|
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: 804185-CCC (Child Care Center) Investigator(s): Judie Schwanke Minnesota Department of Children, Youth, and Families Judith.schwanke@state.mn.us Suspected Maltreatment Reported: It was reported that a staff person (SP) grabbed an alleged victim’s (AV) upper arm and the AV sustained bruising. Date of Incident(s): May 16, 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 May 29, 2025; from documentation at the facility; and through four interviews conducted with the AV’s family member (FM), a supervisory staff person (P1) and facility staff persons (P2 and P3). Attempts were made via phone and US mail to contact the SP but those attempts were unsuccessful. Facility documentation showed the AV was 2 years and 6 months old and enrolled in the toddler classroom at the time of the incident. The toddler classroom was a large room divided into front and back portions by a half wall with a gate and a set of built-in upper and lower cabinets. The front portion of the classroom contained tables and chairs. The back portion of the classroom contained a climber, a child sized sofa and chair, and toy shelves with toys. The toddler bathroom was outside the classroom and down a hallway near the front of the facility. The FM stated that on May 16, 2025, s/he received a phone call from P1 who asked the FM if s/he noticed bruises on the AV’s arm and if s/he knew what could have caused them. That evening the AV told the FM that the SP “grabbed” his/her arm because s/he was “mad” at the AV when the AV “pooped” his/her pants. That night the AV had a bruises on the underside of his/her left upper arm. The bruises were approximately two inches in diameter and were “spread out” with some “scratches.” The FM stated the bruises did not look like “finger marks.” The bruises lasted four days and were cleared by the fifth day. Either the night before or two nights before the incident, the FM bathed the AV and did not see marks on his/her left arm. The night before the incident, the FM dressed the AV in clothes that s/he wore to the facility and did not see marks on his/her left arm at that time. Prior to this incident the FM did not have concerns regarding the facility. The following is a summary of information about the incident provided during interviews with P1, P2, and P3: · On May 16, 2025, at approximately 9:30 a.m., P2, P3, the SP, and the toddler children, including the AV, were in the toddler classroom. · P2 stated that s/he was in the front part of the toddler classroom with some of the children and P3 and the SP were in the back portion of the classroom with the rest of the children. The AV told P2 that s/he “was poopy,” and then P2 told the SP because the SP was the scheduled “potty person.” The SP “screamed” at the AV across the room, askingthe AV why s/he “did that,” and telling the AV that s/he was “old enough” to tell staff persons when s/he needed to use the bathroom. The SP “yelled” for the AV to come to the gate between the two portions of the room. When the AV got to the gate s/he stood facing the gate and the SP faced the AV. P2 saw the SP reach over the gate “really fast” and grab the AV’s left arm “very hard,” pulling the AV toward the gate. The hold lasted approximately five seconds. The AV started to cry and the SP told the AV that s/he was “not allowed to cry like that,” because s/he “knew better than to poop in [his/her] underwear.” Then the SP let go of the AV’s arm and told him/her to go to the classroom door. Then the SP walked with the AV to the bathroom. · P2 stated that after approximately ten minutes, the SP and the AV returned to the toddler classroom. The AV “was wimpering,” and avoided eye contact with P2. The AV went to the back portion of the classroom and sat with P3 and the SP left the classroom with another child that needed to use the bathroom. · P3 stated that when the SP called the AV to the gate, the SP “belittled” the AV in a “harsh talking tone,” (P3 did not recall what the SP said to the AV) and the AV cried. P3 did not see the SP grab the AV’s arm. When the AV returned from the bathroom, s/he was in the back portion of the room with P3. The AV was upset and sat in a chair. P3 went to the AV to comfort him/her and saw a “pink mark” on his/her left upper arm and light “purple” bruises on the inside of his/her arm. P3 asked the AV if s/he “got hurt,” and the AV did not answer P3. · P3 then brought the AV to P2 and showed P2 the AV’s arm. P2 stated s/he saw the entire upper part of the AV’s left arm was “red,” and on the underside of the AV’s left upper arm there was a “finger shaped” “dark spot” that was “purplish/blackish” when P2 first saw it. Before lunch, P2 looked at the AV’s left arm and noticed a mark where a “finger and another” had been. P2 stated the marks got “darker” throughout the day. · P3 stated that when the SP came back from the bathroom with the other children, P3 pointed out the redness of the AV’s arm to the SP and asked the SP if “something” happened to the AV’s arm. The SP said, “No no,” and then s/he said something about another child that needed their nails cut but P3 stated that child was not in attendance and the SP said, “Oh.” P2 stated that the SP said that the AV’s arm looked like it “hurt,” and that “another child” must have caused the injury. P2 and P3 kept an “eye” on the AV’s arm and before lunch the AV’s arm was “bruised,” and P2 stated s/he could see a bruise where the SP’s finger had been on the AV’s arm when the SP grabbed the AV. P3 took pictures of the AV’s arm and notified P1 of the incident. · P1 stated that P3 told him/her that s/he heard the SP “yelling” at the AV for a bathroom accident and then the SP took the AV to use the bathroom. When the AV and the SP returned, P3 saw a “mark” on the AV’s arm. P1 went to the toddler classroom and looked at the AV’s arm. P1 saw “bruising,” a bump from “eczema,” and “scratches.” P1 called the FM and asked about any bruises the AV might have already had on his/her left arm. The FM told P1 that the AV’s last bath was two days prior and the FM had not checked the AV “carefully” that morning. Then P1 talked with P2 who told him/her that s/he saw