|
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.” On June 18, 2025, most of the children and family work, including investigations of maltreatment at childcare centers, at the MN Department of Human Services (DHS) Office of Inspector General transferred to the new Minnesota Department of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF), as directed by state law. While this investigation began under DHS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 15.039, subdivision 2, this Investigation Memorandum is being issued by DCYF pursuant to that transfer.
License Number and Program Type: 1090879-CCCC (Certified Child Care Center) Investigator(s): Danielle Morrison Minnesota Department of Children, Youth, and Families 651-539-8252 Suspected Maltreatment Reported: It was reported that an alleged victim (AV) was grabbed by his/her ankles by a staff person (SP) and pulled toward the staff person. The AV sustained an abrasion to his/her back. Date of Incident(s): March 26, 2025 Nature of Alleged Maltreatment Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 260E.03, subdivision 15, paragraph (a), clauses (1) and (2); subdivision 18, paragraph (a); and subdivision 23, paragraph (a): 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. "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 10, 2025; from documentation at the facility; and through seven interviews conducted with two supervisory staff persons (P1 and P2), three facility staff persons (the SP, P3, and P4), the AV, and the AV’s family member (FM). The AV was four years old and enrolled in a preschool classroom at the time of the incident. The facility was located in a community center. The facility had a room for large motor activities that was referred to as the “jungle room.” There was a short hallway that led into the jungle room from the main hallway. The short hallway was partially tiled and partially carpeted leading into the carpted jungle room. The AV stated that the staff person “in the brown pants” (the facility was able to determine this was the SP based on hallway camera footage and speaking with the SP) dragged the AV by his/her feet. The AV said both of his/her shoes were on, but s/he wanted them off, and the SP dragged the AV by both feet. The AV demonstrated that s/he was both sitting up and laying down. The AV said the carpet was “pokey” and the AV got an injury to his/her back. The AV did not say what the SP said while s/he dragged the AV. On March 26, 2025, the FM picked up the AV. The AV told the FM that s/he had a scratch on his/her back and it “hurt.” Later that evening as the FM got the AV ready for bed, the AV said it hurt again and the AV showed the FM a “rug burn.” The mark was red, four to five inches in length, and higher up by the AV’s shoulder blade. The mark lasted over two weeks. The FM stated that there was a lot of staff person turnover at the facility, but the FM had no prior concerns and the AV had “never” said anything concerning about staff persons before. P3 provided the following information: · On an unknown date, the AV had a difficult time while outside. During the transition to the jungle room, P1 assisted getting the AV to the group. P1 met P3 in the main hallway and gave the AV to P3. P3 brought the AV into the hallway leading into the jungle room and they sat down with the other children as P4 went over the rules and wrote down the children’s names on a whiteboard. The AV had his/her back against a wall. · The SP went over and stood in front of the AV and asked if the AV was not listening. P3 told the SP that the AV had a hard time transitioning. At that time P4 had finished writing down the children’s names and the children went to go play in the jungle room. · P3 got up to go into the jungle room while the SP was still talking to the AV. P3 heard the SP say, “I am going to get you” to the AV. The AV moved him/herself away from the wall and P3 saw the SP take the AV’s feet, turn the AV 45 degrees by moving the AV’s feet, and then saw “a little bit of a drag” from the SP. P3 was not sure if this was done playfully. At that time the AV was in a seated position and P3 was not sure if the AV was on the tile or the carpet. P3 did not see the AV laying down on the ground while being dragged by the SP. P3 then went around the corner and did not see any more of the interaction. · P3 started to set up playdough for the children and P4 joined P3. The SP and the AV were in the jungle room and the AV seemed “fine” and “nothing seemed off.” About five minutes later, the SP sat by P3 and P4 and said, “What if [the AV] says something?” The SP said there was a mark on the AV’s back and asked P3 and P4 to take a look. P3 knew the AV had a hard time while the group was outside, and was not sure if something happened out there, so P3 asked the AV if s/he could look at the AV’s back. · P3 