|
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: 1021215-CCC (Child Care Center) Investigator(s): Beth Virden 651-431-6572 Suspected Maltreatment Reported: It was reported that a staff person (SP) “rubbed” and “touched” two alleged victim’s (AV1 and AV2) legs and buttocks and told them not to tell anyone. Date of Incident(s): Unknown dates summer 2024 Nature of Alleged Maltreatment Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 260E.03, subdivision 20: "Sexual abuse" means the subjection of a child by a person responsible for the child's care, by a person who has a significant relationship to the child, or by a person in a position of authority, to any act that constitutes a violation of section 609.342 (criminal sexual conduct in the first degree), 609.343 (criminal sexual conduct in the second degree), 609.344 (criminal sexual conduct in the third degree), 609.345 (criminal sexual conduct in the fourth degree), or 609.3451 (criminal sexual conduct in the fifth degree). Sexual abuse includes threatened sexual abuse. Summary of Findings: Pertinent information was obtained during a site visit conducted on September 9, 2024; from documentation at the facility, forensic interview records, and law enforcement records; and through interviews conducted with AV1’s family member (FM1), AV2’s family member (FM2), family members of other children (FM3 and FM4), a facility staff person (SP), and a supervisory staff person (P). AV1 and AV2 were each interviewed by a forensic interviewer (FI), who specialized in interviewing children who were alleged victims of sexual abuse. AV1’s and AV2’s information was included in this report. A law enforcement officer (LEO) interviewed a child’s family member (FM5), and that information was also included. A phone call was made to AV1’s therapist (T) to obtain additional information, but the T did not respond by the completion of this investigation. During the timeframe of the incidents, AV1 was nine years old and AV2 was seven years old, and both were enrolled in the facility’s school age classroom. The facility provided childcare services in a building with multiple classrooms. The school age classroom was down a short hallway from the front lobby and staff office. The classroom was “L” shaped and filled with tables, chairs, and toys. There was a camera mounted in one corner of the room; however, it did not cover the entire room, including portions of a rug on the far side. The camera, itself, was clearly visible when standing in the room and the direction the camera faced was also apparent. AV1 provided the following information: · On August 14, 2024, AV1 told FI that s/he and the SP were “always kidding around” when the SP touched him/her. The SP “rubbed” AV1’s “thighs, hip, and butt” over AV1’s clothes. AV1 told the SP to stop more than once but the SP continued, and at least once whispered, “Don’t tell anyone.” · Using an anatomically accurate doll, AV1 showed the FI where the SP touched him/her and pointed to the doll’s inner thigh and buttocks. · AV1 demonstrated to the FI on a pillow by “squeezing” the pillow regarding how the SP “grabbed” AV1’s buttocks. · AV1 said that s/he tried changing his/her appearance to deter the SP’s actions. Instead of wearing shorts, AV1 wore oversized, baggie clothes but the SP continued even with the clothing change. · The incidents occurred in the school age classroom during summer 2024 on the classroom rug with other children around. AV1 did not think the other children saw what was happening. The T stated that AV1 told the T that the SP touched his/her leg and that AV1 initially thought it was “a joke.” However, the SP then asked AV1 if s/he “liked it,” and AV1 said, “No.” The SP told AV1 that s/he would not do it again and told AV1 not to tell anyone. However, later that same day, the SP touched AV1’s leg again and continued this conduct for about four weeks in Summer 2024. AV1 also told the T that the SP “touched in [AV1’s] pants” but the T did not have additional details about what this entailed. FM1 provided the following information: · During summer 2024, FM1 had noticed AV1 was acting “off” with “higher anxiety.” AV1 told FM1 that the SP was touching his/her thigh and inner thigh, and that other children were around when this occurred, including a child (C1). FM1 contacted law enforcement. · AV1 started seeing the T for therapy sessions. AV1 began “feeling more comfortable” and “sharing more information.” AV1 asked if s/he could tell FM1 more about what happened and then AV1 told FM1 that “a couple of times,” the SP put his/her hand down the front and the back of his/her pants. Each time, AV1 pushed the SP’s hand away before s/he was able to touch AV1’s genitalia and/or buttocks. · AV1 did not have a history of making statements such as those s/he provided regarding the SP’s interactions. · Although AV1 was no longer enrolled at the facility, s/he continued to experience “anxiety” and trouble sleeping. A law enforcement report provided the following information: · When the LEO interviewed the SP, the SP was told there was an allegation s/he touched a child “inappropriately” but AV1 was not identified to the SP. [Note: At the time of this interview, AV2 was not known or identified as an alleged victim.] · The SP was “shocked” by the allegations and said that s/he might touch a child by holding their hand for various reasons or by pushing a child’s hips if they tried to sit on the SP’s lap, which the children were not supposed to do. Children sometimes tried to sit on the SP’s lap when they sat on the classroom rug for games or meetings. · The SP could not think of a child who might be mad at him/her or want to get him/her in trouble. · The LEO reviewed the facility’s camera footage for one date when the incidents might have occurred. AV1 and the SP were both present on this day. The footage did not show the SP “whispering or touching” AV1. At one point, the class went outside, and the SP sat at a picnic table with AV1, and the two were “paying attention to each other the whole time they are outside.” The alleged spot where the touching occurred was in the blind spot of the camera (the rug on the far side of the room). · The SP was charged with second degree criminal sexual conduct for his/her contact with AV1. The SP provided information to this investigator that was consistent with the information s/he told the LEO. The SP could not think of any child who sought him/her out more than others or any situations in the classroom that might have been misinterpreted as inappropriate contact. Regarding touching a child “inappropriately,” the SP