|
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: 800461-CCC (Child Care Center) Investigator(s): Lindsay Arth 651-431-6537 Suspected Maltreatment Reported: It was reported that a staff person (SP) grabbed an alleged victim (AV1) by his/her forearm, causing a red mark. Additionally, there were concerns that the SP grabbed the back of an alleged victim’s (AV2’s) neck or coat and “aggressively yanked” AV2 to the floor. Date of Incident(s): February 1, 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 February 16, 2024; from documentation at the facility and law enforcement records; and through five interviews conducted with a facility supervisory staff person (P1), three staff persons (the SP, P2, and P3), and AV1’s and AV2’s family member (FM). Attempts were made to contact and interview two community persons (CP1 and CP2) from AV1’s elementary school for additional follow up information but the attempts were not successful. The facility had multiple classrooms including a preschool room. The preschool room had an area with pillows and blankets referred to as the “cozy corner” that children could use as needed, including to “calm.” AV1 was approximately seven years old at the time of the incident and enrolled in the facility before and after school program, which was in the preschool classroom. AV2 was approximately four years old and enrolled in the preschool classroom. AV1 and AV2 were siblings. Law enforcement did not interview AV1 or AV2 due to their ages and given the time between the incident and law enforcements decision to not interview AV1 and AV2, neither was interviewed for this investigation. The facility Child Supervision Record showed that on February 1, 2024, at 6:35 a.m., AV1 and AV2 arrived to the facility. At 8:52 a.m., a bus from AV1’s elementary school arrived and took AV1 to his/her elementary school. The SP and P2 worked with AV1 and AV2 in the preschool classroom. CP1 provided the following information: · On February 1, 2024, when AV1 arrived at school from the facility, s/he was crying and appeared “upset.” CP1 asked AV1 what happened and AV1 said that s/he was “upset” because another child (C), who also attended the facility, was being “mean” to him/her. AV1 told CP1 that s/he wanted to take a “time out” by him/herself but that the SP said, “No.” However, the SP told AV1 that s/he would take AV1 to the director’s office. AV1 told CP1 that s/he “refused” to go to the director’s office and that the SP “aggressively grabbed” AV1 by the arm. CP1 observed that AV1 had a four-inch red mark on his/her forearm that was “starting to bruise.” · CP2, who was a nurse from AV1’s elementary school, also met with AV1. AV1 told CP2 that while s/he was at the facility, s/he had a “bad morning” and was “not in a good mood” because the C was being “mean” to him/her. AV1 said that because the C was being “mean,” s/he went to the “cozy” corner where other children were. AV1 held onto a desk leg and would not “let go” so a staff person, who CP2 did not identify, “stood” AV1 up by his/her waist and “made” [AV1] let go.” AV1 also told CP2 that the staff person was “mad” and “grabbed” AV1’s left forearm. AV1 told CP2 that his/her arm was “sore” and CP2 observed a four-inch mark on AV1’s forearm that was “red” and “starting to bruise.” AV1 told CP2 that the staff person then took him/her to see the “principal” and that the “principal” was “also mad” at AV1. The FM provided the following information to law enforcement and during his/her interview: · The FM said that on February 1, 2024, around 7:30 a.m., AV1 and AV2 arrived to the facility and around 8:50 a.m., AV1 took a bus to his/her elementary school. Later that morning, the FM received a phone call from CP1 who said that AV1 was “upset,” had been “struggling” at the facility, and had a “meltdown.” AV1 told CP1 that s/he tried to use his/her “coping skills” by going to the quiet corner of the classroom but that the SP would not let him/her. The SP then grabbed AV1 by the arm “really hard” and “left bruises on it.” · Around 12 or 1 p.m., the FM went to the facility to speak to P1 about the incident. However, P1 was not there so the FM went to AV2’s classroom. From the classroom door, the FM observed the SP “pull” the back of AV2’s jacket, “drop” AV2 to the floor, and “forcefully” take a toy from AV2’s hand. The FM entered the classroom and “confronted” the SP about the incidents with AV1 and AV2. The SP responded and told the FM that “maybe your children should behave.” The FM then