|
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: 800466-CCC (Child Care Center) Investigator(s): Lindsay Arth 651-431-6537 Suspected Maltreatment Reported: It was reported that a staff person (SP) hit an alleged victim (AV) on the head with an iPad. Date of Incident(s): April 10, 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 April 25, 2024; from documentation at the facility; and through four interviews conducted with a facility supervisory staff person (P1), two staff persons (P2 and the SP), and the AV’s family member (FM). Additionally, this investigator set up a time with the FM to meet and talk to the AV but at the prearranged time, the FM said that the AV was not available. The facility had multiple classrooms, including a preschool and school age room. The preschool and school age room were connected by a bathroom. Each classroom had an iPad that had an OtterBox case (hard plastic protector) on it. (Note: An iPad with the OtterBox weighed between two and two and a half pounds.) The AV was approximately four and a half years old and enrolled in the preschool classroom at the time of the incident. P2 and an untitled document written by P2 provided the following information: · On April 10, 2024, at some point between 11:30 a.m. and 12 p.m., P2 was in the school age classroom when the AV ran into the room from the adjoining bathroom. The SP was following the AV and was “yelling.” The AV was “kind of laughing” and thought it was “funny.” The AV then “stopped” and P2 saw the SP hit the AV on the head with an iPad that the SP had been holding. The AV “screamed,” began crying, and fell to the floor. P2 did not see any injuries to the AV and was not aware of the iPad breaking. However, when the SP hit the AV, P2 heard a noise that “sounded like [the iPad] broke” and described the sound as hitting “plastic” on “something hard.” The AV then stood up and the SP and the AV began walking towards the bathroom to go back to their classroom. However, the AV “tripped” and fell and the SP kicked the AV’s legs because the AV was sitting on the floor. P2 also said it was not a “full on kick” but that the SP used his/her foot to “push” the AV back towards the bathroom. P2 did not see anything further because the AV and the SP returned to the preschool room. · P2 did not say anything to the SP during the incident because s/he initially thought the SP was going to pick the AV up and carry the AV back to his/her room, which was what staff persons typically did. The SP did not attempt to redirect the AV during the incident. On the same date, at some point after, P2 told P1 about the incident. P1 then told P2 that the SP told him/her earlier that the iPad was broken and P2 thought that it broke because of the SP hitting the AV on the head. · The AV ran out of the classroom “daily” and had a history of “destroying the entire classroom.” If a child left the group, staff persons were trained to verbally redirect children or hold their hands to walk them back. However, P2 also did not think the AV would return to the room that way and said that staff persons typically had to carry the AV back to his/her classroom. The SP also could have “yelled” to P1 for help, who was in his/her office at the time of the incident. P2’s own child was in the SP’s classroom but P2’s child never said anything to him/her regarding concerns with the SP. Additionally, the children “liked” the SP and following the incident, some of the children asked when the SP was returning to the facility. However, prior to the incident, P2 also saw the SP throw “foam bricks” at the children if they were not listening or “go behind [children] and clap” to “scare” them. The SP also pushed the children on their cots if they were not lying down. P2 never saw any injuries to the children because of this but said that children cried after the SP’s interactions. P2 said the SP interacted with the “whole class” in this manner P1 and an untitled document written by P1 provided the following information: · On April 10, 2024, at some point prior to becoming aware of the incident, P1 saw that the preschool iPad was broken. The screen was “busted” and P1 described it as a “finger mark” on the screen. P1 asked the SP what happened, and the SP said the iPad broke because it was sitting on his/her lap and fell when s/he stood up quickly. · Between 12:30 and 1:45 p.m., P2 came into P1’s office and told P1 that the SP was “upset” with the AV because the AV would not lay down for nap and hit the AV on the top of his/her head with an iPad. P2 also said that the SP “kicked” the AV and hit the AV “so hard” that the AV fell. At this point, P1 thought the iPad broke when the SP hit the AV on the head with it. · P1 then spoke to the SP. When P1 asked the SP about the incident, the SP said that the AV would not lay down for nap and kept trying to run to the school age room. The SP got “upset” and “tapped” the AV on his/her head with the iPad. The SP denied kicking the AV but said that s/he used his/her foot to “push” the AV “out of” the bathroom. · P1 spoke to the AV about the incident and the AV told P1 that the SP “hit” him/her on the head with the iPad. P1 asked the AV if it hurt when the SP hit him/her and the AV said it did. P1 asked the AV if s/he cried and the AV said that s/he did. P1 looked at the AV following the incident but did not see any injuries. P1 also felt the AV’s head but did not feel any bumps. The AV did not require any medical attention. · P1 thought that the AV and P2 provided accurate information about the incident, including because they both said similar things. Additionally, P2 would not have any reason to provide inaccurate information about the SP. · The AV had a history of hitting and kicking others and throwing things. The AV also had a history of trying to leave the group. The incident occurred during naptime so the SP was the only staff person in the preschool room at that time. However, the SP should have asked other staff persons for help which could have been done via the classroom walkie-talkie. · The SP was typically “very level-headed” and calm. However, the week of the incident, the SP had things going on in his/her personal life and was “very on edge.” There were no prior concerns with the SP’s interactions with children. P1 had not seen or heard that the SP threw foam blocks at children. P1 was not aware of any children sustaining injuries because of the SP’s interactions with them.