described the mark as a two to three inch red oval scrape that looked like a “rug burn.” P3 thought it looked “fresh” like it had just happened. P4 asked the AV what happened and the AV said the SP’s name. The SP said s/he did not do anything, but kept asking P3 and P4, “What if [the AV] says something?” P3 told the SP that if s/he did nothing wrong then not to worry about it. The rest of the time before nap, P3 said the SP was “really buddy buddy” with the AV, even letting the AV sit on the SP’s lap before nap, which was unusual for the SP. P3 had not witnessed other concerns between the SP and the AV, but said some other children were “afraid” of the SP. P3 tried to look at the AV’s mark again before nap time, but the AV did not want P3 to look at it. The SP provided the following information: · On an unknown date, the SP worked with a group of children including the AV. While the group was outside, the AV cried and had a “hard” time. P1 assisted with the AV while the group was outside. The AV tried running away from P1 so the SP kept an eye on them in case P1 needed assistance. The AV slid down the stairs while the group was outside. The SP thought the AV had fun on a nature walk, but when it was time to go inside, the AV was still “mad.” · Around 10 a.m., the group transitioned to the jungle room. The SP and P4 went in first and a few minutes later, P3 brought in the AV. While P4 wrote down the children’s names on the whiteboard, the AV took off his/her shoes and cried. · The SP went over to the AV and tried being silly with the AV by saying, “Pee-yew” because the AV had his/her shoes off. The SP told the AV that s/he missed his/her family member too and that was okay. The SP pulled the AV over by his/her feet to help the AV with his/her shoes. The AV was also being silly because the SP was being silly. The AV was seated on the tile area. The AV laid down when they got to the carpet, so the SP gave the AV space and went into the jungle room. · The AV eventually got up, put on his/her shoes, and started running around the room. The AV went down one of the slides with another child. The AV then went to a table with the SP and the playdough because the SP was making pretend cookies out of playdough with the other children. The AV then stated that his/her back hurt. The SP, P3, and P4 looked at the AV’s back and saw “a small little rug burn.” P3 and P4 told the SP that children get bumps and bruises and they would check on it again closer to nap time. · Before nap, P3 checked the AV’s back again and said that there was still a small mark there, but told the SP that they did not need to fill out a report. P3 said it could have happened outside or anywhere. The AV then went to sleep and the SP left for the day. · The SP denied pulling or dragging the AV when s/he laid on his/her back, and did not think his/her pull on the AV while the AV was seated could have left the mark on the AV’s back. P1 provided the following information: · On an unknown date in March 2025, P1 and P2 received an email from the FM stating that the AV said a staff person (the AV did not remember the staff person’s name, but described what the staff person was wearing) pulled the AV’s feet and it left a mark on the AV’s back. P1 described it as a “carpet burn.” · On an unknown date (possibly the date the FM emailed about), P1 helped the staff persons because the AV did not want to go outside. The AV went back and forth between sitting on the steps, climbing on a railing, and trying to open the door to get back inside. P1 said the AV was “agitated” and kept getting up and down off the steps. However, P1 was not sure if that was the same day the FM notified P1 and P2 about the AV’s injuries or if it was prior to that day. · P1 said the railing was smooth, there were only two cement steps, and the AV was not so “agitated” that s/he “threw” him/herself around. P1 did not think there was anything outside the AV could have hurt him/herself on. P1 had no prior concerns with how the SP treated children or the SP being angry with children. P4 provided the following information: · On an unknown date, the AV was not having a “good” morning. When the AV came into the hallway leading to the jungle room, s/he was crying. The children were seated in the hallway lined up along the wall. P4 went over the rules and expectations and wrote a list of children who wanted to use the swing. · When that was done, P4 went to another part of the room and started coloring at tables with some children. P3 told P4 s/he saw the SP “drag” the AV by his/her feet on the carpet. P4 thought they were just playing and did not think much of it. · The SP approached P3 and P4 and said the AV had a mark on his/her back. P4 called the AV over and P4 had the AV lift his/her shirt and P4 saw what looked like a rug burn. It was red and on the middle left side