|
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: 1080534-CCC (Child Care Center) Investigator(s): Judie Schwanke judith.schwanke@state.mn.us Suspected Maltreatment Reported: It was reported that an alleged victim (AV) sustained a purple welt on his/her ear when a staff person (SP) pulled the AV to his/her cot by the ear. Date of Incident(s): March 14, 2025 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 3, 2025; from documentation at the facility; and through six interviews conducted with the AV, the AV’s family members (FM1 and FM2), a supervisory staff person (P1) and two staff persons (P2 and the SP). The AV was four years old and enrolled in the Preschool classroom at the time of the incident. The Preschool classroom was a large, open rectangular room with tables, chairs, and toy shelves throughout. There was a stack of cots against one wall. The facility used Brightwheel which was a mobile application (app) platform used to communicate with families and streamline administrative functions. The AV stated that on the day of the incident, s/he was not on his/her cot at nap time because s/he did not “know how to sleep.” The SP told him/her that s/he “better get on your cot,” and “pulled” his/her ear. Then the AV “pulled” the SP’s ear. The AV’s ear felt “bad,” but the AV did not cry. The AV told FM1, FM2, and other family members that the SP pulled his/her ear. The AV did not tell P2 that the SP had pulled his/her ear. FM1 and FM2 provided the following information: · FM2 stated that on March 14, 2025, s/he received an incident report that the AV had kicked the SP while s/he was “covering” the Preschool classroom. · FM1 picked the AV up from the facility and brought the AV home. FM1 noticed a “mark” on the AV’s “ear,” and asked the AV what happened because s/he had not received a report about the AV’s ear. The AV told FM1 that the SP “pulled” the AV to his/her cot by his/her ear and showed FM1 by folding and pulling on his/her ear. The AV told FM1 that the SP did this because the AV was not on his/her cot. FM1 told FM2 what the AV told him/her. · FM2 called the facility to talk with P1 but P1 was not available so s/he talked with P2. FM2 asked P2 if the AV had “gotten into a fight” with another child and P2 said, “No.” FM2 told P2 that the AV had a “big mark” on his/her ear that was caused by the SP. P2 told FM2 that s/he would have P1 call her back on Monday (March 17, 2025). · Approximately 30 minutes later FM2 received a call from P1. FM2 “explained everything” to P1. P1 asked FM2 for pictures so FM2 took and sent pictures to P1. P1 told him/her that they would talk on Monday. · On March 17, 2025, FM1 and FM2 met with P1. P1 told FM1 and FM2 that what the AV told them did not “make sense.” FM2 “showed” P1 the “motion” the AV had made and told P1 that if the SP pulled hard enough it would leave a mark on the AV’s ear. FM2 also told P1 that in the past s/he had heard the SP “yelling” at the children. P1 told FM2 that s/he would talk with the SP about his/her tone of voice. · On March 19, 2025, FM2 talked to P1 again. P1 told FM2 that s/he spoke with the SP and was told s/he did not pull the AV’s ear and because there were not cameras in the facility there was nothing more to be done. · FM1 stated that on March 13, 2025, the AV told FM1 that the SP had “pushed” him/her “down” on his/her cot. Photos of the AV’s left ear taken on March 14, 2025, showed that the AV had an oval, red mark that was approximately one half inch long and a quarter inch wide at the top of the ear near the AV’s head. A cell phone video taken by FM1 on March 14, 2025, showed the AV outside. FM1 touched the AV’s left ear and asked, “What happened to your ear?” The AV told FM1 that s/he did not know. Then FM1 asked, “Who did that?” to the AV’s ear and the AV responded, “It was [the SP’s name].” FM1 then asked the AV, “At nap time?” and the AV responded, “Yeah.” FM1 then asked, “Why?” and the AV responded, “Cause [s/he] did.” FM2 said, “[S/he] pulled your ear?” and the AV responded, “Yeah.” FM1 asked the AV if s/he was “telling the truth,” and the AV responded, “Yes, that is the truth.” FM1 asked the AV if s/he hit the SP and acknowledged s/he had. FM1 then asked the AV if s/he was “being naughty” because the SP “pulled” the AV’s ear and the AV responded, “Yeah.” FM1 then told the AV that it was “not okay,” and that the SP “could not do that.” The AV