left the facility with AV2 and notified P1. At some point after this incident, AV2 told the FM that his/her arm “hurt” and that the SP “did this to [him/her] all the time.” The FM also spoke to other unknown staff persons who “complained” about the SP’s “behavior.” · The FM said that prior to the incident, AV1 and AV2 were attending therapy for behavioral “issues” and had been “progressing.” However, since the incidents, AV1 and AV2 had both “regressed” including that AV1 was “scared” to return to the facility and AV2 said that s/he “hated going there now.” · On February 1, 2024, the FM took photos of bruising on AV1’s right arm, below AV1’s elbow. The FM said that there were “at least” four inches of AV1’s forearm that had bruises. AV2 did not have any visible injures but AV2 told the FM that his/her underarm “area” hurt following the incident. AV1 and AV2 did not need any medical attention. · Law enforcement saw the FM’s photos and described AV1’s injuries as “both light and darker red colored bruising” that appeared to run parallel on the length of AV1’s forearm. (Note: Law enforcement did not indicate which arm the bruises were on). P2 provided the following information to law enforcement and during his/her interview: · On an unknown date (later determined to be February 1, 2024), around 8:30 a.m., AV1 was “upset” and “yelling” because s/he wanted to eat breakfast at a table by him/herself. However, there were children at the other tables so AV1 could not eat by him/herself. The SP and P2 instead “offered” AV1 the “cozy corner” to assist AV1 to “calm a bit” until a table became available. At some point after, a table became available with no other children so AV1 sat there to eat breakfast. · P2 told this investigator that after AV1 ate breakfast, s/he attempted to return to the cozy corner but other children were there. AV1 began to get “upset again” including yelling. The SP told AV1 that s/he was “sorry” other children sitting there but that made AV1 “more upset.” When AV1 was upset, staff persons were to give AV1 “space,” so the SP attempted to carry AV1 to the office to give AV1 a “break outside the classroom.” As the SP attempted to do so, AV1 “flopped” to the floor because s/he did not want to go to the office and thought s/he was in trouble, which P2 said “wasn’t the case.” Because AV1 had “flopped to ground,” the SP tried to “force” or “yank” AV1 into a standing position by grabbing both of AV1’s forearms. AV1 began crying but did not say anything, including that his/her arms hurt. AV1 was wearing a short sleeve shirt and P2 did not see any marks or injuries on AV1’s arms. P2 then notified P1 who came into the classroom and spoke to AV1 but AV1 “did not want to talk.”
· P2 told law enforcement that on the morning of the incident s/he was in the classroom and AV1 was “upset,” which was “sometimes” normal for AV1. P2 said that the SP was “polite” and told AV1 to take “deep breaths.” However, AV1 was sitting on the floor “screaming” that s/he was “mad.” During this time, the SP “grabbed” AV1 by AV1’s wrist and forearm to “move” AV1. P2 told the SP to ask P1 “next time” s/he needed help. During the incident, AV1 was not a danger to him/herself or others and there was no reason to physically intervene with AV1. · Around 8:45 a.m., the school age bus arrived and AV1 left to go to school. · P2 told this investigator that later that day, around noon, AV2 was wearing his/her coat, which AV2 often did, and was running around the classroom and jumping on tables and shelves. AV2 had a history of behaviors including hitting others and throwing chairs. The SP told AV2 to “stop” and that s/he should not run around or jump on furniture but AV2 did not stop. During this, the FM arrived to the facility and stood in the classroom doorway. P2 then saw in his/her “peripheral vision” the SP “yank down” on the top part of AV2’s coat, near the side or shoulder area, to get AV2 to “stop” because AV2 was about to jump on a table or chair. AV2 did not fall but looked like s/he “leaned back” when the SP did this. The SP told AV2 that s/he was AV2’s “teacher” and that AV2 “should be listening” to him/her. AV2 was not crying but looked “surprised.” P2 was not aware of AV2 sustaining any injuries as a result of this interaction. At some point after this interaction, P2 left the classroom to use the bathroom and heard yelling from the classroom but did not know if it was the FM or the SP yelling. · P2 told law enforcement that later that day, AV2 was having “difficulties with [his/her] behaviors which was “normal.” From P2’s “peripheral vision,” s/he saw the SP “yank” AV2 by the back of his/her upper coat or arm and tell AV2 that s/he needed to listen to him/her. P2 thought that at the time, AV2 was doing “nothing more” than running in the classroom. P2 saw AV2 “go back” but not fall when the SP grabbed him/her. The FM then came into the classroom and “confronted” the SP. · P2 spoke to the FM who said that s/he was at the facility to pick up AV2 and to talk to P1 because AV1 had a bruise from an incident with the SP earlier that day. After the FM left with AV2, P2 spoke to the SP who was “kind of crying.” P2 asked the SP what was wrong and the SP said s/he did not like “being talked to like that” by the FM. P2 asked the SP what was said and the SP said that the FM told him/her that s/he “did not want [the SP] touching [his/her] kids” and that AV1 had a bruise. P2 asked the SP what s/he “thought” and the SP told P2 that if AV1 did not have a “tantrum” that “none of this would have happened.” · At some point after, another parent, who was friends with the FM, showed P2 a photo of a bruise on AV1’s arm which was in the same spot where the SP grabbed AV1. P2 did not know which arm had the bruise and said that the photo only showed one arm. The bruise was “pretty dark” purple or black. P2 was not aware of any other way AV1 could have sustained the bruise and was not aware of AV1 having the bruise prior to his/her interactions with the SP. · Following the incident, AV1 was “a little more shy.” P2 said that when s/he first started working at the facility approximately seven months prior to the incident, AV2’s behaviors were “pretty bad.” However, they began improving but after the incident with the SP, they became “worse.” · AV1 had a history of stating that s/he was “mad” and when that occurred, P2 “typically” left AV1 “alone” and away from other children, including in the “cozy corner.” P2 though that the SP “did not realize” that s/he could have asked the other children in the cozy corner to move and the SP instead was trying to bring AV1 to the office to have time alone away from the other children. However, P2 said that even if the SP asked the other children to move out of the cozy corner, not “all” children “listened” and may not have moved. · During the incident with AV2, the SP provided verbal cues to AV2, but the SP should have “kept reinforcing” AV2 with verbal cues to get AV2 to sit down. The SP also could have asked P1, who was a “really big help” with “behavioral kids.” · P2’s own child attended the facility, including in the same classroom, and P2 never had any prior concerns with the SP’s interactions with children. P2 was not aware of any other staff persons having concerns with the SP’s interactions with children. · P2 was not aware of AV1 or AV2 holding onto a desk leg during the incident. P3 provided the following information: · P3 said that on an unknown date (later determined to be February 1, 2024), around 10:30 a.m., s/he was in the infant classroom when s/he noticed the FM and the SP in the hall. P3 opened the infant door and the FM told P3 that the SP “put a bruise” on AV1’s arm. · The FM also said that the SP pulled AV2 “down to the ground” because AV2 was running. P3 saw AV2 during this time and said that s/he “seemed fine” and P3 did not observe any injuries. Additionally, the FM told P3 that there “might” have been “some words” said by the SP, including that the incidents would not have happened if the FM’s “kids would listen” and that was why s/he put his/her “hands” on them. P3 did not hear the SP say this and did not hear any yelling, including from the SP. P3 told the FM that s/he would notify P1, who was not at the facility at that time, which P3 did. · P3 thought that AV1 would provide accurate information about the incident and the following day, AV1 told P3 that the SP “hurt” him/her. AV1 then showed P3 his/her lower arm and P3 saw a “yellow and green” bruise that P3 said “looked like a grab.” P3 did not recall which arm the bruise was on. · P3 had not worked with the SP but described the SP as “nice.” P3 had never seen the SP grab children, including by their arm. Staff persons were trained to pick up children by their upper body. P1 provided the following information to law enforcement and during his/her interview and in an Employee Interview Notes written by P1: · On February 1, 2024, at 6:34 a.m., AV1 and AV2 arrived to the facility. At 7 a.m., the SP arrived and at 7:30 