|
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: 1049204-CCC (Child Care Center) Investigator(s): Kimberly Huettl Anderson/Tessa Ripka Minnesota Department of Children, Youth, and Families 651-539-8226 Suspected Maltreatment Reported: It was reported that an alleged victim (AV) had scratch marks on his/her upper left arm. The AV said that a staff person caused the scratches. Date of Incident(s): March 20, 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 April 16, 2025; from documentation at the facility; and through seven interviews conducted with five facility staff persons (SP, P1, P2, P3, P4), the AV’s family member (FM), and the AV. The AV was four years old at the time of the incident and enrolled in a preschool classroom. On March 20, 2025, at 6:02 p.m., the FM sent a message to P4 stating that s/he noticed some marks on the AV’s arm and asking if P4 knew how the AV sustained the marks. The AV said that s/he had a “owie” and that the SP “did it.” When asked how it happened the AV said that s/he was spitting and then s/he cried. The SP took the AV to P2’s classroom because s/he was not listening, and the AV was spitting at his/her friend. P1 provided the following information: · On an unspecified date, P1 worked in the classroom with the SP. The AV was having a “hard time” after being dropped off by the FM and sat by the front window towards the hallway. P1 let the AV sit there to “decompress” and then asked him/her to come and play. · The AV started to play and then spit at other children. P1 tried to redirect the AV to the carpet to read a book. The AV spit again and this time the SP grabbed the AV by his/her arms near the shoulder area by wrapping the SP hands around the AV’s arms. The SP lifted the AV to the SP’s eye level and shook the AV “a little bit.” · The AV started to cry and was “distraught.” P1 moved the AV to a different classroom because s/he thought it would be a “better fit.” P1 was not sure if s/he took the AV to the other classroom or if the SP did. The AV remained in the other classroom for the remainder of the day. P1 did not see or notice the AV’s scratches that day but thought the scratches likely came from the interaction with the SP. · P1 had previously seen the SP pick up children and bring them up to the SP’s eye level and shake them while holding them by the upper arms. P1 stated that the shaking was not “aggressive,” but P1 had previous concerns with the SP yelling at the children. P2 provided the following information: · P2 said that the SP brought the AV into P2’s classroom and the AV was crying. The SP held the AV with the SP’s hand on the AV’s left elbow area, closer to the bicep. The SP “swung” the AV toward the wall, and the AV hit the wall but not “hard.” P2 asked what happened and the SP said that the AV was spitting at children. P2 said that the AV could stay in his/her classroom. However, the AV remained in P2’s classroom for the rest of the day. · P2 told the AV that when s/he felt better s/he could play. After some time, the AV calmed and played with friends. The classroom had lunch, nap, snack, and played outside before the AV was picked up at approximately 4:30 p.m. · P2 had seen the SP pick up a child and shake a child on another occasion. P3 said that s/he had heard the SP raise his/her voice but had never seen the SP touch children “inappropriately” or “mishandle” them. P4 had no previous concerns with the SP. Prior to this incident, it was brought to P4’s attention that the SP held another child’s hand “too hard,” and the SP’s nails dug into the child’s hand a “little bit.” The child tried to run out of the classroom at times. The SP provided the following information: · On March 20, 2025, the SP started his/her shift at the facility at approximately 9:05 a.m. When the SP arrived, s/he saw a couple of children “going after” the AV because the AV was in a bean bag chair. The children were pulling on the AV’s arm while the AV was spitting at them. · The SP picked up the AV around the chest with two hands, raised the AV to the SP’s “eye level” and said something like, “Be done.” One child was “yanking” and pulling down on the AV’s left upper arm while the SP was picking up the AV. The SP moved the AV to another area so s/he would not get hurt and moved the bean bag chair. The AV was “fine” and was not crying. The SP checked the AV’s arm because the children had been pulling on the arm and did not see any marks at that time, so s/he did not write a report about the incident. · The classroom then went outside to play. At approximately 10:45-11:00 a.m., the classroom came inside, and the children continued to “go after” the AV when s/he continued to spit at the children. The SP picked up the AV around the chest and moved the AV. The SP said, “We are not spitting again.” The SP thought the AV needed a break, so s/he moved the AV to a different classroom for the remainder of the day. · The SP said that s/he did not cause the marks on the AV’s arm and did not touch the AV’s arm when s/he moved the AV. The SP said that the marks could have come from the other children that were pulling and squeezing the AV’s arms. The FM said that when s/he brought the AV home, the FM took off the AV’s sweatshirt and the AV said “owe.” When asked what happened, the AV said that the SP “hurt my arm.” The AV showed