|
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: 1079853-CCC (Child Care Center) Investigator(s): Danielle Morrison Minnesota Department of Children, Youth, and Families 651-539-8252 Suspected Maltreatment Reported: It was reported that three alleged victims (AV1, AV2, and AV3) were roughly handled by a staff person (SP), resulting in marks on AV1’s back. Date of Incident(s): May 29, 2025 Nature of Alleged Maltreatment Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 260E.03, subdivision 18, paragraph (a); and subdivision 23, paragraph (a): "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 June 11, 2025; from documentation at the facility, law enforcement records, and medical records; and through ten interviews conducted with a supervisory staff person (P1), six facility staff persons (SP, P2, P3, P4, P5, and P6), and AV1’s-AV3’s family members (FM1-FM3 respectively). AV1-AV3 were between the ages of 12-13 months and were enrolled in the Infant D classroom at the time of the incident. Due to their ages, AV1-AV3 were not interviewed. The Infant D classroom had a carpeted area for children to play on. There was a door leading to another infant classroom (Infant E) at the back of the classroom and a door to a laundry room at the front of the classroom next to lockers to store the children’s belongings. The Infant D classroom had a designated sleeping area that was separated from the main part of the classroom by a half wall with clear plexiglass on the top portion of the wall allowing staff persons to visually see into the sleeping area. On May 29, 2025, FM1 and AV1’s other family member (FM4) dropped off AV1 in the morning. The SP came to take AV1 from FM1 and AV1 “immediately” started to scream/cry. AV1 reached out for FM1 and FM4. When FM1 and FM4 left the facility, AV1 did not have any marks on his/her back. Around 2:45 p.m., FM4 received a telephone call from someone at the facility stating there had been an incident around 12:30 p.m. involving AV1 and a staff person. FM1 said the facility staff person who they spoke to was “vague” about what happened, but there were red marks on AV1’s back and shoulder blades when FM1 and FM4 arrived to pick up AV1 at 3 p.m. FM1 and FM4 took AV1 to the emergency department. On May 29, 2025, around 3 p.m., FM2 received a telephone call from P1 at the facility. P1 told FM2 that a staff person “got frustrated” with AV2, pulled AV2’s leg, and pushed AV2 backward. AV2 fell back and hit his/her head. FM2 took AV2 to the emergency department and AV2 had scans, but there were no injuries. Prior to the incident, FM2 had some concerns that AV2 cried when FM2 dropped AV2 off and that the staff persons told FM2 that AV2 was “Okay.” On May 29, 2025, FM3 received a telephone call from P1, stating that a staff person was observed “forcefully” picking up AV3 and setting him/her down on the ground. FM3 said s/he looked over AV3 and AV3 did not appear injured. FM3 had no prior concerns. P2 provided the following information: · On an unknown Thursday (note: May 29, 20205, was a Thursday), between 12:30 and 1 p.m., P2 walked from the Infant E classroom through the door into the Infant D classroom to drop off milk. P2 saw the SP push a child’s head into the crib mattress and “use force” on the child’s back. (P2 did not know who the child was). · The child was crying the whole time P2 was in the room, and the SP held the child’s head down so that the child could not get up. P2 was taken by surprise by this, and s/he left to find P1 to tell P1 what s/he just saw. P1 provided the following information: · On May 29, 2025, around 12:30 p.m., P2 found P1 and stated that s/he just delivered milk to the classrooms, and when s/he went into Infant D, s/he saw something that “did not sit right” with him/her and wanted P1 to know. · P1 reviewed video footage and saw the SP’s interaction with AV1 in the crib that the SP “aggressively” placed AV1 in the crib and patted his/her back “hard.” P1 immediately removed the SP from the classroom and told the SP s/he would be in touch. P1 informed his/her supervisor and quality assurance team who then reviewed the video, and it was noted that the SP picked up AV3 by one arm, and “abruptly” grabbed AV2 by the foot, twisted AV2 around, and pushed AV2’s head backward. · P1 went to make sure AV1 was okay and noticed a red mark the length of a finger on AV1’s back, and some bruising. P1 did not see any marks on AV2 or AV3. P1 called FM4, FM2, and FM3 to let them know