|
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: 1101032-CCC (Child Care Center) Investigator(s): Kim Huettl Anderson 651-539-8226 Suspected Maltreatment Reported: It was reported that an alleged victim (AV) was left in the facility’s elevator for approximately one minute without two staff persons’ (SP1 and SP2) knowledge or supervision. Date of Incident(s): March 6, 2025 Nature of Alleged Maltreatment Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 260E.03, subdivision 15, paragraph (a), clauses (1) and (2): 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. Summary of Findings: Pertinent information was obtained during a site visit conducted on March 17, 2025; from documentation at the facility; and through five interviews conducted with the AV’s family member and facility staff persons. The facility was a multi-level building with classrooms on all three levels of the building. A gym for the children was located in the basement of the facility. There was an elevator that was used throughout the day to transport children from one floor to another. The AV was eighteen months old at the time of the incident and enrolled in the facility’s toddler classroom which was located on the second floor. The facility’s Accident Report Form and a facility management person (P1) stated that on March 6, 2025, per the facility’s video surveillance, SP1 and SP2 entered the elevator from the basement with ten children. SP1 counted the children when they entered the elevator. When they reached the second floor, SP1 stepped out of the elevator guiding children off the elevator into the hallway and then classroom. SP2 was the last one to leave the elevator but did not realize that the AV was left in the elevator. SP1 counted the children at the door as they entered the classroom and realized that one child was missing. The video surveillance showed that the AV was in the elevator for fifty-five seconds without SP1’s and SP2’s supervision or knowledge. The FM stated that s/he was notified of the incident but felt that P1 and the other staff persons responded “immediately” and were transparent about the incident. The FM stated that s/he did not have any additional concerns about the incident or the program. Three facility staff persons (P2, SP1, and SP2) provided the following information: · P2 was sitting by the elevator at the end of his/her shift when a family member of another child came out of the elevator and told P2 that the AV was in the elevator by him/herself. P2 took the AV to P1’s office. · SP1 stated that on the day of the incident, SP1 and SP2 were supervising ten children in the facility’s gym. When they were finished in the gym, SP1 and SP2 counted ten children and went into the facility’s elevator to go upstairs to their classroom. · When the elevator opened on the second floor, SP1 exited the elevator and walked in front of the children to the classroom. SP1 stated that s/he stood at the doorway of the classroom and counted the children entering the classroom and SP2 was “supposed to” count the children getting off the elevator. · SP2 stated that s/he was at the end of the line and left the elevator after the children left the elevator. When SP2 came to the classroom, SP1 told SP2 that there were only nine children that went into the classroom. SP2 stated that s/he counted the children, but s/he missed the AV. · SP1 “immediately” went down the stairs to the gym to look for the AV. SP1 did not see the AV in the gym so s/he went up the stairs to the main level and saw P1 with the AV. When SP1 found the AV with P1, the AV was not crying or upset. · SP1 and SP2 estimated that the AV was without supervision for approximately one minute. · SP2 stated that s/he failed to check the elevator to ensure that all the children were out of the elevator before SP2 let the elevator door close. The facility provided video surveillance of the incident. The videos were time and/or date stamped but did not contain audio. The videos provided the following information: o On March 6, 2025, at 5:01:04 p.m., SP2 stood by the basement elevator door while the children lined up. SP1 was at the end of the line. SP2 counted the children as they entered the elevator. o At 5:02:20 p.m., the 2nd floor elevator door opened and SP2 walked out of the elevator with the children following him/her. SP2 stood with his/her back to the elevator door and held the door open for the children. At 5:02:32 p.m., SP2 followed the children out and the elevator door closed. o At 5:03:01 p.m., a family pressed the elevator button from the basement. The elevator door opened for them at approximately 5:03:25 p.m. As the family entered the elevator, they saw the AV. The elevator door closed with the family and the AV inside at 5:03:37 p.m. o At 5:04:01 p.m. the elevator door opened, and the family got the attention of P2. P2 went to the elevator, picked the AV up, and brought