|
November 4, 2025 Carol Acosta, Authorized Agent Playschool Child Care 1709 McKnight Rd. N Maplewood, MN 55109 License Number: 801948 (Child Care Ctr) Program Location: 1709 McKnight Rd. N, Maplewood, MN 55109 Report Number: 202504318 Dear Carol Acosta: The Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS), Division of Licensing, received your request for reconsideration regarding Citations 1 through 8 in the Correction Order (enclosed) issued to you on July 29, 2025. Reconsideration Determination Citation 1 Violation. Staff distribution requirements were not maintained. A teacher or assistant teacher did not directly supervise an aide. Two aide qualified staff persons were supervising five infants. A teacher qualified staff person was required. (Infants: Infant classroom) Two aide qualified staff persons were supervising ten toddlers. A teacher qualified staff person was required. (Toddlers: Toddler classroom) Applicable Law. "Aide" means a staff person who carries out child care program activities under the supervision of a teacher or assistant teacher. An aide who is under 18 years old must be directly supervised by a teacher or assistant teacher at all times except when the aide is assisting with the supervision of sleeping children or assisting children with washing, toileting, and diapering. Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0034, subpart 1. 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. 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. Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0040, subpart 2, item D. A teacher must meet the education and experience requirements. Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0032, subpart 2. Your Response. You stated: first, that the former director of the program said that s/he submitted a Track 2 variance for SP2 (staff) in January 2025. However, you acknowledge that the former director wrote an email, “but [it] was not done in the correct format through the Hub.” Second, SP1 and another staff person were “in the process if enrolling for their CDA and that you “understood anyone enrolled in a CDA program was given teacher qualified status.” Reconsideration Determination. Each classroom had to have one teacher and one aide to remain in ratio and compliance with staff distribution requirements. In the infant room, two staff persons, SP2 and SP3, were the only staff present. SP2 and SP3 were supervising five infants. Neither one was qualified as a teacher. SP2 was listed as an aide and his/her Personnel Identification Form (PIF). SP3 was listed as a teacher in his/her PIF. SP3 did not have any documentation in his/her personnel file to support s/he met the education qualifications and requirements. In its request for reconsideration, the program believed that they had variance for SP3 to serve as a teacher. However, there is no record of a variance being granted. As such, there was no teacher in the classroom as required. The citation is affirmed regarding the infant room. Second, in the toddler room, two staff persons were present, SP1 and another staff person, were the only staff present. SP1 and the other staff person were supervising ten toddlers. Neither were qualified as a teacher. SP1 was listed as a teacher in his/her PIF. However, SP1’s personnel file lacked documentation to support that SP1 met the education requirements to be a teacher. Finally, in its request for reconsideration, the program incorrectly cites enrollment in a Child Development Associate (CDA) program as meeting the education requirement. A teacher must meet the education and experience requirements, enrollment in a CDA program does not meet the necessary education requirements for a teacher. In conclusion, there were no qualified teachers in the infant and toddler classrooms and the two class rooms were out of ratio and staff distribution. Citation 1 is affirmed regarding the toddler room Citation 2 Violation. The DCYF licensor observed that hazardous objects were accessible to children. The DCYF licensor observed a staff person's car parked on the asphalt basketball court inside the fenced in school-age playground while children were playing on the playground. (Facility: Facility) Applicable Law. A license holder must develop a risk reduction plan and establish procedures to minimize identified risk to children and prohibit the accessibility of hazardous items to children. Minnesota Statutes, section 142B.54, subdivision 2, paragraph (e). Hazardous objects include sharp objects, medicines, plastic bags, and poisonous plants and chemicals, including household supplies, must be stored out of reach of children. Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0140, subpart 17. The program must have a facility floor plan and designated area including indoor and outdoor space. The space must be used exclusively for child care during the hours of operation. Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0155, subpart 4. The program must have an outdoor activity area that is free of toxic materials. Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0155, subpart 7, subitem D. Your Response. You stated: The licensor was informed that the parked car had unloaded supplies and had not been moved yet. The back door to the supply room is located approximately 50 feet from where the vehicle was parked. NO children were playing in that section of the play area. We have approximately 2 ½ acres of play space so other areas of play can be utilized if supplies are being dropped off. The vehicle had just not been moved yet when the licensor arrived. During a later conversation, this licensor informed me that she had looked on Google Earth to support her findings of the vehicle being parked there more often that was being stated. Even after checking Google Earth myself, I was only able to view the vehicle parked there one other time on a Memorial Day weekend when children are not present. We are appealing this violation because the licensor