|
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: 1064732-CCC (Child Care Center) Investigator(s): Van Mulheron Suspected Maltreatment Reported: It was reported that an alleged victim (AV) was left in the toddler room without two staff persons’ (SP1 and SP2) knowledge or supervision for approximately three minutes. Date of Incident(s): May 8, 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 May 21, 2024; from documentation at the facility; and through five interviews conducted with a supervisory staff person (P1), three staff persons (P2, SP1, and SP2), and the AV’s family member (FM). The AV’s enrollment form stated that at the time of the incident the AV was 19 months old and enrolled in the infant program and was transitioning into the toddler 1 program. The facility had an indoor gym and in the gym was a door that led into the toddler 1 classroom. Across the gym from the toddler 1 classroom was another door that led outside to the toddler playground. Inside the toddler 1 classroom were tables for meals and activities, to the left and right of the door were a row of lockers. Also, to the right, was a large window with a view into the gym. Outside the toddler playground door was a path that led to a play structure and a picnic table. The facility had a video camera in the classroom across the room from the toddler classroom door and a video camera that overlooked the toddler playground. The facility used a ProCare app [a mobile application (app) platform used to communicate with families and streamline administrative functions] on an iPad to help with name to face counts and attendance. The FM said that P1 called him/her on May 10, 2024, and said that the AV was left “unattended” for a “few minutes” and when the staff persons completed a head count, they realized the AV was missing. The FM said that the AV was “fine” and had no prior concerns about the facility. SP1 and SP2 provided the following information: · On an unknown date, SP1 and SP2 were getting the children, including the AV, ready to go outside to the playground. Information regarding the time of the incident differed. SP1 said that the incident happened after the afternoon snack time and SP2 said that the incident happened in the morning. (Note: Video showed that the incident happened in the afternoon.) At the time of the incident, the AV was in the process of transitioning into the toddler 1 classroom from the infant classroom. · SP1 was not able to recall the number of children in attendance but SP2 stated that there were 13 children, including the AV. SP1 and SP2 had the children line up by the classroom door and handed each child a ring from the walking rope. SP1 and SP2 each completed a name to face check of the children, and both confirmed that all of the children, including the AV were accounted for. SP2 said that the AV was near the end of the line. · SP1 opened the classroom door and began leading the children through the gym and to the playground door. Once at the playground door, SP1 waited for the children and SP2 before s/he opened the door to the playground. SP2 held the toddler room door open for the children and said that the children were “so excited” to go outside that some of the children “rushed” and got “jumbled” causing some children to trip over the walking rope. SP2 continued to hold the door open helped the children get untangled and out the door. · While SP2 helped the children get through the door, another child was “trying to bite” another child. SP2 picked up the child who was biting and set him/her down outside the toddler door in the gym. SP2 did not see any other children and then closed the door and directed the children through the gym to the playground door. · SP1 did not remember if s/he counted the children while standing at the playground door but s/he planned to do a name to face count once the class was outside, because that was what s/he “normally” did. SP2 said s/he did not remember if SP1 opened the door prior to him/her reaching the playground door or if SP1 counted the children. SP2 said s/he did not count the children at the door because SP1 had opened the door to let the children out. · SP1 and SP2 walked behind the children onto the playground and set the iPad and walking rope on the picnic table next to P2, who was already on the playground with his/her class. SP1 and SP2 then looked around the playground to see what the children were doing. · SP1 went to the table and got the iPad to complete a name to face check of the children and the AV’s name was the first name on the iPad. SP1 looked for the AV but did not see him/her. SP1 then asked SP2 and P2 if they had seen the AV and neither had. SP1 then ran back into the toddler classroom and found the AV in the classroom, behind the door. SP1 said that the AV was “happy” and singing to his/herself. SP1 picked up the AV and carried the AV back to the playground. SP1 said that s/he did not know that the AV was left on the classroom and because SP2 was the last staff person in the classroom, it was SP2’s job to “sweep” the classroom to make sure that it was empty of children. · SP2 said that after the toddler class got outside s/he got the iPad and began to complete a name to face count of the toddler children. When SP2 called out the AV’s name, s/he did not see the AV. P2 then said, “Where’s [the AV]?” SP2 thought that the AV was “hiding” because s/he “counted” everyone. As SP2 was looking for the AV, SP1 walked back into the building and then returned to the playground with the AV. SP2 then realized that the AV was left behind in the classroom. SP2 said that the AV appeared “fine” when s/he got to the playground. The facility provided two videos of the incident. Video 1 was from the toddler classroom was from 3:58:23 p.m. to 4:04:27 p.m. Video 2 was from the toddler playground from 3:38.38 p.m. to 4:03.31 p.m. The videos provided the following: · At 3:58:25 p.m., SP1 and SP2 were at the classroom door with the toddler children. SP1 stood next to the door and SP2 had the walking rope and gave the children in line a ring from the walking rope. The AV and two other children were not in line and were not given a ring. The AV was sitting on the floor by the tables and the other two children were on the other side of the tables from the AV. SP2 then walked toward the door. · At 3:58:52 p.m., the classroom door opened and SP1 exited the classroom followed by some of the children. SP2 then held the door open and all the children, except for the