|
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.”
Certification Number and Program Type: 1089724-CCCC (Certified Child Care Center) Investigator(s): Anna Parkin 651-431-6225 Suspected Maltreatment Reported: It was reported that a staff person (SP) grabbed an alleged victim’s (AV) arm and yelled at the AV. Later that night, the AV had a bruise and cut on his/her left arm. Date of Incident(s): August 6, 2024 Nature of Alleged Maltreatment Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 260E.03, subdivision 18, paragraph (a), and subdivision 23, paragraph (a): "Physical abuse" means any physical injury, mental injury, or threatened injury, inflicted by a person responsible for the child's care on a child other than by accidental means. "Threatened injury" means a statement, overt act, condition, or status that represents a substantial risk of physical or sexual abuse or mental injury. Summary of Findings: Pertinent information was obtained during a site visit conducted on August 22, 2024; from documentation at the facility and medical records; and through four interviews conducted with a supervisory staff person (P1), two facility staff persons (P2 and P3), and the AV’s family member (FM). This investigator spoke with the SP requesting an interview. At that time, the SP declined. A follow up interview request was mailed to the SP, but the SP did not respond. The AV was five years old and enrolled in the kindergarten group summer program at the time of the incident. Consistent information was provided that P2, P3, and the SP were working with the kindergarten group at the time of the incident. P2 and P3 provided the following information: · During the morning of the incident, the SP, P2, and P3 were outside on the playground with the kindergarten group, including the AV, and lined up to go inside. The AV picked up another child’s (C) water bottle to hand to him/her. · The SP “yelled” at the AV to not touch things that did not belong to the AV. The SP then grabbed and “yanked” the AV “hard.” P2 said that the SP grabbed the AV’s left forearm near the wrist and P3 said it was “a little above” the AV’s elbow. The AV did not fall but his/her feet “drag[ged]” along the ground and the AV “almost” hit his/her head on the fence which was one to two inches away. · P2 and P3 brought the other children inside so they were not able to hear but saw through the glass that the SP continued talking to the AV. The AV appeared “scared” during the interaction. · Approximately five to ten minutes later, during lunch, the AV said his/her arm “hurt” and held it. P2 got an ice pack and brought it to the AV. P2 looked at the AV’s arm and did not see an injury. P3 did not remember seeing an injury but did not specifically check for one. The AV did not return to the facility after that day. · P2 and P3 each had previous concerns with the SP’s interactions with children. During a previous incident, the SP reached through the fence and pulled another child by shirt and that child almost hit his/her head on the fence. The SP also “screamed” at children on multiple occasions prior to the incident. P1 provided the following information: · P1 spoke to the SP shortly after the incident. The SP said that at approximately 11:15 a.m., the SP, P2, and P3 had the kindergarten children, including the AV, line up to go inside. The AV took the C’s water bottle, and the SP asked the AV to put the bottle down. The AV ignored the SP and the SP continued to verbally redirect the AV. The SP said his/her tone was “fine” and “annoyed but not loud or harsh.” The SP did not remember if s/he grabbed the AV and possibly used his/her open palm on the AV’s back to physically redirect the AV. The SP did not ask other staff persons including supervisory staff persons for assistance with the AV. · Later that day, P1 went into the kindergarten room. The AV appeared “fine” and played with other children. P1 spoke to the AV but did not ask to see his/her arm or ask about the incident. P1 had “numerous” previous conversations with the SP about his/her tone when speaking to children. The FM provided the following information: · On the day of the incident, s/he received a phone call from a supervisory staff person (P4) informing the FM about the incident. P4 said staff persons looked at the AV’s arm and did not see any marks and that the SP was removed from the classroom while the facility continued the internal investigation. · Approximately 30 minutes later, the FM picked up the AV from the facility. The AV had “quiet time” at home until dinner, when the FM noticed a small cut on the tip of the AV’s elbow and a bruise. The FM asked the AV about the incident and the AV said that the SP “grabbed” his/her arm and the AV’s arm hit the fence which resulted in the cut. The FM took pictures of the AV’s injuries. · The next day, the FM took the AV to the doctor to document the injuries and the doctor said that the bruising was consistent with an adult grabbing the AV’s arm. The FM called P4 to let him/her know about the injuries. The AV was “traumatized” by the incident and did not return to the facility. Photos taken by the FM showed a small bruise and cut on the AV’s elbow. According to the Employee Handbook: · When managing children’s behaviors, staff persons remained “calm and collected” in “difficult” situations; identified feelings and appropriate ways to express them; modeled appropriate responses to emotional distress; appropriately communicated with staff persons and children about challenges; focused on the positive and did not disparage children