|
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: 802688-CCC (Child Care Center) Investigator(s): Tessa Ripka 651-431-6612 Suspected Maltreatment Reported: It was reported that an alleged victim (AV) was unsupervised in the classroom for one to two minutes. Date of Incident(s): August 15, 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 September 5, 2024; from documentation at the facility; and through five interviews conducted with three facility staff persons (P1, P2, SP), the AV’s family member (FM), and the AV. The AV was four years old at the time and enrolled in the Butterfly classroom. The facility was a two-level building. There were preschool classrooms along a long hallway on the upper level including the Butterfly classroom. Down the stairs was a gym and cafeteria along with more classrooms. The Butterfly classroom was a large open classroom with cubbies by the entrance door. The AV said s/he went back into the classroom when the class was out in the hallway but was not able to provide any other information. The Internal Review, P1, and P2 provided the following information: · On August 15, 2024, sometime before 10:50 a.m., P1 was in the hallway when the Butterfly classroom was walking down the hall to the gym. P1 walked with the classroom to the gym and P1 counted seven children in the gym. P1 was a float staff person and not assigned to that classroom so was unsure how many children should have been in the classroom. · P1 left the gym and went to the Butterfly classroom, where s/he heard crying and noticed the lights were off. The AV was sitting in a cubbie by the door of the classroom. P1 comforted the AV and then brought the AV to the staff office. P1 thought the AV was unsupervised for “maybe” five minutes. · At approximately 10:52 a.m., P1 brought the AV down to P2 at the front desk. The AV was not crying or upset. P2 went to the gym and asked the SP how many children were in the classroom. The SP said eight. P2 asked the SP to count, and the SP counted seven and realized that s/he did not have the AV. · The SP said that s/he counted before they left the classroom and was “sure” s/he counted eight when they arrived in the gym but did not do a name to face count in the gym. P2 thought the AV was unsupervised for two to three minutes. P2 had no prior concerns with the SP. The SP provided the following information: · On the day of the incident, the SP worked in the classroom with eight children. At approximately 10:55 p.m., the SP got the children ready to go to the gym. The SP did a name to face count and took the children out into the hallway and then lined them up along the wall. The SP did a name to face count again. · While the SP was in the hallway, P1 came up to the SP and asked about setting up cots for the classroom. The SP thought s/he got “distracted” and should have counted again before the class left. The SP proceeded down the hallway and stairs to the gym. · The SP and the children entered the gym. The SP “thought” s/he counted eight children. P2 came into the gym a “minute or two” later at 10:57 a.m. and asked how many children were in the gym. The SP said eight and P2 asked the SP to count. The SP counted and realized that the AV was not there. The FM had no previous concerns with the facility or staff persons. The Risk Reduction Plan stated that staff persons regularly counted children on a scheduled bases, at every transition, and whenever leaving one area and arriving to a another to confirm the correct count. All staff persons interviewed were trained on facility policies and the Reporting of Maltreatment of Minors Act prior to the incident. 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 August 15, 2024, the AV who was four years old was in the classroom without the knowledge or supervision of a staff person for less than five minutes, which was a violation of Minnesota Statutes, section 245A.02, subdivision 18, and Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0045, subpart 1, item A. The SP was not aware that the AV remained or went back inside the classroom when the rest of the class went to the gym, 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 the SP counted the children before they left the classroom, and in the hallway, but miscounted the children when the classroom arrived at the gym. Less than five minutes later, P1 walked to the classroom and found the AV in the classroom crying. The SP’s actions or conduct were determined to be a nonmaltreatment mistake for the following reasons: (1) At the time of the incident, the SP was performing job related duties, as required by the facility’s policies; (2) The SP had not been determined responsible for any previous incident that resulted in a finding of maltreatment; (3) The SP had not been previously determined to have committed a nonmaltreatment mistake under this paragraph; (4) The AV was uninjured and did not require medical care after the incident; and (5) Except for the period when the incident occurred, the facility and the SP were in compliance with all licensing requirements relevant to the incident. The nonmaltreatment mistake to the AV by the SP 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 when the SP failed to use the tools and procedure upon arrival at the gym. All staff persons were retrained on active supervision. Action Taken by Department of Human Services, Office of Inspector General: The SP was not determined as a perpetrator of maltreatment of the AV because the Department of Human Services found that the incident for which the SP was responsible met the criteria to be determined a nonmaltreatment mistake. The SP was notified by the Office of Inspector General that any future incident of possible neglect of an alleged victim for which the SP is responsible might not be considered a nonmaltreatment mistake. On October, 2, 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.
|