the AV to P1. The facility’s Risk Assessment and Reduction Plan stated that staff persons were to perform a head count when leaving one room and arriving in another room. If there were more than one staff person present, one staff person led the group and the other staff person followed at the end of the line. The facility’s personnel files showed that P1, P2, SP1, and SP2 were each trained on the facility’s Risk Assessment and Reduction Plan and the Reporting of Maltreatment of Minors Act prior to the incident. Relevant Rules and/or Statutes: Minnesota Statutes, section 142B.01, subdivision 27, and Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0045, subpart 1, item A, state that a child must have supervision at all times and that supervision is defined as occurring when a program staff person is within sight and hearing of a child at all times so that the program staff person can intervene to protect the health and safety of the child. Conclusion: Information was consistent that on March 6, 2025, the AV was in the elevator unsupervised for approximately, fifty-five seconds, which was a violation of Minnesota Statutes, section 142B.01, subdivision 27, and Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0045, subpart 1, item A. SP1 and SP2 worked in the toddler classroom with ten children, including the AV, on the day of the incident. When the group left the elevator, the AV was left behind. Minnesota Statutes, section 260E. 30, subdivision 3, states that rather than making a determination of substantiated maltreatment by an individual, the commissioner of children, youth, and families shall determine that the individual made a nonmaltreatment mistake. A nonmaltreatment mistake occurs when: (1) The individual has not been determined responsible for a similar incident that resulted in a finding of maltreatment for at least seven years; (2) The individual has not been determined to have committed a similar nonmaltreatment mistake under this paragraph for at least four years; (3) Any injury to a child resulting from the incident, if treated, is treated only with remedies that are available over the counter, whether ordered by a medical professional or not; (4) Except for the period when the incident occurred, the facility and the individual providing services were both in compliance with all licensing and certification requirements relevant to the incident; and (5) At the time of the incident, the individual was performing duties identified in the licensed center's child care program plan required under Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0045. This clause applies only to child care centers licensed under Minnesota Rules, chapter 9503. Although the AV was unsupervised for approximately fifty-five seconds, SP1’s and SP2’s actions were determined to be a nonmaltreatment mistake for the following reasons: (1) SP1 and SP2 had not previously been found responsible for a similar incident that resulted in a finding of maltreatment; (2) SP1 and SP2 had not previously been found responsible for a similar nonmaltreatment mistake in the past; (3) The AV was uninjured and did not require medical care after the incident; (4) Except for the period when the incident occurred, the facility, SP1 and SP2 complied with all licensing requirements relevant to the incident; and (5) At the time of the incident, SP1 and SP2 were performing job-related duties and were transitioning the children from the elevator to the classroom. Although SP2 did not count the children when s/he left the elevator, SP1 counted the children at the classroom door and realized that the AV was missing right away, at which time SP1 immediately began looking for the AV. The nonmaltreatment mistake to the AV by SP1 and SP2 was not maltreatment. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 260E.35, subdivision 6, paragraph (b), the investigative data in this report will be maintained by the Department of Children, Youth, and Families for a period of five years. Action Taken by Facility: The facility conducted an internal review and determined that their policies and procedures are adequate but were not followed at the time of the incident. SP1 and SP2 were retrained on how to transition children. Action Taken by Department of Children, Youth, and Families, Office of Inspector General: SP1 and SP2 were not determined as a perpetrator of maltreatment of the AV because the Department of Children, Youth, and Families found that the incident for which SP1 and SP2 were responsible met the criteria to be determined a nonmaltreatment mistake. SP1 and SP2 were notified by the Office of Inspector General that any future incident of possible neglect of an alleged victim for which SP1 or SP2 is responsible might not be considered a nonmaltreatment mistake. On August 6, 2025, 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 Children, Youth, and Families.
|