what had happened. The SP provided the following information: · On May 29, 2025, the SP was the only staff person in the Infant D classroom with four children. The morning was a “fairly normal routine,” but there were two newer children who cried most of the day. · Around 12:45 p.m., the SP set the children in the classroom up for nap time. The SP tried to get AV1 to sleep about three to four times, but AV1 kept getting up and screaming. The SP knew the other infants would not fall asleep until AV1 was asleep. The SP stated that s/he was “frustrated” with AV1 and that the SP “got rough” with AV1. · The SP stated that if s/he did not have his/her hand on AV1, AV1 did not lay down, stood up, and screamed. The SP stated that s/he “pushed” AV1 down a “few times” by AV1’s shoulder blades. AV1 was “not happy.” The SP believed s/he pushed AV1’s head down once for a “couple of seconds” to get AV1 to lay down, not to push AV1 into the mattress. The SP walked away from AV1 to take a break and that was when P1 walked into the room and told the SP go home. · Initially, the SP did not recall the incidents with AV2 and AV3. After reviewing video with the DCYF investigator, the SP acknowledged that s/he twisted AV2 and pushed AV2 down into the mat, and when AV3 went to take another child’s toy, the SP pulled both the toy and AV3 up by one arm, and did not realize “how high” s/he lifted AV3. · The SP denied pushing any child down or lifting any child by one arm prior to this incident. The SP was trained that lifting a child by one arm could pull a child’s arm out of the socket and that was not the appropriate way to lift a child. · The SP felt “burnt out” and almost called in sick that day but knew that P3 and P4 were not at the facility that day, so the SP felt s/he had to be there for the children. The SP was “extremely remorseful” and was sorry the children had to “suffer.” · The SP said that staff were trained to reach out to P1 or other staff persons if feeling overwhelmed, but s/he did not trust P1 to assist him/her. The SP also stated that there was a lot of “drama” in the other infant classrooms, so s/he did not feel comfortable going to those classroom staff persons for support. P3 – P6 provided the following information: · P3 and P4 were not at the facility on May 29, 2025. They both had a scheduled day off. · On an unknown date, P5 talked with the SP in the morning during which they had a “normal” conversation and the SP laughed and made jokes. Later in the day, P5 went into the Infant D classroom so the SP could use the restroom, and the SP seemed “quiet.” · Around 12:30 p.m. on the same day, P1 asked P5 to step into the Infant D classroom. P1 and P5 went into the Infant D classroom and the SP was by a crib trying to get a child to sleep. When P1 said the SP’s name, the SP looked up and his/her face was red. P1 asked the SP to grab his/her personal belongings. P5 heard the SP put a child in a crib in “not a nice way.” · P5 then took the child out of the crib (P5 could not remember the child’s name) and sat in the rocking chair with him/her. P1 came back into the Infant D classroom and looked at the child’s back. P5 saw “reddish pink” marks as if a hand had been on the child’s back for a long time or with excessive pressure. P5 said there were no scratches, just red marks about the size of three quarters bunched together. · P6 and the SP started working around 8 a.m. on the day of the incident. They talked and the SP interacted with the children, and then the staff persons shifted into their separate classrooms. Later that day, P6 had to call down to the SP about a child that was in his/her room and P6 said the SP “got snappy” on the telephone. · After the incident P3-P6 heard the SP “slammed” AV1 down into the crib and patted his/her back hard enough to leave bruises, pulled AV2 by his/her left foot and AV2 fell over, and lifted AV3 by his/her arm. P3-P6 had not seen the SP act in that way toward children before. P3 and P4 had seen the SP frustrated with other staff persons or scheduling but had never seen the SP take it out on the children. P5 said sometimes the SP picked up children quickly in a way that startled the children. However, P5 had not seen the SP pick up a child by one arm, push over a child, or handle a child in the way that was described to P5. P6 had also never seen the SP do those things before. P6 said that on Thursdays, the SP was “more stressed” and P6 told the SP if s/he needed help to ask (note: May 29, 