|
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.”
License Number and Program Type: 831080-CRF (Children’s Residential Facility/Department of Corrections) Investigator(s): Lindsay Arth/Beth Virden Suspected Maltreatment Reported: It was reported that a staff person (SP) grabbed an alleged victim’s (AV) hair, pulled the AV to the floor, and called the AV a “bitch.” Date of Incident(s): October 24 and 26, 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 November 17, 2025; from documentation at the facility; and through eight interviews conducted with the AV, the AV’s family member (FM), the AV’s case managers (CM1 and CM2), a facility staff person (SP), a mental health professional (P1), and supervisory staff persons (P2 and P3). In February 2025, the AV moved into the facility seeking services and support relating to his/her diagnoses, which included generalized anxiety disorder and oppositional defiant disorder. The facility provided the AV with residential treatment and education. At the time of this investigation, the AV was 14 years old. The facility was a campus with multiple buildings and living units for youth ages 6 to 18. There were cameras mounted in common areas, hallways, etc., which recorded movement but not audio. The facility’s Handle with Care policies and procedures stated the following: · The facility served high-risk and emotionally dysregulated youth, who might display physically aggressive and harmful behaviors toward themselves and others. The use of physical holds might be a necessary intervention to keep youth and staff safe from physical harm. · Physical hold techniques included a one-person escort, whereby the staff stood behind the youth with their chest close, elbows under elbows, fingertips and wrists pointed straight up, and then staff walked the youth forward or backward. · “Holding youth in uncomfortable or awkward positions as well as arm twisting, arms held high behind the back, hair pulling, or extensive squeezing of the youth is not acceptable or tolerated. The youth must always be treated respectfully throughout the physical hold procedure.” The AV provided the following information: · On at least two occasions in October 2025, the SP “got upset” and “grabbed” the AV’s clothes “kind of violently.” The SP then “dragged” the AV, which also pulled on the AV’s hair; however, the AV did not believe the SP intentionally pulled his/her hair. The SP called the AV a “bitch” and said that the AV’s family did not want him/her, which was why s/he was living at the facility. · The AV said that the SP “wasn’t physically abusing” him/her and never hit the AV or caused injury, but the AV did not like being touched and told the SP that s/he did not like being touched, yet more than once, the SP did so anyway. The facility’s camera footage showed two incidents, October 24 and 26, 2025 (respectively), where the AV walked away from his/her living unit towards a set of double doors, which led outside. Both times, the SP followed and grabbed the AV’s sweatshirt at his/her shoulders, shifting the AV off-balance, and then walked behind the AV away from the double doors. The physical contact in each incident was less than ten seconds.
The SP said that twice in October 2025, the AV ran out of the living unit and the SP was the sole staff able to physically respond. The SP believed s/he needed to intervene because of the AV’s history jumping out of windows and running away. Both times, the AV stopped in the hallway and the SP “pinched [the AV’s] sweatshirt” and led him/her back to his/her living unit. The SP did not intentionally touch the AV’s hair, did not drag the AV, did not swear at the AV, and did not tell the AV that his/her family did not want him/her; and the AV did not sustain injuries. The SP said that s/he and the AV used to get along but around September 2025, the SP implemented stricter personal boundaries with youth to be more professional, which the AV did not like. [Note: The SP completed an incident report for the incident on October 26, 2025, but not for the incident on October 24, 2025, which was a violation of Minnesota Rules part 2960.0710, subpart 5, which states that staff must document the use of physical escort and note the technique used, the time of day, and the name of the staff person and resident involved.] P1-P3 each said that they did not witness incidents of the SP’s conduct, or hear the SP make statements, like those described by the AV and did not have concerns with the SP’s conduct. P1 and P3 each reviewed camera footage and saw the SP redirecting the AV by grabbing his/her sweatshirt and guiding him/her away. Although the way the SP escorted the AV was inconsistent with the facility’s handle with care escort procedures, the AV appeared to be about to run away and so some type of intervention was warranted, and the SP showed “no force” or “dragging” as described by the AV. P1-P3 each said that the AV was not always an accurate reporter of information. The SP had started becoming firmer with maintaining boundaries and rules, which seemed to “upset” the AV and made the AV “target” the SP. The FM, CM1, and CM2 provided consistent information that the AV might provide accurate information but also might leave out important details or misinterpret events. CM1 said that around the time of the incidents, the AV had gotten in trouble at the facility for having contraband in his/her bedroom. The AV had a history of engaging in behaviors when s/he was held accountable. Facility documentation stated the SP and P1-P3 received training on the facility’s handle with care policies. P1-P3 and the SP also received training on the Reporting of Maltreatment of Minors Act; however, the training was not provided prior to or within the same month of the subsequent calendar year, which a violation of Minnesota Statutes section 245A.66, subdivision 4, paragraph (a), which states in part that mandated reporters must have annual training on the maltreatment of minors reporting requirements. Conclusion: The facility’s camera footage showed that on October 24 and 26, 2025, the AV walked down a hallway toward an exterior door, and the SP followed, grabbed the AV’s sweatshirt, and led the AV back to his/her living unit. Consistent information was provided by P1-P3 and the SP that the AV had a history of running away so an intervention was necessary to protect the AV. Although the AV stated that the SP grabbed the AV’s clothes “violently,” “dragged” the AV, pulled on the AV’s hair, and made statements such as calling the AV a “bitch” and stating the AV’s family did not want him/her, given that the SP denied the allegation which was supported by the camera footage which showed that the SP did not engage in the actions as described by the AV and there was no audio on the camera footage; that the SP’s actions of grabbing the AV’s sweatshirt and then walking behind the AV did not cause injury to the AV and/or would not reasonably be expected to cause injury; that P1-P3 did not have concerns regarding the SP, there was not a preponderance of the evidence that the SP dragged the AV, pulled the AV’s hair, and/or made inappropriate statements to the AV. It was not 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). Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 260E.35, subdivision 6, paragraph (b), the investigative data in this report will be maintained by the Department of Human Services for a period of five years. Action Taken by Facility: The facility completed an internal review and determined that policies and procedures were adequate but not followed as the staff did not use an approved physical restraint technique when escorting the AV back to the unit. The facility retrained staff on the handle with care policies and procedures. Action Taken by Department of Human Services, Office of Inspector General: On January 27, 2026, the facility was issued a Correction Order for the violations 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 Human Services.
|