did not incorporate what was a basic truth. The vehicle she viewed was not a hazard. NO children were playing around or are EVER allowed to play near the vehicle. Reconsideration Determination. The licensor observed a parked car on asphalt basketball court on the program’s playground which is the program’s outdoor activity area. The playground is part of licensed space and must be free from hazards and used exclusively for child care during the hours of operation. A car parked in a designated play area is a hazard: the car’s exhaust system and undercarriage may contain contaminants, children may crawl under the car, and may climb on the car and fall. Therefore, Citation 2 is affirmed. Citation 3 Violation. The program did not follow all behavior guidance general requirements. The program did not ensure that each child is provided with a positive model of acceptable behavior. At the time of the visit a staff person who was sitting at a table with children on the playground, yelled at and called the DCYF licensor names with a negative connotation. This did not provide the children with a positive model of acceptable behavior. (Explorer 1: School Age classroom) Applicable Law. The license holder must develop written behavior guidance policies and procedures, and the policies and procedures must ensure that each child is provided with a positive model of acceptable behavior. Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0055, subpart 1, item A. Your Response. You stated: This violation does not reflect truth at all. We are appealing this violation because the licensor initiated a conversation with the “staff” person sitting at a table that was highly inappropriate for children to be a part of. The “staff” person was the owner of program. The licensor began to speak to the owner about the violations which should have been moved to a private setting. The licensor then observed the vehicle and named it a hazard. It would be added as another violation. The owner had an immediate response and DID NOT call the licensor any names. “That’s so picky annie (sic)” were the actual words used by the owner. The licensor had her supervisor call the owner and reported she was called a “stupid idiot”. This was observed and heard by another administrative staff person present. Since the owner was a part of the ratios for the school age program, the licensor should have requested another time be arranged to discuss his/her findings. We are appealing the use of the “behavior guidance” general requirements as a basis for this violation. It does not accurately reflect what occurred. It should also not be used as a retaliation for an escalation between the licensor and program’s owner. Better judgement (sic) should have been used as to where conversations should take place when discussing the findings of an investigation of a complaint. Reconsideration Determination. The licensor provided information that the staff person was supervising children while sitting at a table on the playground when the staff person confronted the licensor. Staff persons must model positive acceptable behavior. While the request for reconsideration identifies that staff person was also the owner of the program, that individual was subject to behavior guidance guidelines because s/he was supervising children at the time. The licensor was discussing the parked car on the playground with the administrator when the staff person yelled over to ask what the licensor and administrator were discussing. The licensor told the staff person that the parked car would have to be moved off the playground and onto the parking lot because the car could be a potential hazard to the children. The staff person said to the licensor words to the effect of “now you are being a picky Annie” and “Do you think I am stupid?” in a loud voice. The licensor tried to deescalate the situation and told the staff person that the licensor would call the staff person later. As the licensor began walking away, the staff person yelled words to the effect of, “I’m not a stupid idiot, but you are, you are a stupid idiot.” The staff person saying “idiot” and calling the licensor “stupid idiot” is derogatory and not modeling positive acceptable behavior. Citation 3 is affirmed. Citation 4 Violation. The program did not have documentation on site to show that 3 of 3 (SP1, SP2 and SP3) staff persons met the education requirements of the teacher job classification for which the staff person was employed (SP1, SP2 and SP3). Applicable Law. A teacher must meet the education and experience requirements. Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0032, subpart 2. The license holder must ensure that a personnel record for each staff person is maintained at the center contains the staff person's documentation indicating that the staff person meets the requirements of the staff person's job position and the education and experience requirements Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0120, item B. Your Response. You stated: that the program requested SP3’s transcripts because s/he had just been hired. One of his/her college transcripts had been received… the program was waiting for the second college transcripts to arrive. SP2 had just enrolled in the MN CDA program. S/he was waiting to hear from his/her mentor about what classes s/he could begin as the summer classes were full. Nothing had been printed out but could have easily been done as a “fix it” ticket which was never an option or offered to us. SP2 had years of Track 2 Variances in his/her file but not one under the [current] program…This licensor did not reflect accurately what was already in progress for these employees. Reconsideration Determination. On the day of the site visit, neither SP2 nor SP3 were qualified to be the teacher in the infant room. The program may have been utilizing SP2 as a teacher because the administrator told the licensor that s/he believed SP2 had a variance to be teacher qualified. SP2 was