2025, was a Thursday). P6 “never” thought the SP would have done something to a child even if s/he was overwhelmed. · P3-P6 were each trained to lift children under the arms, put children to sleep on their backs, and if children were able to roll over, pat children’s bottoms to help them sleep. P3-P6 were also each trained to ask another staff person to step in if they felt frustrated. Video footage dated May 29, 2025, was reviewed from two camera angles. P1 stated the time stamp was off by one hour. The times reflected below are the actual times of the incident, not the time on the video footage. The following three incidents were observed: · At 10:40 a.m., the SP was sitting on the floor with AV1 in the SP’s lap, and AV2 was sitting next to the SP. AV2 started to cry, and the SP grabbed AV2’s right ankle and quickly spun AV2 around almost 360 degrees. The SP then grabbed AV2’s sleeper outfit at AV2’s chest area and pushed AV2 back, causing AV2 to fall from a seated position to a laying position on the floor on his/her back, during which AV2 hit his/her head on the carpeted floor. AV2 cried harder at that point. The SP set AV1 down and then the SP sat AV2 up and forcefully pushed AV2 into a seated position on the floor. The SP got up, picked up some toys, and then placed AV2 in the corner of the classroom facing the door to the Infant E classroom. After several minutes, AV2 crawled back to the carpeted floor. The SP sat down on the floor next to AV2, then the SP grabbed AV2 by the left shoulder and quickly picked AV2 up and flipped AV2 over while carrying AV2 toward the lockers and out of view of the camera angle. The SP returned to the carpeted area without AV2. There was no other interaction between the SP and AV2 for the remainder of the video. · Around 11:40 a.m., AV1 was in a ball pit when AV3 crawled over and grabbed a toy AV1 was playing with. The SP picked AV3 up by his/her right wrist, lifted AV3 approximately one foot off the ground, turned, and set AV3 down on AV3’s left side hard enough that AV3 instantly started crying. The SP sat in a rocking chair with another child while AV3 lay on his/her back, then AV3 rolled over to a sitting position while still crying. There was no other interaction between the SP and AV3 for the remainder of the video. · Just before 12:30 p.m., AV1, AV2, AV3, and another child were standing in their cribs in the sleeping area while the SP tidied the main part of the classroom. At 12:30 p.m., the SP entered the sleeping area, went to AV1’s crib, and placed AV1 down in the crib face down, then pulled AV1’s hips back and pushed AV1 in the opposite direction by AV1’s armpits to position AV1. The SP then hit AV1’s back repeatedly with an open palm with enough force that it caused AV1’s upper body to shake. The SP continued hitting AV1’s back with less pressure. The SP walked away from AV1’s crib and AV1 stayed laying down but then stood up in his/her crib and cried. The SP walked back toward AV1’s crib and made a motion with his/her finger pointing at AV1 to lay down. The SP grabbed AV1 under the armpits and threw AV1 face down in the crib. The SP then grabbed the back of AV1’s shirt and made a fist between AV1’s shoulder blades, then began to hit AV1’s back again with an open palm. AV2, who was in the next crib, stood up so the SP laid AV2 down and rocked the cribs of both AV1 and AV2. AV1 lifted his/her head up a few times and the SP laid AV1 back down. Three times when AV1 poked his/her head up, the SP put his/her hand on the back of AV1’s head and pushed AV1’s head back into the crib mattress, face first. On the last time that happened, the SP kept his/her hand on AV1’s head and the SP’s ponytail moved with the intensity with which s/he held down AV1’s head. P2 walked through the infant D classroom as the SP pushed AV1’s head down the final time. The SP turned to look at the door P2 just left from and then started patting AV1’s back softly. At 12:35 p.m., the SP walked away from AV1’s crib and tried to help the other children to go to sleep. AV1 stood up in his/her crib. At 12:39 p.m., the SP went back over to AV1’s crib and tried to get AV1 back asleep. The SP took AV1 out of his/her crib and brought AV1 to a rocking chair. That was the end of the video. AV1’s medical records showed that AV1 was admitted to the emergency room on May 29, 2025, at 4:28 p.m. FM1 and FM4 told the health care professionals they received a telephone call from the facility around 2:50 p.m. and were told that