|
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: 1100426-CCC (Child Care Center) Investigator(s): Van Mulheron Minnesota Department of Children, Youth, and Families 651-539-8253 Suspected Maltreatment Reported: It was reported that an alleged victim (AV) was found alone on a sidewalk by a community person and was without the knowledge or supervision of three staff persons for an approximately three to four minutes. 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 a supervisory staff person (SP1), two staff persons (SP2 and SP3), the AV’s family member (FM), and a community person (CP). At the time of the incident the AV was two years old and enrolled in the toddler classroom. Due to the AV’s age and communication, s/he was not interviewed for this investigation. The facility was located at the corner of two streets with sidewalks and speed limits of 30 miles per hour. Surrounding the facility were churches, businesses, parking lots, and single-family homes. Inside the facility were five classrooms, including the toddler classroom. The front entrance to the facility was set back from the main sidewalk and there was a walkway that ran from the sidewalk to the front door. The CP said on March 6, 2025, at approximately 9 a.m. s/he looked out his/her office window and saw the AV standing on the sidewalk next to a parking lot entrance that was in front of the building next door without an adult (note: in order to get from the facility to the location where the CP found the AV, the AV had to cross a parking lot entrance). The CP walked out to the AV and looked around and then saw an unknown staff person running toward the AV. When the staff person arrived s/he said, “I am so sorry,” and then left with the AV. The CP said that at the corner of the two streets there were three adults with approximately six to eight children and that it was three to four minutes from the time s/he saw the AV until the staff person arrived. (Note: The distance from where the CP found the AV to the corner was approximately 276 feet.) The FM said that s/he was not told about the incident until March 17, 2025. The FM had no prior concerns about the facility. The Daily Attendance Summary for the toddler classroom showed that there were ten children, including the AV, in attendance on March 6, 2025. SP1- SP3 provided the following consistent information: · On an unspecified date SP1-SP3 were taking the toddler children, including the AV, for a walk. SP1-SP3 had the children line up inside and SP1 completed a head count before walking outside. SP1 was at the front of the line, SP3 was in the middle, and SP2 was at the end of the line. The AV was near the end of the line. · SP1 led the classroom outside through the front door and they walked along the walkway toward the sidewalk. SP2 said that as the class walked outside the door s/he ran back inside to grab a child’s hat and joined the class before they reached the sidewalk. Once the class reached the sidewalk, SP1 led the class toward the corner. · As the class reached the corner, another family came and dropped off another toddler child. SP2, who was at the end of the line greeted the child and then the child joined the line. SP2 then counted the children and said, “The numbers are off.” SP1 looked at the children and realized that the AV was not with the class. SP2 said that the count happened before the class reached the corner. SP3 said s/he did not participate in counting the children because during the walk from the facility to the corner s/he was helping some children walk on the sidewalk as parts of the sidewalk were icy. · SP2 looked behind him/her and saw the AV on the sidewalk at the far end of the facility standing with a community person. SP2 then ran to the AV and brought the AV back to the line. · SP1-SP3 said that the AV was unsupervised for one to three minutes. SP1-SP3 said that the AV must have tuned the opposite direction when the rest of the class turned toward the corner for their walk. · SP1-SP3 each said that they were trained to count children and to complete a name to face check before leaving the building, to frequently count children while on walks, and to complete a count and name to face check when they reach the destination of a walk. The facility’s Risk Reduction Plan stated, “Children should always be supervised,” and “A buddy system and frequent head counts must be done while on walks or at the park. One caregiver will be in front of the group and one will be in the rear of the group. Group is to remain in a relatively tight bunch.” Facility documentation showed that prior to the incident SP1-SP3 received training on the facility’s Risk Reduction Plan and the Reporting of Maltreatment of Minors Act. Relevant Rules and Statutes: Minnesota Statutes, section 142B.01, subdivision 27, and Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0045, subpart 1, item A, states 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, SP1-SP3 took ten toddler children, including the AV, for a walk. SP1 was in front of the line, SP3 was in the middle, and SP2 was at the end of the line. SP1 led the class out of the building, to the sidewalk, and down the sidewalk toward the corner. As the group reached the corner, another child was dropped off and then SP2 counted the children and realized a child was missing. SP1 saw that the AV was not with the group. SP2 looked behind him/her and saw the AV with the CP on the opposite side of the facility, past an entrance to another parking lot, approximately 276 feet away from the corner. The CP said the AV was unsupervised for three to four minutes during the incident, but SP1-SP3 said the AV was unsupervised for one to two minutes. The AV was not harmed. The AV was unsupervised by the SP1-SP3 for one to four minutes during the incident, which was a violation of Minnesota Statutes, section 142B.01, subdivision 27, and Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0045, subpart 1, item A. Information was consistent that SP1 and SP3 each remained with the group and supervised the children in a manner consistent with the facility’s Risk Reduction Plan during the incident, including supervising the children from the font and middle of the group. Therefore, SP1’s and SP3’s actions were not considered a failure to supply the AV with care required for the AV’s physical health when reasonably able to do so, nor 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. However, SP2 said that as the class walked out the door s/he ran back inside to grab a child’s hat and rejoined the class before they reached the sidewalk. This temporarily left the end of the line unsupervised, which was not consistent with the facility’s Risk Reduction Plan. It was more likely than not that the AV left the group and headed the opposite direction on the sidewalk while SP2 was inside, and SP2 did not notice the AV’s absence when s/he rejoined the group outside. As a result, the AV was exposed to conditions that seriously endangered his/her physical health and safety. 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 one to four minutes on a street, crossed a parking lot entrance without supervision, and was found by a community person 276 feet away from SP1, SP2, SP3, and the other children; SP2’s actions were determined to be a non-maltreatment mistake for the following reasons: (1) SP2 had not been determined responsible for a previous incident that resulted in a finding of maltreatment; (2) SP2 had not been determined to have committed a non-maltreatment mistake under this paragraph; (3) there were no injuries to the AV as a result of this incident; (4) except for the period when the incident occurred, the facility and SP2 were in compliance with all licensing requirements relevant to the incident; and (5) at the time of the incident, SP2 was performing job related duties. SP2 went inside to get a child’s hat, interacted with a family that dropped off their child, and SP2 then completed a count of the children and realized that a child was missing. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 260E.35, subdivision 6, paragraph (b) all investigative data maintained in this report will be kept by the Department of Children, Youth, and Families for at least five 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 and followed as staff persons had completed a head count and knew a child was missing. Action Taken by Department of Children, Youth, and Families, Office of Inspector General: SP2 was not determined as a perpetrator of maltreatment of the AV because the Department of Children, Youth, and Families found that the incident for which SP2 was responsible met the criteria to be determined a nonmaltreatment mistake. SP2 was notified by the Office of Inspector General that any future incident of possible neglect of an alleged victim for which SP2 was responsible might not be considered a nonmaltreatment mistake. On November 20, 2025, the facility was issued a Correction Order for the violations outlined in this report and for failing to report maltreatment as required. 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.
|
