past another classroom/gym area and the kitchen. At the end of the hallway to the left was a door that exited to the playground. The playground had a large play structure. Along the building wall in the playground were paper ladybug pictures attached to the wall with numbers that the children could stand by when counting occurred. The P provided the following information: · On the day of the incident at approximately 9:20 a.m., the P was going from classroom to classroom checking on the number of children. When s/he got to the Fox Toddler classroom the staff persons and children were in the classroom. · P1 came back to the classroom “not even ten minutes later” and P1 saw the AV through the window of the classroom. The AV was standing by the window and seemed to be looking out to see if s/he could see anyone. · P1 went into the classroom and saw that the AV was by him/herself. The AV said something like “Hi, I’m here.” so P1 took the AV out to the playground. · At all transitions, staff persons were to line the children up in the classroom and do a name to face count and then go out in the hallway. In the hallway staff persons did another count and then went outside. In the playground there was an area next to the door along the wall of the building that had numbered paper ladybugs. The children stood there while another name to face count was completed. · The P did not have any previous concerns with SP1, SP2, or SP3. SP1-SP3 provided the following information: · On the day of the incident, at approximately 9:20-9:25 a.m., the classroom was getting ready to go outside. The Fox Toddler and the Lynx Toddler classrooms were combined for a total of 13 children. · SP1 said s/he did a name to face count of the children and had the correct number. SP1 led the front of the line out of the door, while SP2 was at the back of the line. SP3 was near the middle of the line. Another child (C1) arrived with his/her family member as the class was leaving the room. · C1 did not want to stay at the facility. Another child (C2) was having a hard time and SP2 went over to assist C1 and C2. C1’s family member was able to leave and SP1, SP2, and SP3 continued with all the children into the playground. SP1 said s/he did a head count of the children. SP1 counted 13 children and thought this was the correct number. SP1 then told SP2 to leave and go to another classroom that s/he was needed in. SP2 left the playground and went back inside while SP1 and SP3 remained on the playground. · After approximately four to five minutes, the P came outside with the AV. SP1 said that s/he signed C1 in on the Child Supervision Log but for some reason still had the number 13 in his/her head so when s/he did a head count in the playground, s/he thought 13 was the correct number. · SP2 said that a count of the children was completed before leaving the classroom when SP1 lined up the children and did a name to face count. SP2 did not remember if a count was completed outside as s/he left shortly after arriving outside. · SP3 said that s/he never saw a count of the children being completed either leaving the classroom or returning to the classroom. Because SP3 was a substitute to the facility and it was his/her first time working there, s/he did not know the children or staff persons. SP3 did not complete a count because s/he did not know how many children were in the class and did not have the list. The FM had no prior concerns with the facility. The Child Supervision Log showed that on June 18, 2024, after 9:02 a.m., the Fox Toddler and Lynx Toddler classrooms had a total of 13 children including the AV. At 9:26 a.m., C1 was checked in. SP1 signed off on a count of the children at 9 and 9:30 a.m. but there was no notation of a transition outside. The ECE Staff Manual stated that children were supervised within sight and sound at all times. During each transition, staff persons counted the children as they left and as they arrived at the new space and documented on the tracking form. When two staff persons were present one staff person was at the front of the line and one staff person was at the back of the line. All children were accounted for at all times. Facility documentation showed that all staff persons were trained on the facilities 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 18, 2024, the AV was left in the classroom without the knowledge or supervision of a staff person for approximately five minutes, which was a violation of Minnesota Statutes, section 245A.02, subdivision 18, and Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0045, subpart 1, item A. SP1, SP2, and SP3 were each not aware that the AV remained in the classroom while the rest of the children were taken outside, 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. Although the AV was inside the classroom, the AV, who was 22 months old, was unsupervised for approximately five minutes with no staff person available to intervene if the AV attempted to do something dangerous, injured him/herself, or in the event of an emergency. Therefore, there was a preponderance of the evidence that there was a failure to supply the AV with necessary care and a failure to protect the AV from conditions or actions that seriously endangered the AV’s physical or mental health when reasonably able to do so. 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. SP1, SP2, and SP3 were each trained on the facility’s policies and the Reporting of Maltreatment of Minors Act prior to the incident. SP1, SP2, and SP3 were each working in the classroom at the time of the incident and in charge of the supervision of the classroom. Although SP1 said s/he counted the children as they left and again when they arrived, s/he counted incorrectly due to another child joining the classroom and both SP2 and SP3 failed to count the children. SP1, SP2, and SP3 were responsible for the 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 SP1, SP2, and SP3 were responsible did not meet statutory criteria to be determined as recurring or serious as it was a single incident, and the AV was not injured. 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 policies were adequate and although staff persons completed a head count before moving and after arriving, they did not complete a name to face per policy. Staff persons received training on safe transition practices. Action Taken by Department of Human Services, Office of Inspector General: SP1, SP2, and SP3 were not disqualified from providing direct care services as a result of the maltreatment determination in this report. However, SP1, SP2, and SP3 were each 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 disqualification. The determination that SP1, SP2, and SP3 were each responsible for maltreatment is subject to appeal. On August 22, 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.
|