a staff person tried to get AV1 to sleep by placing AV1 on his/her stomach and patting AV1 forcefully on the back. AV1 sustained a bruise measuring two to three centimeters on the left side of his/her back. There was nothing to suggest any additional injuries so AV1 was discharged that same day with instructions to take over the counter medication for pain and use ice packs. AV2’s medical records showed that AV2 was admitted to the emergency department on May 29, 2025, at 5:26 p.m. FM2 told the health care professionals that s/he received a telephone call from the facility around 3 p.m., stating that AV2 had been sitting up when a staff person became upset, and grabbed AV2’s leg, spun AV2 around, and pushed AV2 down. AV2 fell over and hit his/her head on the thinly carpeted floor. AV2 was examined and a head CT and skeletal x-ray were performed and the results were normal. AV2 was discharged and FM2 was advised to watch for any new signs or symptoms such as bruising, persistent vomiting, or fussiness. AV3 did not seek medical attention. The facility’s Positive Behavior Guidance Policy stated that the following actions were prohibited: corporal punishment including but not limited to rough handling, shoving, shaking, excessive tickling, slapping, kicking, biting, pinching, hitting, spanking, and pulling arms, hair, or ears; and emotional abuse including name calling, ostracism, shaming, making derogatory remarks about the child or the child’s family, and using language threatens, humiliates, or frightens the child. Facility documentation showed that the SP, P1, P2, P3, P4, P5, and P6 each received training on the facility’s Positive Behavior Guidance Policy, and the Reporting of Maltreatment of Minors Act. Law enforcement conducted an investigation, and the SP was charged with two counts of malicious punishment of a child under the age of four, in relation to his/her treatment of AV1 and AV2 during the May 29, 2025, incident. Relevant Rule and/or Statute: 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. Conclusion: A. Maltreatment: Consistent information was provided that on May 29, 2025, the SP worked alone in the Infant D classroom with four children. During the course of the day, the SP grabbed AV2’s ankle, twisted AV2 around, and pushed AV2 down on the floor, causing AV2’s head to hit the carpeted floor. AV2 who had been crying a little before the incident, cried harder. AV2 did not sustain any injury. Later, when AV3 crawled over to AV1 and tried to take a toy, the SP grabbed AV3 by the wrist and lifted him/her about a foot off the floor, and set AV3 down on his/her side. AV3 fell to his/her back and immediately started crying. AV3 did not sustain any injury. During nap time, the SP laid AV1 down and hit his/her back with enough force that AV1’s upper body moved, and when AV1 tried to poke his/her head up, the SP pushed AV1’s head down three times. The last time s/he did so, the SP’s ponytail moved due to the intensity with which s/he held AV1’s head down. The SP’s actions caused bruising to AV1’s upper back that was approximately two to three centimeters in size, and the SP was charged with malicious punishment of a child in relation to his/her actions toward AV1. AV2 and AV3 did not sustain injuries as a result of the SP’s actions. However, given the force and lack of care with which the SP maneuvered both AV2 and AV3, and that the SP was also charged with criminal malicious punishment of a child under four in relation to his/her actions toward AV2, the SP’s actions toward AV2 and AV3 were considered overt acts toward both AV2 and AV3 that represented a substantial risk of physical abuse to each. Therefore, there was a preponderance of the evidence that physical and/or threatened injury was inflicted on AV1, AV2, and AV3 by other than accidental means. It was 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). 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 the staff person responsible for AV1’s, AV2’s, and AV3’s care at the time of the incidents. The SP received training on the facility’s Positive Behavior Guidance Policy and the Reporting of Maltreatment of Minors Act. The SP was responsible for maltreatment of AV1, AV2, and AV3. 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 an internal review and found their policies and procedures were adequate, but were not followed by the SP. 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. 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.
|