listed as a “Teacher Aide” by the program on his/her PIF, and s/he did not have any education documentation in his/her file to support that s/he met the education and experience requirements of a teacher. However, there is no information in the record that a variance request for SP2 was ever submitted or approved. Furthermore, in it’s request for reconsideration, the program cited SP2’s enrollment in a CDA program as sufficient education requirements for SP2 to work as a teacher. The program is incorrect. A teacher must meet the education and experience requirements, enrollment in a CDA (Child Development Associate) program does not meet the necessary education requirements for a teacher. The citation is affirmed as to SP2. The program identified SP1 and SP3 as teachers on their respective PIFs. Neither SP1 nor SP3 had any education documentation in their files to support that SP1 nor SP3 met the education qualifications and requirements of a teacher. There is no information in the record demonstrating that variance requests for SP1 or SP3 were ever submitted or approved. Citation 4 is also affirmed as to SP1 and SP3. Citation 5 Violation. The program did not develop an Individual Child Care Program Plan for 1 of 1 (C1) children's files reviewed with a known allergy. Through documentation provided by the program, it was determined that the program had not developed an Individual Child Care Program Plan for a child with a documented medication allergy. (C1) Applicable Law. The license holder must obtain documentation of any known allergy for a child and develop and individual child care program plan (ICCPP). The ICCPP must include a description of the allergy, specific triggers, avoidance techniques, symptoms if 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: “We are appealing this violation on the grounds that this individual does not have a known allergy. After consulting his file, there is no documentation from his family or physician stating he has a medication allergy. No ICCP was developed because there was no reason to develop one.” Reconsideration Determination. On the day of the site visit, the licensor reviewed a child’s (C1) file. C1’s file contained C1’s Medical Record and Health History (MRHH) form signed by a physician. C1’s MRHH form stated that C1 had an allergy to cefdinir. The program did not have an ICCPP in C1’s file with procedures for responding to a possible allergic reaction, including medication, dosages, and a doctor’s contact information. Citation 5 is affirmed. Citation 6 Violation. There was not a written individual child care program plan on file for 1 of 1 (C1) children with special needs that specifies methods of implementation. Through documentation obtained at the program, it was determined that a child with documented special needs did not have a written individual child care program plan on file. (C1) Applicable Law. Pursuant to Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0065, subpart 3: The license holder must ensure that a child with special needs has an ICCPP in writing and specify methods of implementation and be reviewed and followed by all staff who interact with the child. If the child has developmental disabilities or is otherwise eligible for case management as specified in subpart 1, item A, then the individual child care plan must be coordinated with the child's individual service plan developed under parts 9525.0004 to 9525.0036. If the child has a disability as specified in subpart 1, item B, then the individual child care plan must be coordinated with the child's individualized education program developed under Minnesota Statutes, chapter 125A. Pursuant to Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0065, subpart 1, a "child with special needs” is child at least six weeks old but younger than 13 years old who: A. has developmental disabilities or is otherwise eligible for case management as specified in parts 9525.0004 to 9525.0036 and has an individual service plan specifying child care to be provided by the center; B. has been identified by the local school district as a child with a disability as specified in Minnesota Statutes, section 125A.02, subdivision 1, and has an individualized education program (IEP) specifying child care to be provided by the center according to Minnesota Statutes, section 125A.05; Your Response. You stated: “We are appealing this violation on the grounds that this child’s “special need” was not documented as to what it was. This child’s IEP was in process, and we had not received a copy as of the date of the licensor’s visit. After consulting this child’s file, I am perplexed as to how this licensor arrived at a “special needs” label. No documentation from a physician or parent stated that this child had been diagnosed. Therefore, no ICCP can be written or implemented.” Reconsideration Determination. While the program claims that C1 did not have an IEP or known developmental disabilities. C1 had documented developmental disabilities and an IEP. C1’s file contained C1’s MRHH form. The portion of the form signed by C1’s physician on November 27, 2024, stated that C1 had autism, ADHD, and speech delay. The portion completed by C1’s parents on November 27, 2024, identified that C1 had an IEP. The program received C1’s MRHH form on December 22, 2024. All these forms were signed and dated approximately seven to eight months before the site visit. The program is required to have an ICCPP for C1 that coordinated with C1’s IEP. However, the program did not have an ICCPP for C1 which coordinated with C1’s IEP for the program staff to practice and review methods of implementation on how to interact with C1. Citation 6 is affirmed. Citation 7 Violation. Copies of all service contracts were not available when care or service was being provided to a child while at the program. Through documentation obtained at the program, it was determined that a child with a documented Individual Education Plan did not have a copy of the service contract available in the child's file. (C1) Applicable Law. The license holder must have copies of all service contracts with the center for care or services provided under parts 9525.0004 to 9525.0036 and Minnesota Statutes, chapter 125A, when the care or service is provided to a child while at the center. Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0065, subpart 4. Your Response. “We are appealing this violation because I don’t think it relates to us. It was not a violation ever discussed with us. I do not understand what it means or how it would be corrected. All application of enrollment forms is on file for every child here. Their schedules can change daily and are managed with communication directly with families through our Brightwheel App.” Reconsideration Determination. License holders must have copies of all service contracts with the center for care or services provided under parts 9525.0004 to 9525.0036 and Minnesota Statutes, chapter 125A, when the care or service is provided to a child while at the center. The record does not show that C1 received services at the center related to any special needs. As such, the program had no service contracts to maintain. Therefore, Citation 7 is rescinded. Citation 8 Violation. The risk reduction plan did not include development and implementation of policies and procedures or refer to existing policies and procedures that minimize the risk of harm or injury to children that included sunburn. Through conversations with staff persons, it was determined that all children in the school-age classroom had not had sunscreen reapplied in the afternoon. The program's Parent Handbook states children will have sunscreen applied once daily between 12:00 and 1:30 PM. The program's Risk Reduction Plan states the program will apply sunscreen in the afternoon. The program did not follow the policies and procedures that minimize the risk of sunburn. Applicable Law. A license holder must develop a risk reduction plan and develop and implement procedures to minimize the risks of harm or injury to children including sunburn. Minnesota Statutes, section 142B.54, subdivision 2, paragraph (d), subparagraph (7). Your Response. You stated: We are appealing this violation because it is not true. Our parent handbook clearly states that all children whose parents have signed a consent form for their child to have sunscreen will have it reapplied between 12:00 and 1:30 PM. It also states that all children whose parents wish their child to have sunscreen on will apply the first application at home. Part-time or half day scheduled children should have sunscreen applied at home before they arrive to Playschool. A second application will not be reapplied at Playschool. Our Risk Reduction plan states the following and will also be uploaded with these responses: “Playschool provides appropriate shaded areas in all play areas for youth to monitor sun affects. Sunscreen can be used but must be applied by the parent before they arrive at Playschool. A second application will be applied before the afternoon outdoor playtime.” “Weather is monitored at all times and decisions are made for the well-being of children and teachers that are concerned about the exposure to the outdoors, heat and/or sun. Playschool will apply a second layer of sunscreen in the afternoon after a parent has applied the first application in the morning. All directions will be followed for each product supplied by a child’s parent or guardian.” The statements in this violation are just untrue. They do not reflect Playschool’s practices. In 40 years, not one child has been sunburned while at Playschool. Our policies, procedures, and minimizing risk for sunburn are working very well. Our licensor did ask me to put in the words “upon parent request” to reapply in the afternoon. I believe the signed consent forms take care of this issue, but I will include them if it is necessary. Reconsideration Determination. License holders must develop a risk reduction plan and develop and implement procedures to minimize the risks of harm or injury to children including sunburn. The program had a risk reduction plan addressing the risk of sunburn, and had policies related to minimizing the risk. The risk reduction plan required that sunscreen first must be applied before they arrive at the program, and a second application will be applied before the afternoon outdoor playtime. The risk reduction plan stated that “[A]ll directions will be followed for each product supplied by a child’s parent or guardian.” The program’s sunscreen policy required that sunscreen would be applied once daily from 12:00 p.m. to 1:30 p.m. for children with signed consent forms. The policy also stated that sunscreen will be purchased by the program, and the parents were instructed to not send sunscreen from home. The program’s risk reduction plan contradicts and conflicts with its sunscreen policy. On the day of the site visit, the licensor spoke with three program staff in the school-age classroom. The staff provided conflicting statements about whether they implemented the risk reduction plan to minimize the risk of sunburn to the children. One staff person stated that s/he never applied sunscreen to a child. Another staff person said, “some children bring in sunscreen and s/he may apply it, no certain time, just random if a child looks hot.” A third staff person, who was also a controlling individual, told the licensor that “parents apply sunscreen before coming to the program, and s/he would help them apply it if they brought it from home.” As indicated by the conflicting answers from the three program staff, the program did not implement the risk reduction plan regarding minimizing the risk of sunburn and the program’s sunscreen policy in the school-age classroom. 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, 4, 5, 6 and 8 are affirmed. Citation 7 is rescinded. 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
|