said, “Not to my knowledge. Certainly not intentionally. Not that I’m aware of.” The children in the classroom were school age, and so the SP did not need to help any of them in the bathroom or with their pants, etc. Regarding children trying to sit on the SP’s lap, the SP could not think of a specific child, who did this, but said it was a group of children. FM2 provided the following information: · On October 19, 2024, FM2 learned of the SP’s arrest regarding AV1 and recognized him/her as working in AV2’s classroom. At home, AV2 talked about the SP “a lot” and was AV2’s “favorite teacher.” A few times, AV2 came home with gifts (e.g., a hand drawn picture) from the SP. One time, when FM2 touched the picture, AV2 pulled it away and told him/her not to touch it. · FM2 asked AV2 about the SP, which prompted AV2 to “shutdown.” However, later AV2 “opened up” and told FM2 that the SP touched or “grabbed” his/her buttocks and genitalia inside and outside AV2’s pants. The SP also digitally penetrated AV2, which caused “pain” and made AV2 feel like s/he had to urinate and/or defecate. This occurred on “several occasions” or “at least 10-12 times” during summer 2024. The SP told AV2 to keep this as their “private secret.” AV2 also said that there were other children the SP was doing this to and that the others were aware the SP was doing this to all of them. · FM2 recalled that AV2 had “red and swollen” genitalia at some point during summer 2024, which at the time FM2 attributed to AV2’s toileting habits. AV2 did not see a doctor during that time. AV2 told the FI that the SP did not touch his/her genitalia and/or buttocks. AV2 heard the SP touched other children’s (C1, C2, and C3) genitalia and buttocks. AV2 heard this from another child (C4). [Note: P4 stated that the school age classroom did not have any children with the same or similar first name as C4 as stated by AV1.] It was not able to be determined who C4 was. At least once, the SP asked AV2 to sit on his/her lap but AV2 said, “No.” The SP did not, otherwise, touch AV2. FM3 and FM4 each stated that they had no information or immediate concern that their child (C1 and C2, respectively) saw a child or was themselves touched “inappropriately” by the SP. FM4 asked C2 if the SP ever touched him/her and C2 said, “No.” The LEO interviewed FM5, who also had no information or immediate concern that his/her child (C3) was touched “inappropriately” by the SP. C1, C2, and C3 were not interviewed by the FI due to their being no disclosure or evidence of sexual contact. The P provided the following information: · During the summer 2024, there were between 11 and 15 children in the classroom with the SP on any given day. The SP worked alone, and the P was not aware of prior concerns with the SP’s conduct. · The P reviewed camera footage for the school age classroom when AV1 and the SP were both present, and “didn’t see anything” similar to the allegations or that were concerning. The SP did not seem to be following and/or favoring AV1. The camera showed part of the rug area where the alleged incidents occurred but not the entire area. [Note: At the time of this interview, AV2 was not known or identified as an alleged victim.] Facility documentation stated that the SP received training on the Reporting of Maltreatment of Minors Act.
Conclusion: A. Maltreatment: Regarding AV1: AV1 provided information to FM1, the T, and the FI that the SP touched his/her genitalia and buttocks. AV1 said s/he tried changing his/her appearance to deter the SP, but it did not work and the SP continued to touch AV1. The SP told AV1 not to tell anyone about what was happening. FM1 said that AV1 did not have a history of making such statements and had noticed AV1 was acting “off” with “higher anxiety” prior to AV1’s disclosure. Since then, AV1 continued to experience “anxiety” and trouble sleeping. The SP denied the allegations and the P had no prior concerns with the SP’s conduct. Although camera footage of the classroom did not show the incidents, the camera did not cover the entire room, and in AV1’s account, s/he described the location where the incidents occurred, which happened to be the exact spot not captured by the camera. Given that AV1 provided consistent information to three persons; that AV1 had no history of saying persons inappropriately touched him/her; that according to FM1, AV1 experienced changes in his/her behavior around the time of the incidents; and that the SP had reason to minimize his/her actions for fear of repercussions, there was a preponderance of the evidence that the SP engaged in the actions as described by AV1 and sexually touched AV1. It was determined that sexual abuse occurred (the subjection of a child by a person responsible for the child's care, by a person who has a significant relationship to the child, as defined in section 609.341, or by a person in a position of authority, as defined in section 609.341, subdivision 10, to any act which constitutes a violation of section 609.342 - 609.3451 [criminal sexual contact in the first through fifth degree]). Regarding AV2: Although AV2 initially told FM2 that the SP touched his/her genitalia and buttocks and digitally penetrated him/her, AV2 later told the FI that the SP did not touch his/her genitalia and/or buttocks. Therefore, there was not a preponderance of the evidence that the SP sexually touched AV2. It was not determined that sexual abuse occurred (the subjection of a child by a person responsible for the child's care, by a person who has a significant relationship to the child, as defined in section 609.341, or by a person in a position of authority, as defined in section 609.341, subdivision 10, to any act which constitutes a violation of section 609.342 - 609.3451 [criminal sexual contact in the first through fifth degree]). 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 worked in the school age classroom and was responsible for the care of the children, including AV1. The SP received training on the Reporting of Maltreatment of Minors Act. The SP was responsible for maltreatment of AV1. 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 sexual abuse for which the SP was responsible was “recurring and serious” maltreatment. AV1 provided information that the SP sexually touched him/her on more than one occasion. 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 and followed. There was not a need for additional staff training or corrective action at that time. The SP no longer worked at the facility. 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. 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.
|