AV, exited the classroom into the gym. The AV remained on the floor by the tables. · At 3:59:20 p.m., the toddler door closed, and the AV crawled toward the classroom door and sat between the door and the lockers. It was visible through the window that the class walked through the gym toward the playground door while holding the walking rope. · At 3:59:38 p.m., SP1 opened the gym door to the playground and eight children walked out the door followed by SP1 and SP2. SP1 and SP2 walked to the picnic table and placed the walking rope and a water jug on the picnic table by P2. SP1 then looked down at the iPad in his/her hands while SP2 walked around the playground. · At 4:02:23 p.m., SP1 looked up from the iPad and looked around the play structure and looked at different areas of the playground. · At 4:02:47 p.m., SP1 walked toward the gym door and went inside. · At 4:03:02 p.m., the classroom door opened and SP1 walked into the classroom, turned to his/her left, and picked up the AV. SP1 and the AV then left the classroom. P2 provided the following information: · On May 8, 2024, at approximately 3:30 p.m., P2 was sitting at the picnic table on the toddler playground while the children from the toddler 2 classroom played. P2 saw the door to the gym open and as SP1 held the door open, children from the toddler 1 class came “running” outside. SP1 then came outside holding an iPad and the walking rope followed by SP2. SP1 placed the rope and iPad on the picnic table and then SP1 and SP2 looked around the play area. · After “two minutes” SP1 came to the table, grabbed the iPad, and began a name to face count of his/her classroom children. P2 said that the first name SP1 called out was the AV’s and then SP1 and SP2 looked around the playground. P2 had not seen the AV and said to SP1 and SP2, “Did [the AV] go back to infants because [s/he] is not out here.” SP2 replied, “[S/he] is probably hiding behind something.” · SP1 and SP2 each had a “panic” look on their faces and then SP1 walked into the facility. Approximately 30 seconds later, SP1 came outside holding the AV and P2 realized that SP1 and SP2 left the AV in the toddler 1 classroom. The AV appeared “normal” and “content” when s/he came outside. SP1 held the AV for a little bit and then put the AV down when s/he was ready to play. · SP1 and SP2 did not talk about the incident with P2 and P2 did not tell anyone about the incident. P1 said that on May 10, 2024, SP2 spoke with P1 and told P1 about the incident. SP2 provided information to P1 that was consistent with the information SP2 provided during his/her interview. SP2 told P1 that s/he felt “horrible” and that s/he should have noticed the AV but was “caught up” with helping the children get through the door and outside. P1 then talked to SP1 and SP1 corroborated SP2’s information. P1 said that s/he had no prior concerns about SP1 or SP2. The facility’s Safety and Supervision policy stated that “all children must be within sight and sound at all times.” The facility’s Risk Reduction Plan stated that, “When transition [sic] from one area to another, children will form a line using a walking rope. Staff will call the children by name to hold on to the walking rope. Staff will use face to name every time the rope is used. One staff will be at the front of the line and one staff will be at the back of the line. Staff will count the number of children transitioning to ensure all children are present.” Facility records showed that P1, P2, SP1, and SP2 were trained on the facility’s Safety and Supervision policy, Risk Reduction Plan, and the Reporting of Maltreatment of Minors Act. 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: Information was consistent that on May 8, 2024, the AV was left in the toddler classroom without staff persons’ knowledge or supervision for approximately three to four 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 working in the toddler room with the toddler children, including the AV. After lining the children up by the door, SP1 and SP2 each completed a name to face count of the children and all the children were accounted for. SP1 led the children out of the classroom. SP2 followed behind SP1 but stopped by the classroom door to redirect a child who attempted to bite another child and to assist with other children who had “rushed” to the door and became “jumbled.” SP2 helped the children out of the classroom and did not see any other child before closing the door. Once outside, SP1 began a name to face check of the children using the iPad and after s/he called out the AV’s name and not seeing the AV on the playground, SP1 ran back into the building and found the AV behind the classroom door singing to him/herself. 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. Although the AV was without SP1’s and SP2’s supervision for approximately three minutes it was determined that a nonmaltreatment mistake for the following reasons: (1) At the time of the incident, SP1 and SP2 were preforming job-related duties and were transitioning the children to the playground. SP1 and SP2 each stated that they counted the children prior to leaving the toddler classroom. SP2 stopped at the classroom door to prevent a child from biting another child and helped the other children get through the classroom door. After getting out to the playground, SP1 was completing a name to face count when s/he noticed the AV was missing and immediately went inside to get the AV from the classroom. (2) SP1 and SP2 had not previously been found responsible for a similar incident that resulted in a finding of maltreatment. (3) SP1 and SP2 had not previously been found responsible for a similar incident that resulted in a finding of a nonmaltreatment mistake in the past. (4) The AV was uninjured and did not require medical care after the incident. (5) Except for this period when the incident occurred, the facility and SP1 and SP2 were in compliance with licensing requirements. 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 that their policies and procedures were adequate and followed by SP1 and SP2. SP1 and SP2 were retrained on the Safety and Supervision Policy and the Risk Reduction Plan. Action Taken by Department of Human Services, Office of Inspector General: SP1 and SP2 were not determined as a perpetrator 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 is responsible might not be considered a nonmaltreatment mistake. On September 18, 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.
|
