|
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: 1086639-CCC (Child Care Center) Investigator(s): Danielle Morrison 651-431-5647 Suspected Maltreatment Reported: It was reported that five alleged victims (AV1-AV5) were in an infant classroom without staff person supervision for approximately one minute or less. Two staff persons (SP1 and SP2) had each walked out of the classroom not realizing the other staff person had also left, leaving the classroom without supervision. Date of Incident(s): March 31, 2025 Nature of Alleged Maltreatment Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 260E.03, subdivision 15, paragraph (a), clauses (1) and (2): Failure by a person responsible for a child's care to supply a child with necessary food, clothing, shelter, health, medical, or other care required for the child's physical or mental health when reasonably able to do so. Failure to protect a child from conditions or actions that seriously endanger the child's physical or mental health when reasonably able to do so. Summary of Findings: Pertinent information was obtained during a site visit conducted on April 11, 2025; from documentation at the facility; and through nine interviews conducted with a supervisory staff person (P), SP1, SP2, a community person (CP), and AV1’s-AV5’s family members (FM1-FM5 respectively). AV1 -AV5 ranged in ages from 5 to 11 months old and were enrolled in the infant A classroom at the time of the incident. The facility had four infant classrooms (A to D) along one hallway. The infant A classroom had a single full glass door to enter and exit into the classroom with a full glass window next to it. There was a single full glass door that led into the main lobby just outside of the infant A classroom door. There were three full glass windows next to the door leading to the main lobby. The main lobby had a reception desk. The infant B classroom was located next to the infant A classroom in the hallway. There was a four foot by six foot window that looked between the two classrooms. FM1-FM5 were not aware of the incident, but had no prior concerns. FM2 said s/he had “nothing but a great experience.” FM3 stated, “We have been really happy.” FM4 said, “[AV4] seemed really loved in [his/her] room.” FM5 said s/he was “very happy so far.” FM1 stated s/he “liked” SP1. The CP provided the following different accounts of the incident: · On the date of the incident, when the CP arrived to the facility to pick up his/her child in the infant A classroom. The CP said that SP1 went to the laundry room and did not tell SP2. The CP did not hear SP1 tell SP2 that s/he was leaving the classroom and stated that SP1 walked by SP2 “very quickly without letting [SP2] know.” Then an unknown staff person arrived to speak with SP2, so when SP2 went into the hallway to speak with that other staff person, SP2 was the last staff person to leave the classroom leaving the CP alone in the classroom with the children for about 10 seconds. The CP was not sure if SP2 thought SP1 was still in the classroom. · The CP then stated that SP2 was in the hallway when SP1 walked out of the classroom. · SP2 was the first staff person back in the classroom and was “horrified” that the children had been left alone. The CP said the children (likely AV1-AV5 based on facility attendance) were sitting and playing, and none were crying. · When asked about the discrepancy of who was the last staff person out of the classroom, the CP said, “I don’t remember fully.” The CP then stated that when s/he was in the classroom, SP2 went out in the hallway leaving SP1 in the classroom. Then SP1 left the classroom leaving the CP by him/herself. The CP stated it was also closer to 20-30 seconds s/he was alone with AV1-AV5. SP1 provided the following information to this investigator and during the facility’s internal investigation: · On March 31, 2025, sometime between 3 and 4 p.m., SP1 and SP2 worked in an infant classroom together. SP2 was in the middle of the classroom speaking with a child’s family member who SP1 could not recall. SP1 told SP2 s/he was going to leave to use the restroom. · SP2 and the family member turned and looked at SP1 and then continued their conversation. SP1 went to use the closest restroom, and retunred about one minute later. When SP1 returned, SP2 was at the doorway and said, “ I thought you were in the classroom.” · SP1 said that had SP2 been in the hallway, s/he would have seen that because s/he would had passed SP2 to go to the restroom. If that had been the case, SP1 would have waited to use the restroom. · SP1 was not sure if SP2 left the children alone in the classroom because when SP1 arrived back from using the restroom, SP2 was in the classroom doorway. SP2 provided the following information to this investigator and during the facility’s internal investigation: · On March 31, 2025, around 4:20 p.m., SP2 was going to move the children from one classroom to another when the CP entered the classroom to pick up his/her child. SP2 left the classroom and was just outside of the infant A classroom with his/her back against the glass on the side of the door directly outside of the classroom. SP2 was stopped by a family member from another classroom who s/he could not recall. · SP2 heard SP1 ask a float staff person who was in infant D at the end of the hallway for diaper changing table paper, but since SP2 was speaking with a family member, s/he did not hear the rest of the conversation, but heard the infant A classroom door shut. · SP2 spoke with the family member for one to two minutes and then went into the infant B classroom to see about moving children. As SP2 looked through the window from infant B into the infant A classroom, s/he noticed that SP1 was no longer in the classroom, and the CP was in there alone with the children. SP2 ran back in to the classroom and apologized to the CP. · About two to three minutes later, SP1 