the FM crescent shaped broken skin/scratches on his/her left arm. When the FM asked the AV what happened the AV said s/he was spitting at another child. The FM asked the facility what happened, as s/he did not receive an incident report. The FM contacted P4 to see what had happened. P4 could not talk at that moment and said that s/he would call the FM back. Within ten minutes the FM received a call from the SP. The FM did not answer, and the SP called six times in ten minutes. The FM sent the SP a text to stop calling the FM. The SP then texted the FM that the AV and another child were wrestling and pulling on each other’s arms. The AV was sacred to go to the facility. A photograph provided by the FM was taken on March 20, 2025, and showed several small crescent shaped cuts/scratches on the inside of AV’s left bicep. The photo was consistent with marks that could be made by fingernails. The facility’s Guidance, Protection of and Respect for Children policy stated that “any kind” of physical discipline or corporal punishment, including grabbing a child, was “unacceptable.” Facility documentation showed that all staff persons interviewed for this investigation were trained on the facility’s policies and the Reporting of Maltreatment of Minors Act. Law enforcement investigated this incident and submitted to the county attorney. The county attorney declined to charge. Relevant Rule and/or Statute: Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0055, subpart 3, item A, states that the license holder must have and enforce a policy that prohibits the following actions by or at the direction of a staff persons: Subjection of a child to corporal punishment, which includes, but is not limited to, rough handling, shoving, hair pulling, ear pulling, shaking, slapping, kicking, biting, pinching, hitting, and spanking Conclusion: A. Maltreatment: Information from the FM, P4, and facility documentation was consistent that on March 20, 2025, the FM observed marks on the inside of the AV’s left upper bicep; and a photo taken that evening showed crescent shaped broken skin/scratches on the AV’s left upper inner bicep. The AV told the FM and the DCYF investigator that the SP caused the injury when the AV was spitting at his/her friend. P1 said that on the day of the incident, the AV was spitting at other children. P1 saw the SP grab the AV by his/her arms near the shoulder area by wrapping the SP hands around the AV’s arms, lift the AV to the SP’s eye level, and shake the AV “a little bit.” The AV started to cry and was “distraught.” P2 said the SP brought the AV into P2’s classroom and the AV was crying. The SP held the AV with the SP’s hand on the AV’s left elbow area, closer to the bicep. The SP “swung” the AV toward the wall, and the AV hit the wall but not “hard.” The AV remained in P2’s classroom for the rest of the day. The SP said that s/he moved the AV by picking up the AV with two hands on the AV’s chest and moved the AV because the AV was spitting at other children, and that while s/he did so, several children pulled on the AV’s arms. The SP said the AV was “fine” and did not cry. The SP checked the AV’s arms and did not see any marks at that time. Later in the day the AV continued to spit, so the SP again moved the AV by the chest and then took the AV to another classroom. The SP denied touching the AV’s arms and/or causing the marks on the AV’s arm. AV’s, P1’s, and P2’s accounts of the incident contradicted the SP’s account of the incident: although the SP denied touching the AV’s arms during the incident, P1 and P2 each saw the SP hold the AV’s left arm near where s/he was injured, and the AV said the SP caused the injury on his/her left arm. In addition, although the SP said the AV was “fine” and did not cry when s/he redirected him/her from spitting, information from the AV, P1, and P2 was consistent that the AV cried during the incident. For the reasons above, the SP’s account was determined to be less credible than the AV’s, P1’s, and P2’s accounts. Therefore, there was a preponderance of the evidence that the SP caused scratches on the AV’s left upper inner bicep when s/he grabbed the AV arms, lifted the AV off the ground, and shook the AV; and that the SP also swung the AV into a wall. In addition, there was a preponderance of the evidence that there was a failure to protect the AV from conditions or actions that seriously endangered the AV’s physical or mental 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. “Neglect” means 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. Facility documentation showed that the SP received training on the facility’s Guidance, Protection of and Respect for Children policy and the Reporting of Maltreatment of Minors Act prior to the incident. 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 an internal review and determined that policies and procedures were adequate but not followed when the SP did not follow the behavior guidance policy. The SP was retrained and received corrective action. 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 was responsible for maltreatment is subject to appeal. On February 18, 2026, the facility was issued a Correction Order for violating licensing rules regarding separation of children from the group. 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.
|