a.m., P2 arrived and worked with the SP. Around 7:30 a.m., P1 arrived to the facility and was in and out of the classrooms doing “rounds” and helping with breakfast, including in AV1’s and AV2’s classroom. P1 did not see any staff persons frustrated, including the SP. The SP had a “smile on [his/her] face” and was doing his/her typical job duties when P1 saw the SP. · Around 8:45 a.m., P1 came back into the preschool classroom to assist the children, including AV1, onto school age bus. AV1 kept “repeating” that s/he was “mad,” which AV1 had a history of doing, but did not say why s/he was mad. AV1 was not crying and did not express s/he was in pain. AV1 was wearing a jacket and P1 did not look at AV1’s arms but would have done so if AV1 expressed s/he was in pain or if something hurt. At some point after this, P1 left the facility for a personal appointment. · Around 10 or 10:30 a.m., P1 was not at the facility but the FM called him/her stating s/he was at the facility to talk to P1. The FM told P1 that s/he received a phone call from AV1’s elementary school earlier that morning stating that AV1 was “upset” when s/he arrived. AV1 told school staff that the SP “grabbed” him/her when s/he was going to the cozy corner to “calm down.” The SP did so by grabbing “around” both of AV1’s arms and “lifting” AV1 off the floor, causing bruises on “both forearms.” · Additionally, the FM told P1 that when s/he went to the facility to talk to P1 about the incident, s/he went to check on AV2 in his/her classroom and saw the SP grab AV2 by the hood of his/her jacket, which caused AV2 to fall back onto the floor. The FM also said that the SP “grabbed” AV2 by his/her jacket and “pulled” AV2, “forcing” AV2 onto the floor. The SP then grabbed a toy out of AV2’s hand, which the FM was “extremely concerned” about, and the SP “yelled close to [AV2’s] face.” The FM told P1 that s/he “confronted” the SP about his/her “actions” and that the SP stated, “Maybe they should listen. I am a teacher and I can do it.” P1 told the FM that s/he would look into the incidents once s/he returned to the facility, which was a short time after. · Once P1 returned to the facility, s/he spoke to staff persons including P2 and the SP. P2 told P1 that AV1 wanted to eat breakfast by him/herself and wanted to sit in the cozy corner by him/herself but had to wait because other children were at the breakfast tables and in the cozy corner. Because of this, AV1 was “upset,” including “sitting on the floor screaming.” The SP told P2 that AV1 should “not be throwing a fit” and was “seven.” The SP then tried to “carry” AV1 to the office and AV1 was “fighting back” and stated that s/he “did not want to get in trouble.” P2 told the SP to “stop” and use the classroom walkie talkie to ask P1 for help. P2 did not notice any “marks” on AV1. P2 also told P1 that AV2 was running around the classroom so the SP “grabbed” AV2 by his/her arm or on the upper part of AV2’s jacket and “yelled” that AV2 should be “listening” to the SP. · When P1 spoke to the SP, the SP was “very remorseful” and was “crying.” The SP “apologized” for his/her actions and said that s/he “pulled” AV1’s arm and “grabbed” AV2. However, the SP did not realize s/he was “forceful” with either AV1 or AV2. The SP told P1 that AV1 was “throwing a temper tantrum” and the SP “tried to move” AV1 to the “cozy corner.” The SP held AV1 by his/her arms to pick AV1 up but AV1 “dead weighted” and “fell back to [the] floor.” The SP told P1 that AV2 was running and the SP was trying to “get something” from AV2. The SP “grabbed at” AV2 and “pulled” AV2’s jacket and AV2 “fell to the ground.” The FM told the SP that AV1 and AV2 were “not [the SP’s] children” and the SP said that s/he “understood” that s/he was not their parent. However, the SP said that s/he was their “teacher” and while they were at the facility, they needed to “listen.” · P1 said that AV1 had a history of having “difficult” mornings and often wanted to be by him/herself so staff persons often assisted AV1 to use the cozy corner. The SP should have tried to move the other children from the cozy corner so AV1 could have used it. The SP also should have notified P1 that AV1 needed a “break” because P1 had “sensory” objects in his/her office. Staff persons should not have “physical contact” with children. AV1 had a history of getting “upset with people a lot” but had not said that any staff person had hurt him/her prior. · AV2 had a history of wearing a coat as “comfort” during the day. At