the SP “grab” the AV’s arm. P1 then talked with the SP and the SP told P1 that s/he did not “do anything wrong,” and felt “overwhelmed with tasks” because s/he did not have enough “support.” That afternoon another family member picked up the AV. With that family member, P1 took photos of the underside of the AV’s left arm. P1 saw an “oval spot” that was approximately two and half inches by two inches and was “light purple.” · P2 stated that bruising on the underside of the left AV’s arm lasted for “a week.” · P2 and P3 each stated that when a child had a toilet accident, they were trained to treat the child with kindness and respect and explain to the child what happened and let them know that it was “okay” to have accidents because they were “just learning.” Then to explain to the child why they should keep their pants dry, remind the child to tell a staff person when they needed to use the bathroom, and take the child to the bathroom to change his/her clothes. · P1 stated that staff persons were trained not to “punish” children for lapses in potty use. Prior to this incident, P1 gave the SP “occasional reminders” not to be “abrupt” with children, and that children were “little.” This invesitgator viewed photos of the AV’s left arm that were taken by P1 and P3 on May 16, 2025. In P3’s photos, the outside of the AV’s middle upper left arm had blotchy pink spots. The underside of the AV’s upper left arm had a purple mark with some darker purple marks in it. There were two perpendicular scratch marks near the purple mark. in P1’s photos, there was a bruise that was approximately two inches long and one inch wide on the underside of the AV’s left upper arm. The bruise was irregular shaped and varied in color with some red and purple, and there were three scratch marks located in the same area of the bruise. The facility’s Behavior Guidance policy stated that each child was provided with a positive model of acceptable behavior and tailored to the developmental level of the children served. Prohibited actions included rough handling, shoving, hair pulling, ear pulling, shaking, slapping, kicking, biting, pinching, hitting, spanking, name calling ostracism, shaming, and using language that threatened, humiliated or frightened children. The Behavior Guidance policy also prohibited punishment for lapses in toilet habits. Facility documentation showed that prior to the incident P1, P2, P3, and the SP each received training on the Reporting of Maltreatment of Minors Act and on the facility’s Behavior Guidance policy. Relevant Rules and Statutes: Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0055, subpart 3, item A, prohibits the use of corporal punishment including but not limited to in part, rough handling, shoving, pinching, or hitting. Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0055, subpart 3, item B , prohibits the use of emotional abuse including but not limited to name calling, ostracism, shaming, making derogatory remarks about the child or the child’s family, and using language that threatens, humiliates, or frightens the child. Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0055, subpart 3, item D , prohibits punishment for lapses in toilet habits. Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0055, subpart 1, items A and E, state that a license holder must develop and carry out policies and procedures that ensure that each child is provided with a positive role model of acceptable behavior and protect the safety of children and staff persons. Conclusion: A. Maltreatment: P2 and P3 each stated that on May 16, 2025, at approximately 9:30 a.m., P2 told the SP that the AV had a toileting accident and the SP screamed to the AV that s/he was old enough to tell a staff person when s/he needed to use the bathroom. According to P2, the SP then grabbed the upper portion of the AV’s left arm and pulled the AV toward the classroom gate and the AV began to cry. After the incident, P2 and P3 saw that the outside of the AV’s left upper arm was pink and/or red, and the underside of the AV’s left upper arm had purple bruising. The FM provided information that when asked about the cause of the bruises, the AV said the SP “grabbed” his/her arm because the SP was “mad” that the AV had a toileting accident. According to the FM, the bruises lasted approximately four days, and according to P2 they lasted “a week.” The AV was not a danger to him/herself or others at the time of the incident. The SP’s actions of screaming at the AV for having a toileting accident, then grabbing the AV’s arm to move the AV toward the gate were not accidental; were inconsistent with the facility’s Behavior Guidance policy; and were violations of Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0055, subpart 3, items A, B, and D; and subpart 1, items A and E. In addition, the location, timing, and appearance of the AV’s injury matched the circumstances of the incident and there was no information the AV’s injury was sustained by other means. Therefore, there was a preponderance of the evidence that that the SP inflicted a physical injury on the AV by means other than accidental, and that there was a failure to supply the AV with reasonable and necessary care and 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 physical abuse and neglect 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; and “neglect” means 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; and 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. Prior to the incident, the SP received training on the facility’s Behavior Guidance policy and on the Reporting of Maltreatment of Minors Act. The SP was responsible for 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: The facility completed and internal review and determined that their policies and procedures were adequate but not followed by the SP. Staff persons were retrained on required reporting, handling behavior issues, and interacting with children in a calm manner. 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 October 31, 2025, the facility was issued a Correction Order for the violation outlined in this report. 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.
|