The SP and an untitled document written by the SP provided the following information: · On April 10, 2024, the SP worked in the preschool room. Around 2 p.m., during nap, the AV began crying because s/he did not want to nap. The AV then ran out of the classroom, through the attached bathroom, and into the school age room. The SP was the only staff person in the room during this time so initially, the SP did not know if s/he should leave to get the AV or stay in the room. However, the SP then “made the decision” to go into the school age room to get the AV to bring him/her back to the preschool room. When the SP entered the school age room, there were other children in there and the SP did not initially see the AV. The SP then saw the AV in a corner of the room and tried to take the AV back to the preschool room by “grabbing” the AV’s hand to “lead” the AV back to the room. However, during this, the AV “dropped” his/her body. The AV was typically an “active” child, including during the incident, and was not “listening” and was “doing [his/her] own thing,” including “not following along.” The SP then used his/her “whole body to guide [the AV’s] body” to assist the AV to return to the classroom. During this, P2 was sitting in a chair “just staring” at the SP with a “disturbed” look on his/her face. Once the AV returned to the classroom, the AV “went to sleep.” · At some point after the incident, P1 came into the SP’s classroom and asked the SP if s/he “hit” the AV. The SP told P1 that s/he did not hit the AV. · The SP denied being “forceful” with the AV. The SP said that s/he “never put [his/her] hands on [the AV]” and that it would not be appropriate to hit a child. The SP provided conflicting information regarding whether s/he hit the AV with the iPad. The SP told this investigator that during the incident, s/he was holding an iPad so it “may have looked” like s/he hit the AV when s/he “guided” the AV back to the room but that s/he did not hit the AV. However, the SP’s written documentation showed that the SP wrote that s/he “tapped” the AV on the head with the iPad, “at which point, [the AV] went to the ground.” The SP also wrote that s/he also used his/her “foot to push” the AV back into the preschool room. The SP never saw any injuries to the AV. · The SP denied breaking the iPad from his/her interactions with the AV. The SP said that the iPad broke prior to the incident because the SP was sitting on a shelf in the classroom and had the iPad on his/her lap. The SP stood up and the iPad “slid down” to the floor and the edge of the iPad hit the “hardwood floor,” causing it to break. The FM provided the following information: · At some point on April 10, 2024, P1 called and told the FM that the SP hit the AV on the head with an iPad and that the iPad broke as a result. Around 4:30 p.m., the FM went to the facility to pick the AV up and said that the AV was “happy” and that there was “no huge harm” to the AV from the incident. However, the FM felt the AV’s head and the AV had a small bump on his/her head which as of April 15, 2024, had “disappeared.” The FM did not take any photos of the injuries. The AV did not require any medical attention but the FM applied an ice pack. · The FM also saw the iPad and said that the “whole screen” was “black” with “cracks in it.” There was also a “thumb print” or circular crack which the FM thought was where the SP held the iPad when s/he hit the AV. · The FM did not have any concerns with how the facility “handled” the incident. There were times, “every day,” when the AV had behaviors that included attempting to leave the classroom and/or exit the facility. The FM was notified and asked to pick the AV up due to these behaviors and for the “safety” of the AV. An iPad that P1 told this investigator was from the incident showed that when the iPad was turned on, near the bottom right of the iPad, there was a small, cracked area on the screen. Additionally, part of the screen was black and/or had lines going through it. The crack and damage were not visible when the iPad was turned off. The case was not cracked or damaged. The Guidelines for Immediate Disenrollment said that staff persons were not to use physical restraint, other than to protect a child or others from harm. Additionally, staff persons were not to use corporal punishment. The Employee Acknowledgement said that the facility had “zero tolerance for abuse of any kind against a child.” The Behavior Guidance said that when children displayed behaviors, staff persons were to redirect children or offer verbal “intervention.” Staff persons were not to use physical restraint or corporal punishment. Facility documentation showed that the SP, P1 and P2 each received training on the facility’s policies and procedures, including the employee acknowledgement, Behavior Guidance, and the Maltreatment of Minors Act, prior to the incident. 