|
October 27, 2025 Michelle Kraus, Authorized Agent Ladybug NO. 2, LLC (DBA Ladybug Child Care Center) 306 Lake Hazeltine Dr Chaska, MN 55318-1034 License Number: 1094113 (Child Care Ctr) Program Location: 859 Vista Blvd. Waconia, MN 55387 Dear Michelle Kraus: The Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS), Division of Licensing, received your request for reconsideration regarding Citations 1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12 and 13 in the Correction Order (enclosed) issued to you on April 18, 2025. You did not request reconsideration of Citations 2, 3, 5, 10 and 11. Therefore, Citations 2, 3, 5, 10 and 11 are not within the scope of review and are 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. Staff distribution requirements were not maintained. The classroom had 11 infants with one teacher and two aides; To meet distribution requirements, the classroom required a minimum of one teacher, one assistant teacher, and one aide qualified staff person. (Infants Playroom: Infant classroom) Applicable Law. The license holder must ensure that the following requirements for staff distribution are met and a written staff distribution record is kept in the administrative record. A. Only a staff person who is qualified as a teacher, assistant teacher, or aide and who works directly with children can be counted in meeting the staff-to-child ratios. B. An assistant teacher may be substituted for a teacher during morning arrival and afternoon departure times if the total arrival and departure time does not exceed 25 percent of the center's daily hours of operation. D. Except as provided in item B, staff distribution within each age category must follow the pattern in subitems (1) to (4). (1) The first staff member needed to meet the required staff-to-child ratio must be a teacher. (2) The second staff member must have at least the qualifications of a child care aide. (3) The third staff member must have at least the qualifications of an assistant teacher. (4)The fourth staff member must have at least the qualifications of a child care aide. The pattern in subitems (1) to (4) must be repeated until the number of staff needed to meet the staff-to-child ratio for each age category has been achieved. Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0040, subpart 2. Items (A)(B) and (D)(1) through (4). A person designated as a substitute must meet the qualifications for the assigned staff position as specified in parts 9503.0030 to 9503.0034, except that the license holder may use substitutes who do not meet the qualifications for teacher in part 9503.0032, subpart 2, or assistant teacher in part 9503.0033, subpart 2, only if: A. the amount of unqualified substitute hours per center per calendar year does not exceed 40 hours multiplied by the number of the center's full-time teacher and assistant teacher positions; B. unqualified substitutes are not used as teachers or assistant teachers for more than ten consecutive working days for the same group of children per calendar year; and C. there is always a person qualified as a teacher present within the center except as qualified in part 9503.0040, subpart 2, item B. Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0034, subpart 3. Your Response. You stated: “the Playroom classroom teacher [program staff 1/PS1]1 had the day off. With advanced knowledge of his/her absence during DHS licensor’s walk through the classroom was documenting unqualified hours. With compliance with Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0034, subp. 3 the room ran as such: In the Playroom classroom SP8 was the teacher, [program staff 2/PS2]2 at the time was reporting one hour of unqualified substitute time and SP2 as an aide. [program staff 3/PS3]3, the assistant teacher, was due to arrive at 9:30am working in the Playroom. Please see the following attachments: Reported Unqualified Substitute Report and Staffing Pattern for 11.25. Reconsideration Determination. The program had 11 infants in the infant playroom with one teacher and two aides. Under Minnesota Rules 9503.0040, subpart 2, the program needed to have one teacher, one assistant teacher and one aide to meet the statutory requirements. On request for reconsideration, the program cited Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0034, subpart 3, unqualified substitute staff, as an exception to a potential violation of staff distribution requirements. The record shows that the DHS licensor pointed the fact that the infant playroom class was out of distribution to the program staff. Then the program fixed the staff distribution issue after the program realized that the infant playroom had 11 infants with one teacher and two aides. During the exit interview, the program acknowledged that the infant playroom was out of distribution with one teacher and two staff persons who qualified as aides. The program also acknowledged that neither aide was being utilized as an “unqualified substitute” at the time. The program did not show the DHS licensor the unqualified substitute report as a potential justification or exception to the staff distribution violation. Furthermore, the program did not have the unqualified substitute report completed the morning of the DHS site visit. Therefore, the program violated the staff distribution requirements because there was one teacher and two aides with 11 infants in the infant playroom/infant classroom. Citation 1 is affirmed. Citation 4 Violation. Written parental permission had not been obtained for administering diaper products, specifically diaper wipes. No permission documentation available for three children. (C1, C5, and C6) Applicable Law. A license holder who chooses to administer medicine must get written permission from the child's parent before administering medicine, diapering products, sunscreen lotions, and insect repellents. Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0140, subpart 7, item A. Your Response. You stated that a wet wipe is not a medical supply or device nor is it a diapering product. You also stated that diapering products used by the center are addressed in the medication form. In addition, the program handbook states that the program leave the choice of diaper and diapering products to the parents, and you ask that parents provide wet wipes labeled clearly with their child’s first and last name. Reconsideration Determination. The DHS licensor observed that there were diaper wipes but the program did not have written permission to administer the diaper wipes for C1, C5 and C6 (three children). While you argue that the products were wet wipes, not diaper wipes, and were therefore, not a diapering product, wet wipes provided used for wiping children during diaper changes are diapering products. The program did not have diapering permission documentation for C1, C5, and C6. Therefore, Citation 4 is affirmed. Citation 6 Violation. Equipment and furniture were not in good repair. The dramatic play kitchen was missing the oven door and one cupboard door. (Toddler A: Toddler 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 that although the play kitchen was missing doors, the playset as a whole was in good condition, and that the missing doors did not impact functionality. Reconsideration Determination. The photo of the dramatic play kitchen shows that the oven door was missing, and one cupboard door was missing. As the play was missing an oven door and a cupboard door, it was missing attachments that were relevant to its intended purpose, which included simulating a functioning oven and functioning cupboard. Citation 6 is affirmed. Citation 7 Violation. The DHS licensor observed that hazardous objects were accessible to children. One climbing unit on the toddler playground had exposed dirt at the bottom of the slide creating an insufficient fall safe surface. Multiple bikes on the preschool playground had sharp and rusted handle bars. (Playgrounds: Facility) Two plastic shopping bags in "Red Ladybug" children's cubbies. Two pairs of adult scissors in an unsecured secured drawer. (Preschool: Preschool classroom) Applicable Law. The program will have a risk reduction plan prohibiting the accessibility of hazardous items to children. Minnesota Statutes, section 142B.54, subdivision 2, paragraph (e). Hazardous objects must be stored out of reach of children. Hazardous objects include sharp objects, medicines, plastic bags, and poisonous plants and chemicals, including household supplies. Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0140, subpart 17. Your Response. Your request to reconsideration only addressed the plastic bags and none of the other hazards. You corrected the violation with plastic bags upon observation. You also stated that some of the families brought plastic bags in to carry children’s winter apparel, and that you do not want to direct families to purchase fabric bags. “The plastic bags were picked up and corrected upon observation on site. Some of the lower income families in care who cannot afford a non-plastic bag were using a plastic grocery store bag to carry children’s winter apparel. It is not our place to judge and shame families for what they are able to provide and place in their personal storage space. It has put us in an uncomfortable situation to ask those families to go purchase a fabric bag.” Reconsideration Determination. The DHS licensor observed two plastic bags on the bench in two children’s cubbies. Plastic bags are a hazard. The licensor pointed out the hazard of the plastic bags to program staff, which the program then removed. Even if parents brought in the plastic bags, the program has a responsibility to keep them out of reach of children. In your request for reconsideration you indicated that you did not want to direct families to buy fabric bags. Keeping plastic bags, regardless of source, out of reach of children, does not require that parents buy fabric bags – it merely requires the program to keep the plastic bags brought in buy parents out of reach of children. Two plastic bags which were accessible to the children, and plastic bags are a hazard. You did not dispute the other hazards cited. Citation 7 is affirmed. Citation 8 Violation. The program did not have documentation on site to show that 2 of 3 (SP6 and SP7) staff persons met the experience requirements of the assistant teacher job classification for which the staff person was employed (SP6 and SP7). Lacks documentation of qualifying experience. (SP6 and SP7) Applicable Law. An assistant teacher must meet the education and experience requirements. Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0033, subpart 2. The program must have a personnel record for each staff person at the center. The personnel record must contain the staff person’s documentation indicating that the staff person meets the requirements of the staff person’s position and the education and experience requirements specified in parts 9503.0031 to 9503.0034; Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0120, item B. Your Response. You stated that SP7 was being used as an aide and based of their file, they had 480 hours of experience as a teacher along with 24 college credits. You did not dispute the violation as it relates to SP6. Reconsideration Determination. The program’s personnel record for SP7 listed SP7’s job position as an assistant teacher on his/her personnel information form. The program did not have documentation to show that SP7 had the required work experience for an assistant teacher. Regardless of whether the program was using SP7 as an aide during the site visit, SP7 was an assistant teacher, and the program did not have documentation to show that SP7 had the required qualifying experience necessary for an assistant teacher. Citation 8 is affirmed. Citation 9 Violation. The required in-service training had not been completed for 1 of 5 (SP8) individuals (director, staff persons, substitutes, or unsupervised volunteers) for the previous concluded calendar year. In-service training did not include: · training on abusive head trauma that was at least one half hour in length as required by Minnesota Statutes, section 245A.40, subdivision 5a (SP8); and · training on sudden unexpected infant death that was at least one half hour in length as required by Minnesota Statutes, section 245A.40, subdivision 5 (SP8). No documentation that training was at least 30 minutes in length as required. (SP8) Applicable Law. Before caring for children under school age, staff persons must receive thirty minute training on reducing the risk of sudden unexpected infant death training and thirty minute training on the risk of abusive head trauma. The training must be completed each year. Minnesota Statutes, section 142B.65, subdivision 6 and subdivision 7. Your Response. You stated: “Does not exist. Please see attached in-service on SP8.” Reconsideration Determination. The program did not have documentation to show that SP8 completed the required thirty minute training for Abusive Head Trauma and thirty minute training Sudden Unexpected Infant Death. Instead, SP8’s in-service training record lists fifty hours of total training. SP8’s in-service training form did not delineate what training SP8 completed. Finally, you concede, documentation that SP8 completed the required training “does not exist.” Citation 9 is affirmed. Citation 12 Violation. The individual child care program plan (ICCPP) for 2 of 2 (C2 and C3) children with a known allergy did not contain avoidance techniques (C2 and C3). Applicable Law. Before admitting a child for care, the license holder must obtain documentation of any known allergy from the child's parent or legal guardian or the child's source of medical care. If a child has a known allergy, the license holder must maintain current information about the allergy in the child's record and develop an individual child care program plan as specified in Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0065, subpart 3. The individual child care program plan must include but not be limited to a description of the allergy, specific triggers, avoidance techniques, symptoms of an allergic reaction, and procedures for responding to an allergic reaction, including medication, dosages, and a doctor's contact information. Minnesota Statutes, section 142B.66, subdivision 1, paragraph (a) Your Response. You stated: “The ICCPP in question were direct spread sheets used from the provided DHS website (Forms for licensed child care providers | Minnesota Department of Children, Youth, and Families). After being filled out directly from the website and prepared they were printed. Upon the DHS licensor visit you can clearly see on the bottom of the page where avoidance techniques would have been seen they were cut off. Please see attached documents.” Reconsideration Determination. The program provided the licensor with printed ICCPP forms for C2 and C3. The section on avoidance techniques on the provided ICCPP forms was missing. Although you state that the avoidance techniques were cut off when you printed them, you are responsible for having a complete ICCPP for C2 and C3, including the section on avoidance techniques. Avoidance techniques are essential to the child’s ICPP to prevent a child from having an adverse allergic reaction to an allergen. Citation 12 is affirmed. Citation 13 