responded, “No” and “I did not like [him/her] did that.” FM1 asked the AV if s/he was “sure,” and the AV responded, “Yes, I am.” Then the AV showed FM2 what s/he was playing with and the video ended. P2 provided the following information: · On March 14, 2025, at the beginning of nap time, the SP came into the Preschool classroom to relieve P2 for a break. When P2 returned to the classroom, the AV was upset and “slapped” the SP. The SP told P2 that s/he had written an incident report for the AV for an incident that occurred while P2 was on break. P2 told the SP that s/he would write an incident report for the hit and the SP left the classroom. · Then P2 sat with the AV on his/her lap and P2 calmed the AV by talking with him/her. P2 asked the AV why s/he was upset and why s/he slapped the SP but the AV did not give P2 an answer. The AV did not tell P2 that the SP did anything to him/her during nap time and P2 did not see a mark on the AV’s ear. After talking with P2, the AV was “fine,” and played in the classroom. At approximately 2:50 p.m., the AV left the facility · At approximately 4:08 p.m., FM2 called the facility and asked P2 to talk with P1 and told P2 that the AV said the SP pulled his/her ear and s/he had pictures and a video of the AV’s ear. P2 told FM2 that s/he would let P1 know. Then P2 texted P1 who said s/he would call FM2. · On prior occasions, while the SP was at the facility, but not on the clock, P2 saw the SP “be a little rough” when s/he pulled his/her child’s arm “or something like that.” P2 also heard the SP “holler” and “raise” his/her voice at his/her child. P2 did not see the SP do this with children other than his/her own child. · P2 was trained on the facility’s policies including prohibited actions. The SP provided the following information: · On the day of the incident, at approximately 12 p.m., the SP walked into the preschool classroom to relieve P2 for break. There were ten children in the classroom, including the AV. Five children, including the AV, were “still awake” on their cots and the other children were asleep. · Five to ten minutes after P2 left the classroom, the AV ran around the classroom screaming which made the other awake children laugh. The SP “grabbed” the AV’s hand and had the AV sit in a chair. The SP told the AV that s/he could not “run around” and the AV kicked the SP. The SP told the AV that s/he was going to create an incident report for him/her kicking the SP. The AV “jumped down” from the chair, went to his/her cot, sat on it, and asked the SP not to tell FM1. The AV sat on his/her cot and “yelled,” while the SP “typed” the AV’s incident report. · Prior to the incident, the SP did not see any marks on either of the AV’s ears. On March 17, 2025, P1 showed the SP a picture of the AV’s ear and the SP saw a “bruise” on the AV’s ear near his/her head. · At approximately 12:25 p.m., P2 came back into the classroom and as the SP was “getting ready to leave the classroom,” the AV “got up” from his/her cot, walked to the SP, and “slapped” the SP on his/her arm. P2 told the SP that s/he would write that incident report and the SP left the classroom. · At approximately 2 p.m., the SP went into the preschool classroom to deliver snack. While the SP talked with P2, the AV “ran up” to the SP to give him/her a hug. The SP told the AV, “No, walk away,” because s/he did not want a hug. The SP did not want a hug because s/he was talking with P2 and attempting to leave the classroom. · At approximately 6 p.m., P1 called the SP and asked if “anything had happened” earlier in the day. The SP told P1 that the AV hit him/her and there were two incident reports. P1 told the SP that FM2 said that the SP hit the AV. The SP told P1 that s/he did not hit the AV. Then P1 told the SP s/he would follow up with him/her on the following work day. · On March 17, 2025, P1 talked to the SP and asked him/her to write a detailed report of what happened when s/he was in the classroom on March 14, 2025. P1 showed the SP a picture of a “bruise” that was approximately one half inch long and wide on the AV’s ear. · The SP stated that on an unknown date and time, s/he was “overwhelmed” with his/her own child at the facility and “grabbed” his/her child’s hand and the SP’s voice was “a little loud.” · The SP was trained that s/he was not allowed to punish children by hitting or pushing them. The SP was also trained to ask another staff