arrived back to the classroom. At that point the CP was gone, and SP2 told SP1 that s/he left children alone. SP1 stated that s/he had not. · SP2 stated that when s/he was in the hallway speaking to the family member, s/he did not see SP1 walk by leaving the classroom, but s/he was engaged in speaking with a family member and so s/he may not have noticed. SP2 said s/he should have checked to make sure SP1 was still in the infant classroom before moving on to the infant B classroom because s/he heard the door shut. The P provided the following information: · On the afternoon of March 31, 2025, the P was sitting at the front desk when SP2 came and told the P what happened. SP2 told the P that SP1 left the classroom and SP2 was not aware, and SP2 walked down the hallway and when SP2 returned, s/he realized the classroom was left without any staff persons. SP2 told the P s/he was the last staff person out of the classroom. · SP1 then called the P from the infant A classroom and described what happened as an “accident” and a “miscommunitcation.” SP1 did not tell the P who was the last staff person out of the classroom. The facility’s Childcare Program Plan stated, “Children will be supervised at all times. It is never acceptable to leave a child unattended.” Facility document showed that the P, SP1, and SP2 each received traingning on the faciltiy’s Childcare Program Plan and the Reporting of Maltreatment of Minors Act. Relevant Rule and/or Statute
Minnesota Statutes, section 245A.02, subdivision 18, and Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0045, subpart 1, item A, states that a child must have supervision at all times and that supervision is defined as occurring when a program staff person is within sight and hearing of a child at all times so that the program staff person can intervene to protect the health and safety of the child. Conclusion: Consistent information was provided that on March 31, 2025, SP1 and SP2 worked in the infant A classroom with AV1-AV5. At some point both SP1 and SP2 left the infant classroom and the infants were unsupervised for less than one minute which was a violation of Minnesota Statutes, section 245A.02, subdivision 18, and Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0045, subpart 1, item A. Information from SP1 and SP2 conflicted and the CP provided different accounts as to who was the last staff person to leave the classroom. However, shortly after the incident, SP2 told the P that s/he was the last staff person to leave the classroom so it was most likely that SP2 was the last staff person to leave the classroom. Minnesota Statutes, section 260E.30, subdivision 3, states that rather than making a determination of substantiated maltreatment by an individual, the commissioner of human services shall determine that a nonmaltreatment mistake was made by the individual. A nonmaltreatment mistake occurs when: (1) at the time of the incident, the individual was performing duties identified in the center’s child care program plan; (2) the individual has not been determined responsible for a similar incident that resulted in a finding of maltreatment for at least seven years;
(3) the individual has not been determined to have committed a similar nonmaltreatment mistake under this paragraph for at least four years; (4) any injury to a child resulting from the incident, if treated, is treated only with remedies that are available over the counter, whether ordered by a medical professional or not; and
(5) except for the period when the incident occurred, the facility and the individual providing services were both in compliance with all licensing requirements relevant to the incident. Although AV1-AV5 were unsupervised when SP1 and SP2 left the classroom, SP1’s and SP2’s actions were determined to be a nonmaltreatment mistake for the following reasons: (1) At the time of the incident, SP1 and SP2 were performing duties as required. SP1 was using the restroom and SP2 was speaking with a family member and preparing to move the children to another classroom and out of the classroom only momentarily as AV1-AV5 played; (2) SP1 and SP2 had not been determined responsible for a similar incident that resulted in a finding of maltreatment; (3) SP1 and SP2 had not been determined to have committed a similar nonmaltreatment mistake under this paragraph; (4) there were no injuries to AV1-AV5 as a result of this incident; and (5) except for the period when the incident occurred, the facility, SP1 and SP2 were in compliance with all licensing requirements relevant to the incident. The nonmaltreatment mistake to AV1-AV5 by SP1 and SP2 was not maltreatment. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 260E.35, subdivision 6, paragraph (b), the investigative data in this report will be maintained by the Department of Human Services for a period of five years. Action Taken by Facility: The facility completed an Internal Review and found their policies and procedures adequate, but not followed by SP1 and SP2. SP2 received a written warning for the incident and SP1 received a verbal warning. SP1 no longer worked at the facility. Action Taken by Department of Human Services, Office of Inspector General: SP1 and SP2 were not determined as perpetrators of maltreatment of AV1-AV5 because the Department of Human Services found that the incident for which SP1 and SP2 were responsible met the criteria to be determined a nonmaltreatment mistake. SP1 and SP2 were notified by the Office of Inspector General that any future incident of possible neglect of an alleged victim for which SP1 and SP2 was responsible might not be considered a nonmaltreatment mistake. On, June 6, 2025, the facility was issued a Correction Order for the violation outlined in this report and for failing to update Background Studies when a staff person changed their last name. 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.
|