Violation. The DHS Licensor was not given access to: • the physical plant and grounds where the program is provided; • documents and records, including records maintained in electronic format; and • staff and personnel records of current and former staff. The DHS Licensor was not given access to documents and records; and staff and personnel records of current staff. In addition, DHS determined that you knowingly withheld relevant information from or gave misleading information to the commissioner regarding children’s records. • After a DHS licensor asked for access to staff and children’s files, administrative staff persons prohibited the DHS licensor access to those files. Administrative staff persons physically blocked the DHS licensor from entering the area where the files were kept. • Lady Bug knowingly withheld relevant information from or gave misleading information to the DHS licensor when the DHS licensor requested all children's files. After reviewing the children's files that were provided, the DHS licensor determined four children's files were not provided based off the classroom rosters that were given to the DHS licensor during the licensing visit (C5, C9, C10, and C11). When the DHS licensor pointed out that the four children’s files were not provided, the license holder pulled the files from a different filing location and gave them to the licensor. Upon review of those files, the DHS licensor determined that they were missing required information. Applicable Law. The commissioner must be given access to the physical program grounds, documents and records, including electronic records, persons served by the program, and staff and personnel records of current and former staff whenever the program is in operation. The commissioner must be given access without prior notice and as often as the commissioner considers necessary. Minnesota Statutes, section 245A.04, subdivision 5. Your Response. You stated: “the DHS licensor was given full access to staff and children’s files. At no time did the administrative staff block DHS licensor from entering the area to those files. The Administrator provided a birthday classroom list for all the children currently enrolled at the center. After further explanation the Administrator explained s/he can pick any children off the list of enrolled children, and s/he would hand the files to him/her. DHS licensor was given ALL child and staff files. Per Minnesota Statutes, section 245A.04, Subdivision 5 it does not claim this is not a suitable way for the licensor during a visit to pick files randomly. Both Administrators program staff 4/PS44 and program staff /PS55 were present during this exchange.” Reconsideration Determination. The DHS Licensor was prohibited from entering the storage area in which the files are kept, and was prohibited from accessing the filing cabinet the files were stored. Staff persons used their bodies and physical presence in the space to restrict access to the files. The program was emailed the Commissioner’s Access Memo, which included information on the statutory requirement to grant access, while the DHS licensor was on-site. When the licensor attempted to directly review children’s files in the storage area and cabinets, staff insisted the licensor provide a list of the files the licensor desired to review, or that the program staff would select files for the licensor to review. The program refused to allow the DHS licensor to touch the filing cabinet or touch any file within the cabinet. The program failed to provide all files when asked. Citation 13 is affirmed. Disposition The Commissioner has reviewed the relevant laws and all the information you submitted in response to the Correction Order. Citations 1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12 and 13 are affirmed. You did not request reconsideration of Citations 2, 3, 5, 10 and 11. Therefore, Citations 2, 3, 5, 10 and 11 are not within the scope of review and is 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 11 In the request for reconsideration, the program referenced a program staff 1 that was not present the day of DHS site visit; program staff 1 is not identified in the Correction Order and Non-Public Identification Key. 22 In the request for reconsideration, the program referenced another program staff 2 that was present the day of DHS site visit; program staff 2 is not identified in the Correction Order and Non-Public Identification Key. 33 In the request for reconsideration, the program referenced another program staff 3 that was not present the day of DHS site visit; program staff 3 is not identified in the Correction Order and Non-Public Identification Key. 44 In the request for reconsideration, the program referenced another program staff 4 that was present the day of DHS site visit; program staff 4 is not identified in the Correction Order and Non-Public Identification Key. 55 In the request for reconsideration, the program referenced another program staff 5 that was present the day of DHS site visit; program staff 5 is not identified in the Correction Order and Non-Public Identification Key.
|