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. Conclusion: A. Maltreatment: P2 provided consistent information to this investigator, P1, and in an untitled document, that on April 10, 2024, P2 saw the SP hit the AV on the head with an iPad. P1 did not notice any injury to the AV but the FM said that after the incident, s/he felt a small bump on the AV’s head, which eventually disappeared. Additionally, P2 said that prior to the incident, the AV was laughing but when the SP hit the AV with the iPad, the AV began crying. The AV also told P1 that it hurt when the SP hit him/her on the head with the iPad. The AV did not require any medical attention. Additionally, although P2 told this investigator and P1 that the SP “kicked” the AV’s legs, P2 also told this investigator that it was not a “full on kick” but that the SP used his/her foot to push the AV towards the bathroom. P2 and P1 said that when children, including the AV, displayed behaviors, staff persons were trained to redirect children verbally or by guiding their hands. Staff persons could also ask other staff persons, including P1, for help. The SP provided conflicting information to this investigator, in a written document, and to P1. The SP told this investigator that it may have “looked” like s/he hit the AV with the iPad but that s/he did not hit the AV. However, the written documentation from the SP and the information the SP told P1 was consistent that the SP said s/he “tapped” the AV on the head with the iPad. The SP also wrote that s/he used his/her foot to “push” the AV back to the preschool room. Although P2 also said that prior to the incident, P2 saw the SP throw foam bricks at children, go behind them and clap to “scare” them, and push children on their cots if they were not lying down, P1 was not aware of this and there was no additional information that supported this. Additionally, P2 was not able to name any specific children the SP did this too but said it was the whole class and was not able to provide details of specific incidents. P2 was also not aware of any injuries to these children as a result of the SP’s interactions but said that the children cried after the SP’s interactions with them. Therefore, it was not determined what impact these interactions had on the unknown children. The SP’s interactions with the AV 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. Although it was not known if the iPad broke because of the SP’s interaction with the AV or prior, given that hitting a child on the head with any object and kicking them to move them was not accidental, that the iPad weighed between two and two and a half pounds, and that the FM said that the AV had a bump on his/her head, there was a preponderance of the evidence that the SP’s actions 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 facility’s policies and procedures, including the employee acknowledgement, behavior guidance, and the Maltreatment of Minors Act, prior to the incident. The SP was responsible for the maltreatment of the AV. B. 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 for in this report was not recurring but was serious. It was a single incident for which the sustained a bump on the AV’s head which was tissue damage. In addition, information obtained by the Department of Human Services, in combination with this report, determined that the SP was responsible for recurring maltreatment. The SP was disqualified from providing direct contact services. 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 their policies and procedures were adequate but not followed when the SP hit the AV on the head. The SP no longer worked at the facility. Action Taken by Department of Human Services, Office of Inspector General: The SP was disqualified from a position allowing direct contact with, or access to, persons receiving services from 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. The determination that the SP was responsible for maltreatment and the disqualification of the SP are each subject to appeal. On February 21, 2025, the facility was issued a Correction Order for the violation outlined in this report and for failing to report maltreatment as required. 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.
|