the time of the incident, the SP should have “stopped” AV2 by “stepping in front” of AV2 or using verbal cues such as asking AV2 to use his/her “walking feet.” P1 also said that at the time of the incident, AV2 was holding a toy in his/her hand which was “dangerous” to hold while running. The SP should have asked AV2 for the toy and told AV2 it was not a “safe choice.” P1 did not know what toy AV2 had but thought it was a truck that AV2 took from another child. AV2 had a history of displaying physical aggression towards others and “sometimes ignored” directions from staff persons, which P1 said could be “frustrating” to staff persons. When this occurred, staff persons were trained to notify P1 for help. However, during the incident with AV2, P1 was not available because s/he was not at the facility. · On February 2, 2024, AV1 and AV2 returned to the facility. P1 saw “light bruising” on AV1’s left arm and “more bruising” on AV1’s right arm. P1 could “clearly” see “handprints” or “fingerprints” based on the way the bruising was “spaced” on AV1’s arm and it looked like “someone bigger grabbed [AV1].” P1 was not aware of AV1 needing medical attention but said that AV1 went to the school nurse and received an ice pack. P1 was not aware of any injuries to AV2 and AV2 did not say s/he was hurt. · The incident “shocked” P1 and other staff persons. Prior to the incident, there were no concerns with the SP’s interactions with children and the SP was “well liked.” The SP was typically “very cheerful,” “happy,” followed the “rules,” and was “willing to work with any age group.” On the date of the incident, the SP was filling in for another teacher who typically worked in the preschool classroom. The staff person who normally worked with AV1 and AV2 was a “really strong teacher” so it may have been a “little rough” on the date of the incident because the SP typically did not work in that room. The SP typically worked in the toddler room with no concerns. The staff persons who typically worked with the SP prior would have told P1 if they had concerns and had done so prior with other staff persons. · P1 was not aware of any child, including AV1, holding onto a desk leg and a staff person making the child let go. The SP provided the following information: · On an unknown date, around 7 or 7:30 a.m., the SP arrived to the facility for his/her scheduled shift and worked with P2. When the SP arrived, AV1 was “upset,” “screaming,” and crying, which the SP thought was due to another child. The SP and AV1 typically got along “pretty well” so the SP attempted to talk to AV1 but AV1 “did not want to talk.” The SP also tried to verbally redirect AV1 to the cozy corner that was used to assist children to calm when they were “overstimulated or upset” but AV1 “refused to move.” The SP wanted AV1 to go there to calm because AV1 was being a “disturbance” to the classroom by “screaming.” However, AV1 was not harming any other children. The SP then tried to carry AV1 to the cozy corner. The SP did so by “bracing” his/her hands “underneath [AV1’s] armpit area” but AV1 “resisted” by “pulling” towards the floor so the SP “let go” and did not continue trying. AV1 did not indicate s/he was in any pain when the SP did this and the SP did not see any injuries. However, AV1 had been crying prior to and during this because s/he was “upset.” The SP did not touch AV1 any additional times after this. At some point, AV1 eventually “calmed,” ate breakfast, and went to school. At no point did AV1 indicate that his/her arm hurt prior to going to school. The SP said that AV1 did not hold onto anything during the incident. · At some point after AV1 left, AV2 put on his/her coat because s/he thought it was time to go outside. The SP told AV2 it was not time to go outside and to take off his/her coat but AV2 began running around the classroom. The SP attempted to verbally redirect AV2 to stop running but AV2 did not “listen” and continued to run so the SP used his/her arm to “brace” AV2 so that AV2 would stop running. The SP was not aware of any injuries to AV2 and AV2 never told the SP that his/her arms hurt. The SP did not recall grabbing AV2’s coat. At some point during this, AV2 fell but the SP denied causing AV2 to fall. At no point did AV2 cry. The SP denied yanking AV2 to the floor. · Around 2 p.m., the FM came to the facility. The FM said that AV1’s school notified him/her that AV1 had a bruise on his/her arm. The FM then began “yelling” and “screaming” at the SP, stating that the SP “touched” AV1 and “hurt” him/her. However, the FM did not say why s/he thought the SP hurt AV1. The SP told the FM that s/he had not worked at the facility “very long” but denied saying anything else, including that s/he could put his/her hands on AV1 or AV2 if they were not listening. · The SP described AV1 as “pretty truthful” but said that s/he did not cause the bruising to AV1. The SP did not touch AV1’s arm aside from underneath AV1’s arms and did not think his/her interactions caused bruising to AV1. The SP described his/her demeanor with AV1 during his/her interactions as “calm.” P2 was in the classroom with the SP the entire morning and did not indicate s/he had any concerns with the SP’s interactions with AV1. The SP was not aware of any staff persons having concerns with his/her interactions with children. Law enforcement did not interview the SP and the SP was charged with 5th degree assault. A review of photos taken on February 1, 2024, by the FM of AV1’s injuries showed multiple red marks in various sizes on one arm between AV1’s inner wrist and halfway to his/her elbow. The marks were red aside from a larger one closer to AV1’s elbow that was red and greyish/purple. The photos did not show which arm the marks were on. P1 also took a photo on the morning of February 2, 2024, which was similar to the FM’s photos and showed AV1’s left arm. The Family Handbook said that staff persons were to provide positive guidance to children and were to never use corporal punishment. The Employee Handbook said that unacceptable child guidance included grabbing a child or “any physical punishment or restraint.” Positive child guidance included verbal intervention, redirecting children, setting clear behavior expectations, and being a good role model. The Policy on Corporal Punishment said that staff persons were to not hit, pinch, kick, slap, shake, shove, or rough handle children. Facility documentation showed that the SP, P1, P2, and P3 received training on the facility’s policies and procedures including the Behavior Guidance policy, the Policy of Corporal Punishment, and the Reporting of Maltreatment of Minors Act. Relevant Rules and Statutes: Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0055, subpart 3, item A, stated that the license holder must have and enforce a policy that prohibits the subjection of a child to corporal punishment. Corporal punishment includes, but is not limited to, rough handling, shoving, hair pulling, ear pulling, shaking, slapping, kicking, biting, pinching, hitting, and spanking. Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0055, subpart 4, stated that no child was to be separated from the group unless less intrusive methods of guiding the child’s behavior had been tried and were ineffective; the child’s behavior threatened the well-being of the child or other children in the program; and that the child who required separation from the group must remain within an enclosed part of the classroom where the child could be continuously seen and heard by a program staff person. Conclusion: A. Maltreatment: Regarding AV1: Information was provided that on the morning of February 1, 2024, when AV1 arrived to his/her elementary school, AV1 told CP1 and CP2 that the SP “aggressively grabbed” him/her by the arm and that his/her arm was “sore.” CP1 and CP2 each observed that AV1 had a four-inch red mark on his/her forearm that was “starting to bruise.”
P3 said that AV1 would provide accurate information about the incident and the following day, AV1 told P3 that the SP “hurt” him/her. AV1 then showed P3 his/her lower arm and P3 observed a “yellow and green” bruise that P3 said “looked like a grab.” The SP provided different information to this investigator and to P1. The SP told this investigator that s/he verbally attempted to redirect AV1 to the cozy corner, which staff persons typically did but AV1 “refused to move.” The SP then tried to carry AV1 to the cozy corner. The SP did so by “bracing” his/her hands “underneath [AV1’s] armpit area” but AV1 “resisted” by “pulling” towards the floor so the SP “let go” and had no further physical contact with AV1 and denied causing AV1’s bruises. The SP was not aware of AV1 being in pain but said that AV1 had been crying prior to his/her interactions with AV1 and during. P1 stated that when s/he spoke to the SP, the SP “apologized” for his/her actions and said that s/he “pulled” AV1’s arm but did not realize s/he was “forceful” with AV1. The SP told P1 that AV1 was “throwing a