|
October 24, 2025 Kristinah Dvorak, Authorized Agent Hour Kids Walk-in Childcare 5268 Radio Drive Woodbury, MN 55129 License Number: 1091896 (Child Care Ctr) Program Location: 1981 Silver Bell Road, # 1300, Eagan, MN 55122-3174 Dear Kristinah Dvorak: The Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS), Division of Licensing, received your request for reconsideration regarding Citations 1, 2, 3, 7 and 8 in the Correction Order (enclosed) issued to you on April 1, 2025. You did not request reconsideration of Citations 4 through 6. Therefore, Citations 4 through 6 are not within the scope of review and is final. On June 18, 2025, licensing functions for child care centers, family child care programs, and child foster care programs, and maltreatment investigations involving child care centers, have been transferred from Minnesota Department of Human Services, Office of Inspector General (DHS), to the new Minnesota Department of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF), as directed by state law. While this matter began under DHS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 15.039, subdivision 2, DCYF is now the responsible agency. Reconsideration Determination Citation 1 Violation. Equipment and furniture were not in good repair. The DHS licensor observed one crib with a broken wheel. (Infant Room: Infant classroom) Applicable Law. Condition of equipment and furniture, equipment and furniture must be durable, in good repair, structurally sound and stable following assembly and installation. Good repair means that the equipment has all accessories and attachments, and that the accessories and attachments function for its intended purpose. Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0140, subpart 19. Your Response. You stated: “This item was completely fixed within 60 seconds of DHS leaving our site. Licensor was emailed a photo of the repair immediately. Additionally, all crib inspections were completed in March of 2025 and the wheel was not broken, and the April one hadn’t been done yet. This item is a wear and tear item and that is why we do crib inspections monthly.” Reconsideration Determination. On the day of the site visit, the licensor observed one crib with a broken wheel. The program must have furniture in good repair that is structurally sound and stable. While the Commissioner appreciates your prompt correction of the violation, the issue still existed at the time of the site visit. Citation 1 is affirmed. Citation 2 Violation. The program did not comply with diaper changing area requirements. The diaper change area did not have a smooth nonabsorbent floor covering (Toddler Room). The DHS licensor observed the changing table placed on carpet. (Toddler Room: Toddler classroom) Applicable Law. The license holder must have a diapering changing area with a smooth nonabsorbent diaper changing surface and floor covering. Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0140, subpart 11. Your Response. You stated: This classroom was changed via program change in the provider HUB and all relevant changes were made physically and has been sitting in the “drafts” section of submitted for almost a year despite providing everything requested and submitted on 5/6/2024, including pictures of the current diapering set up with no follow up requested by DHS or movement on status after 5/20/24. Since being granted permission to use this room, DHS nor our public health nurse requested I make any changes to my new diapering area. This room was approved for use and now the program has been cited before given any feedback to correct it. Reconsideration Determination. You did not dispute that the toddler diapering area was out of compliance, instead you argued that you should not be responsible for the violation because the DCYF licensor approved your request to change the diapering area when it did not have a smooth nonabsorbent floor covering. On May 6, 2024, the program submitted a room change request to change the toddler diapering area. The program submitted the request in the Provider Hub. On May 20th and 21st, 2024, the program exchanged email correspondence with the licensor and submitted pictures of the Toddler diapering area. The licensor did not reference an issue with the toddler diapering change area not having a smooth nonabsorbent floor covering. While the program included a picture of the new diapering area, the licensor did not view the diapering area in person. On March 28, 2025, the room change request was approved. Although a lack of a smooth, non-absorbent floor cover was not identified by the licensor before the room change update approval on March 28, 2025, the rule is clear. While the request to change the toddler diapering area was approved, the license holder is responsible for complying with all relevant rules at all times. Therefore, the program was responsible for ensuring that the toddler diapering area had a smooth nonabsorbent floor cover. Citation 2 is affirmed. Citation 3 Violation. The program violated the behavior guidance policy prohibiting certain actions. During the review, the DHS licensor observed a staff person threaten an infant saying, "Do you want me to pull your hair?" in response to the infant pulling another child's hair. (Infant Room: Infant classroom) Applicable Law. The license holder must develop and enforce written behavior guidance policies and procedures that prohibit subjection of a child to emotional abuse. Emotional abuse includes using language that threatens, humiliates, or frightens the child. Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0055, subpart 3. Your Response. You stated: We have sufficient documentation and training records for completed behavior guidance by all staff and have followed all requirements of compliance in this regard. I have and can demonstrate that leadership has done everything possible to ensure all staff are aware of our existing behavior guidance and expectations of professionalism. While I personally am against talking to any child in such a manner- I, nor my director, physically cannot control how a staff member parents their own child or how they speak to their own child. Regardless, SP6 (staff person 6) was verbally reprimanded and asked to re-read our behavior guidance policies in the staff handbook about professional conduct at work. C6 (child 6) is his/her [child] and in the room s/he was subbing in. Reconsideration Determination. In its request for reconsideration, the program stated that the program “cannot control how a staff member parents their own child or how they speak to their own child.” At the time of the incident, C6 was a child enrolled in, and in the care of, the program. SP6 was a staff person responsible for caring for children in the program, including C6. SP6 is also C6’s parent. Regardless of SP6’s parental relation to C6, the program is obligated to have and enforce a behavior guidance policy prohibiting subjection of a child to emotional abuse. The licensor observed SP6 (staff person) threaten C6, with SP6 saying "Do you want me to pull your hair?" in response to the C6 pulling another child's hair. Using such language in this context is a threat, which constitutes emotional abuse. Therefore, SP6’s threat to C6 resulted in emotional abuse. SP6 violated the behavior guidance policy when SP6 threatened C6 resulting in emotional abuse. Although the program had a behavior guidance policy, the program failed to enforce the program’s behavior policy with SP6. Citation 3 is affirmed. Citation 7 Violation. The risk reduction plan did not include specific policies and procedures to ensure adequate supervision of children at all times, with particular emphasis on naptime supervision for toddlers and preschoolers. Applicable Law. The license holder must establish procedures to minimize identified risks with policies and procedures to ensure adequate supervision of children at all times, including nap-time. Minnesota Statutes, section 245A.66, subdivision 2, paragraph (f), subparagraph (2). Your Response. You stated: “Hour Kids has had a correct, complete and approved Risk Reduction Plan for every year since we opened- Hour Kids has an operates by an established Risk Reduction policy that adequately addresses supervision during nap-time, however, in editing the document for the annual revision- this missing section is a typo and was accidentally deleted but was in the same binder behind the one with the blank version at the time of the visit, the missing section has been restored.” Reconsideration Determination. The program provided the licensor with a Risk Reduction Plan that omitted the “naptime supervision for toddlers and preschoolers.” The Commissioner acknowledges the program’s concession that the omission was a mistake, and that the program had a complete and approved Risk Reduction Plan. Although the program had a Risk Reduction Plan, the plan did not contain the “naptime supervision for toddlers and preschoolers,” during the licensor’s site visit, to always ensure adequate supervision of children. Citation 7 is affirmed. Citation 8 Violation. The license holder did not have a written emergency plan that included accommodations for infants and toddlers during a shelter-in-place emergency. Applicable Law. A license holder must have a written emergency plan for emergencies. The plan must be written on a form developed by the commissioner and include procedures for an evacuation, relocation, shelter-in place, or lockdown. Minnesota Statutes, section 245A.41, subdivision 3. Your Response. You stated: “This document IS clearly in and WAS in our records and s/he missed it, s/he also did not ask for it while s/he was on-site or it would have been pointed out then.” Reconsideration Determination. Upon review, the program had a Child Emergency Plan (CEP) using an older version of the CEP form. The CEP form (DHS-7955-ENG) was revised in April 2024. The revised CEP form has a separate section for “special circumstances or procedures needed for accommodating infants and toddlers.” The program’s plan did not have a separate section for “special circumstances or procedures needed for accommodating infants and toddlers” required by the new version of the CEP form developed by the Commissioner. Citation 8 is affirmed. Disposition The Commissioner has reviewed the relevant laws and all the information you submitted in response to the Correction Order. Citations 1, 2, 3, 7 and 8 are affirmed. You did not request reconsideration of Citations 4 through 6. Therefore, Citations 4 through 6 are not within the scope of review and are final. This is a final agency decision. Previously Ordered Corrective Action. In the original Correction Order, you were ordered to correct the violation(s) cited, and submit documentation of such action to your licensor. A request for reconsideration does not stay any provisions or requirements of the correction order. Minnesota Statutes, 142B.16, subdivision 2, paragraph (a). If you have not done so already, please immediately comply with the previously ordered corrective actions for all uncontested and affirmed violations. The Commissioner appreciates your response and encourages you to continue to work cooperatively with your licensor to ensure the safety and well-being of the children you serve. Sincerely,
Hlee Vang, Attorney Legal Counsel’s Office Office of Inspector General
|