person to step in for him/her or to step out of a classroom when s/he felt overwhelmed. There were two previous times the SP asked P1 to step in for him/her so s/he could “breathe.” One time was when the SP was in the preschool classroom and a “few” children were “acting up,” and the other time was when s/he was with his/her own child. · The SP denied pulling or hitting the AV on his/her ear. P1 provided the following information: · On the afternoon of March 14, 2025, P1 was not at the facility when P2 texted P1 and told him/her what FM2 said regarding the AV’s ear. Then P1 called FM2 who said that s/he had picked up the AV early and when they got home FM2 noticed a “red mark” on the AV’s ear. FM2 told P1 that s/he asked the AV what had happened to his/her ear and “eventually” the AV told FM2 that the SP “grabbed” his/her ear. FM2 sent P1 photos of the AV’s ear. · P1 then called the SP and asked the SP what happened while s/he covered P2’s break. The SP told P1 that when s/he went into the preschool classroom the children were on their cots. The SP looked to see who was awake and who was asleep. The AV “ran” up to the SP and the SP asked the AV to go back to his/her cot. The AV said, “No,” and did not go back to his/her cot so the SP “sat” the AV in the “yellow chair.” When P2 returned to the classroom, the AV “hit” the SP. · P1 then called P2 and asked him/her if s/he noticed anything “off” with the AV when s/he returned from his/her break and if s/he saw a mark on the AV’s ear. P2 told P1 that s/he did not notice anything off and did not notice a mark. · On March 17, 2025, P1 talked with FM1 and FM2 and told them that s/he had talked with P2 and the SP and did not “think” the SP pulled the AV’s ear. P1 looked at the AV’s ear and saw a “red mark” near where the ear connected to the AV’s head. P1 did not know how long the mark was visible. · During orientation to the facility, staff persons were trained on the facility’s policies including prohibited actions that including spanking, hitting, yelling, swearing, or putting hands on a child. A note in the SP’s personnel file, signed by the SP showed that on March 14, 2025, the SP went into the preschool classroom at 12 p.m. to give P2 a break. After approximately five minutes, the AV got up from his/her cot and ran around the classroom. The SP “nicely” asked the AV to “get back” to his/her cot. The AV “screamed” at the SP and said, “No.” The SP walked to the AV and picked him/her up and sat him/her on a chair. The SP knelt in front of the AV and explained that his/her behavior was “not appropriate. The AV “screamed” and “kicked” the SP in his/her chest. The SP then sat in a chair next to the AV and told him/her s/he was writing an incident report. The AV “hopped” off the chair and again screamed, “No.” The SP told the AV s/he needed to lay on his/her cot and the AV said, “Fine but don’t tell my mom.” When P2 returned to the classroom, the SP walked toward the door and the AV got up and ran to the SP and “hit” the SP on the arm, leaving a handprint. The SP left the classroom and P2 wrote another incident report. At approximately 1:50 p.m., the SP was in the preschool classroom delivering snack when the AV ran up to give the SP a hug. The SP told the AV, “No thank you,” because the AV had “really hurt” him/her earlier and the AV walked away. Brightwheel app entries showed that on March 14, 2025, there were two incident reports entered for the AV. The first incident was written at 12:21 p.m., by the SP and showed that the AV ran around the room and was “told to sit in the chair.” The AV kicked the SP and screamed, “No,” because s/he did not want to sit and “calm” his/her body. A second incident report was written at 12:29 p.m., by P2 and showed that s/he saw the AV slap the SP on the arm which caused a “red mark.” At 12:47 p.m., FM2 responded in the app and wrote that s/he was “confused” as to what was going on the past two days and the AV had told him/her that a staff person “pushed” him/her. The SP replied and wrote that “within ten minutes” of him/her being in the classroom for P2, the AV got up and laughed. The SP asked the AV to sit down the AV laughed and said, “No.” The SP “picked up” the AV and put him/her down on the yellow chair. The facility’s Behavior Guidance Policies & Procedures stated that staff persons maintained “positive discipline,” that focused on “prevention, redirection, love, consistency