of the AV’s back. · P4 asked the AV what happened and s/he said, “[The SP] did it and it hurt.” The AV was not crying. The SP told P4 s/he dragged the AV but was trying to help the AV put his/her shoes on. The SP denied causing the mark. After the incident, the SP did not bring it up again to P4, but P4 noticed the SP was concerned about the AV, was being “buddy-buddy” with the AV during story time, and let the AV sit on his/her lap. P4 had seen the SP interact that way with the AV before though and had no prior concerns with the SP. P2 provided the following information: · On the evening of March 26, 2025, P2 received an email from the FM stating that when s/he picked up the AV, the AV told the FM that s/he had a “scratch” on his/her back and it hurt. When the FM got the AV ready for bed, s/he saw what appeared to be a rug burn and asked the AV what happened. P2 described the mark s/he saw in a photo the FM sent as a “pretty substantial” two by two inch mark between the AV’s shoulder blades. · The AV said a staff person wearing brown pants had the AV’s shoes, grabbed the AV’s ankles, and dragged the AV across the carpet. P2 looked at video footage and narrowed the search to two staff persons (the SP and P3) based on the AV’s description of clothing. · P3 told P2 that the AV had a “rough” morning and a hard time transitioning. When they went in the jungle room, P3 tried to get the AV comfortable in line. After the children were allowed to go into the room to play, P3 got up to get a water bottle. The SP was with the AV and P3 heard the SP “being playful” and encouraging the AV that s/he could go swing on the swing. The AV had taken off his/her shoes and the SP “was scooting” the AV toward the SP to get the AV’s shoes on. P3 then went to the other side of the room. · The SP told P2 that s/he talked to the AV about his/her stinky feet and tried to help get the AV’s shoes on. The SP pulled the AV by his/her feet and “scooted” the AV closer. The AV was sitting upright at that time. The SP said the AV’s demeanor changed and s/he told the SP, “Yep, you did it.” The SP did not know what the AV was talking about, so the SP got up. The AV put on his/her shoes and went to go play. · The SP went over to P3 and P4 and asked them if the AV complained of anything hurting or a mark. Neither of them heard the AV say anything about this, so the SP explained what just happened. They had the AV come over and looked at the AV’s back and saw a red mark. The SP then started saying the AV was rubbing his/her back against the wall outside. P2 did not think that would leave a mark because the AV was wearing a long sleeve shirt, a sweatshirt, and a coat outside that day. · P2 had no prior concerns with how the SP treated children. This investigator reviewed photos taken by the FM of the mark. A photo taken on March 26, 2025, showed a red diamond shaped abrasion with a darker reddish brown patch in the center of it. The abrasion was to the right of the AV’s spine and slightly lower than his/her right shoulder blade. A photo from April 11, 2025, showed a faint, smaller mark in the same location. The facility’s Behavior Guidance Plan showed steps staff persons were to take to “promote a positive approach to managing the behavior of all children.” · Prevention: A well-designed environment prevents frustration, interruption, and hazards. · Positive-Redirection: This technique involves redirecting unacceptable behavior to an acceptable alternative. · Modeling: Teacher and peer-modeling appropriate behavior is provided to help the children pattern positive responses. · Boundaries: The facility has clear and simple rules in each classroom. · Problem-Solving: We appeal to the child’s growing intellectual and moral reasoning by using natural and logical consequences. The facility’s Staff Expectations and Procedures showed, “Staff [persons] should not initiate physical touch with students; children should initiate all physical touch (e.g. hugs). It is never appropriate to physically touch a child you are discipling (sic). Staff [persons] are not allowed to physically restrain a child.” Facility documentation showed that the SP, P1, P2, P3, and P4 were each trained on the facility’s Behavior Guidance Plan and the Reporting of Maltreatment of Minors Act. P2, P3, and P4 had documentation that they received training on the facility’s Staff Expectations and Procedures. The facility was not able to provide documentation that the SP and P1 received this training. Relevant Rule and/or Statute Minnesota Statutes 142C.11, subdivision 9 states the certified center must ensure that staff and volunteers use positive behavior guidance and do not subject the children to: corporal punishment, including but not limited to rough handling, shoving, hair pulling, ear pulling, shaking, slapping, kicking, biting, pinching, hitting, and spanking.