temper tantrum” and the SP “tried to move” AV1 to the “cozy corner.” The SP held AV1 by his/her arms to pick AV1 up but AV1 “dead weighted” and “fell back to [the] floor.” Although the FM said that other staff persons had concerns with the SP’s interactions with children, P1, P2, and P3 each were not aware of any other staff person having concerns. Additionally, P1 saw the SP on the morning of the incident and described the SP as “smiling” and doing his/her typical job duties. P2 also described the SP as “polite” when interacting with AV1 on the date of the incident. The SP said that s/he was “calm” when interacting with AV1. The SP’s interactions with AV1 were inconsistent with the standards of a professional caregiver in a facility licensed by the Department of Human Services and a violation of Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0055, subpart 3, item A. Given that at the time of the incident, AV1 was not a danger to him/herself or others and did not require physical intervention, and that although no staff person observed an injury to AV1 around the time of the incident, the CP1, CP2, P1, and the FM later saw bruising on AV1 that P2 said was in the same spot where the SP grabbed AV1, there was a preponderance of the evidence that the SP’s actions were not accidental, inflicted injury, and/or represented a substantial risk of injury to AV1. 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). Regarding AV2: The FM said that at some point on February 1, 2024, s/he went to the facility when s/he saw the SP “aggressively” grab the back of AV2’s coat and “yank” AV2 to the floor. When the FM “confronted” the SP, the SP said that s/he could put his/her “hands” on children if they were not “listening.” At some point after, AV2 told the FM that his/her arm hurt. However, no injuries were observed on AV2.
Following the incident between the SP and AV2, P3 saw AV2 in the hall and said that AV2 seemed “fine” and s/he did not observe any injuries. The SP told this investigator that AV2 was running around the classroom so the SP attempted to verbally redirect AV2 to stop running but AV2 continued to run so the SP used his/her arm to “brace” AV2 so that AV2 would stop running. The SP did not recall grabbing AV2’s coat. At some point during this, AV2 fell but the SP denied causing AV2 to fall. P1 said that the SP told him/her that s/he “grabbed” AV2 and “pulled” AV2’s jacket and that AV2 “fell to the ground.” The SP was not aware of any injuries to AV2 and AV2 never told the SP that his/her arms hurt. Although AV2 did not sustain any injuries, AV2 told the FM that after the incident, his/her arm “hurt.” The SP’s interactions with AV2 were inconsistent with the standards of a professional caregiver in a facility licensed by the Department of Human Services and a violation of Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0055, subpart 3, item A. Given that at the time of the incident, AV2 was not a danger to him/herself or others and did not require physical intervention, there was a preponderance of the evidence that the SP’s actions were not accidental, and represented a substantial risk of injury to AV2. 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 facility’s policies and procedures including the Behavior Guidance policy, the Policy of Corporal Punishment, and the Reporting of Maltreatment of Minors Act. The SP was responsible for the maltreatment of AV1 and AV2. 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 recurring maltreatment because the SP was responsible for the abuse of AV1 and AV2 during different incidents and was serious maltreatment because AV1 sustained a bruise. 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 and procedures were adequate but not followed by the SP. There were no similar prior incidents. The SP no longer worked at the facility. Staff persons were retrained on facility policies and procedures. Action Taken by Department of Human Services, Office of Inspector General: The SP was notified that s/he was responsible for recurring and 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 January 16, 2025, the facility was issued a Correction Order for the violations outlined in this report, for failing to document when children were separated from the group because of behavior guidance, and for failing to document a child’s persistent unacceptable behaviors and develop a plan to address the child’s persistent unacceptable behaviors. 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.
|