or their ability to improve; used positive techniques to guide behaviors; treated children with respect; and “never” used threats or derogatory remarks as a form of discipline. · The following were behavior expectation teaching tools: o Staff persons reviewed behavior expectations with the children before transitioning to another area. An example was staff persons developed a rhyme or song that reinforced positive behavior. o Staff persons brought children to a common area to practice expected behaviors. o Staff persons used children’s literature for group discussions about “common problem behaviors” such as hitting. Children identified the problems with the behaviors and discussed possible strategies. o Children acted out expected and unexpected behaviors while discussing why they were expected/unexpected and problem solve. o Children discussed how they and other children were feeling. Whenever possible, staff persons positively acknowledge children who demonstrated behavior expectations. · When children displayed behaviors that were not consistent with facility expectations: o Staff persons verbally reminded the child one time of the expectations for inappropriate behavior. o If the behaviors continued, staff persons had a conversation regarding the concerning behavior with the child and documented details of the concern on a Behavior Referral Form. The child completed a Think Sheet that reflected on his/her behavior. o Staff persons discussed their concerns with a supervisory staff person to determine if additional consequences were needed. Facility documentation showed that the SP and other staff persons interviewed in this investigation received training on the facility’s Employee Handbook and the Maltreatment of Minors Act, prior to the incident. Relevant Rules and/or Statutes: Minnesota Statutes, part 245H.13, subdivision 9, clauses (1) and (5), stated that the certified center must ensure that staff and volunteers use positive behavior guidance and do not subject children to: · corporal punishment including, but is not limited to rough handling, shoving, hair pulling, ear pulling, shaking, slapping, kicking, biting, pinching, hitting, and spanking; and · the use of physical restraints other than to physically hold a child when containment is necessary to protect a child or others from harm.
Conclusion: A. Maltreatment: P2 and P3 stated on August 6, 2024, while lining up to go inside from the playground, the AV picked up the C’s water bottle to hand it to the C. The SP “yelled” at the AV, then grabbed and “yanked” the AV “hard” by his/her left arm. P2 said that the SP grabbed the AV’s left forearm near the wrist and P3 said it was “a little above” the AV’s elbow. The AV “almost” hit his/her head on the fence which was one to two inches away. The AV did not fall but his/her feet “drag[ged]” along the ground. P1 stated that when s/he spoke to the SP later about the incident, the SP said his/her tone was “annoyed but not loud or harsh” when talking to the AV. The SP did not remember if s/he grabbed the AV and possibly used his/her open palm on the AV’s back to physically redirect the AV. Given that the SP had reason to minimize his/her actions for fear of repercussions, and the information provided by P2 and P3 was consistent, it was more likely that the incidents occurred as described by P2 and P3. The SP’s interaction with the AV was inconsistent with the standards of a professional caregiver in a facility certified by the Department of Human Services and violations of Minnesota Statutes, part 245H.13, subdivision 9, clauses (1) and (5). Given that at the time of the incident, the AV was not a danger to him/herself or others and did not require physical intervention, and that although P2 did not see an injury on the AV’s arm around the time of the incident, the FM later saw a cut and bruising that was consistent with an adult grabbing the AV, there was a preponderance of the evidence that the SP’s actions were not accidental, inflicted injury, and represented a substantial risk of injury to the AV. It was determined that physical abuse occurred ("Physical abuse" means any physical injury, mental injury, or threatened injury, inflicted by a person responsible for the child's care on a child other than by accidental means. "Threatened injury" means a statement, overt act, condition, or status that represents a substantial risk of physical or sexual abuse or mental injury). 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. The SP was trained on the Employee Handbook and The Reporting of Maltreatment of Minor’s Act. 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 physical abuse for which the SP was responsible was not recurring but was serious maltreatment. It was a single incident for which the AV sustained a cut and a bruise that a doctor said was consistent with an adult grabbing the AV’s arm. 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 Department of Human Services, Office of Inspector General: The SP was notified that s/he was responsible for serious maltreatment and that any future background studies for facilities, programs, organizations, and/or agencies that are required to have individuals complete a background study by the Department of Human Services as listed in Minnesota Statutes, section 245C.03, will result in his/her disqualification. The determination that the SP was responsible for maltreatment is subject to appeal. On October 30, 2024, the facility was issued a Correction Order for the violations 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.
|