Conclusion: A. Maltreatment: Consistent information was provided that on March 26, 2025, the AV had a difficult time with transitions. While in line to go into the jungle room, the AV had his/her shoes off and did not want to go into the jungle room. The SP moved the AV closer to the SP by pulling on the AV’s feet. The SP said the AV was in a seated position when the SP pulled the AV closer to put the AV’s shoes on, and P3 and the SP told P2 that the SP was being playful with the AV at that time. The SP stated that when the AV laid down, the SP left the AV where s/he was in order to give the AV space and denied pulling or dragging the AV when the AV was laying down. However, the AV provided consistent information to P3, P4, the SP, the FM, and the DCYF investigator that the SP dragged him/her by his/her feet in both a sitting and laying position, and “pokey” carpet caused an injury to his/her back. When the AV rejoined the group, s/he complained of pain on his/her back. The SP, P3, and P4 each saw a “rug burn” on the AV’s back at that time. P3 said that otherwise, the AV seemed “fine” and nothing “seemed off,” and P4 said the AV was not cyring. Later that day, the AV sat in the SP’s lap for story time. Regarding Physical Abuse Although P3 told this investigator that s/he was not sure if the SP was being playful when the SP pulled the AV, given that both the SP and P3 told P2 that the SP was being playful with the AV at the time of the incident, and that P1, P2, P3, and P4 had no prior concerns with how the SP interacted with children, there was not a preponderance of the evidence that the SP’s actions inflicted an injury by means other than accidental. It was not 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 Neglect The SP stated that once the AV laid down, s/he did not drag or pull the AV, and the SP did not think his/her actions caused the AV’s injujry. However, given that the AV provided consistent information to multiple people that the SP dragged the AV while s/he was on his/her back, that the AV had an abrasion on his/her back consistent with being dragged, and that the AV complained of pain immediately after the SP acknowledged pulling the AV by his/her feet, it was more likely than not that the SP’s actions caused the AV’s injury. Regardless of the SP’s intent, the SP’s actions were unnecessary, were a violation of Minnesota Statutes 142C.11, subdivision 9, seriously endangered the AV’s physical health, and caused an injury to the AV. Therefore, there was preponderance of the evidence that there was a failure to protect the AV from conditions or actions that seriously endangered the AV’s physical health when reasonably able to do so. It was determined that neglect occurred (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). B. Responsibility pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 260E.30, subdivision 4, paragraph (a): 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 AV’s care and supervision at the time of the incident. The SP received training on the facility’s Behavior Guidance Plan and the Reporting of Maltreatment of Minors Act. The SP was responsible for the maltreatment of the AV. 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 Children, Youth, and Families for at least ten years after the date of the final entry in the report. Action Taken by Facility: Per Minnesota Statutes, chapter 142C, Certified License-Exempt Child Care Centers are not required to complete an internal review. The SP no longer worked at the facility. Action Taken by Department of Children, Youth, and Families, Office of Inspector General: The Department of Children, Youth, and Families informed the Department of Human Services, Office of Inspector General, Background Studies Division that the SP was determined responsible for maltreatment. The determination that the SP is responsible for maltreatment is subject to appeal. On September 17, 2025, the facility was issued a Correction Order for the violations outlined in this report and for failure to report suspected 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 Children, Youth, and Families.
|