and firmness.” Staff persons “always” displayed a “positive model of acceptable behavior.” The facility did not “practice or condone corporal punishment,” which included “rough handling” and “ear pulling.” Facility documentation showed that P1, P2, and the SP each received training on the Reporting of Maltreatment of Minors act, and on the facility’s policies including the Behavior Guidance Policies & Procedures. Relevant Rules and/or Statutes: Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0055, subpart 3, item A, state 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: The SP stated that on March 14, 2025, at approximately 12:10 p.m., s/he was in the preschool classroom with ten children on their cots, including the AV, when the AV got up from his/her cot and ran through the classroom. The SP asked the AV to sit down but the AV did not. The SP picked up the AV and sat the AV down in a yellow chair. The SP sat in a chair next to the AV and the AV kicked the SP. The AV stated that the SP told the AV to “get on” his/her cot and then “pulled” the AV to his/her cot by his/her ear. After the AV was picked up, FM2 noticed a “mark”. The SP denied pulling the AV’s ear. Given that the SP’s and the AV’s accounts of the SP’s interaction with the AV differed, credibility was left as a determining factor. The SP had reason to minimize his/her actions for fear of repercussions. The AV provided consistent information to multiple people at different times that the SP pulled his/her ear and demonstrated as such to FM1 the first time s/he provided his/her account of the incident. In addition, the AV acknowledged his/her own behavior of hitting/kicking the SP, the AV’s injury was consistent with the AV’s account, and the SP stated that prior to the incident s/he did not see a mark on the AV’s ear. Therefore, the AV’s account of the incident was considered more credible. The SP pulling the AV’s ear was inconsistent with the standards of a professional caregiver in a facility licensed by the Minnesota Department of Human Services; a violation of the facility’s Behavior Guidance Policies & Procedures; and a violation of Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0055, subpart 3, item A. In addition, although it was quiet time and the AV was off his/her cot and ran in the classroom, the AV was not likely a serious danger to him/herself or other children at the time and did not require physical intervention. Given that “pulling” the AV’s ear was not accidental and caused a mark on the AV’s left ear that based on the date of the incident and when the pictures were taken, the mark lasted at least four days, there was a preponderance of the evidence that the SP’s conduct inflicted a physical 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 responsible for the care and supervision of the AV at the time of the incident and was trained on the facility’s Behavior Guidance Policies & Procedures, and the Reporting of Maltreatment of Minor’s Act. The SP was responsible for the 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” because this was a single incident but was “serious” because the AV sustained tissue damage. 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 and it was “unclear” whether they were followed by the SP. The incident suggested a need to reinforce training regarding appropriate physical interactions with children. 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 June 16, 2025, the facility was issued a Correction Order for the violation outlined in this report and for failing to document separations on a daily log. Minnesota Statutes, section 260E.06, subdivision 1, requires mandated reporters at a facility to immediately report suspected maltreatment. The investigation determined that two individuals failed to report suspected maltreatment as required. A letter from DHS was sent to this individual regarding their failure to report the suspected maltreatment and potential consequences for future such failures. In addition, it was determined that facility mandated reporters including supervisory and administrative staff persons had knowledge of the alleged incidents and did not report the incidents as required. The license holder was ordered to forfeit a fine of $200 for failure to report two incidents of maltreatment. The Order to Forfeit a Fine 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.
|
