|
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: 1103779-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 child (AV) was left in a stairwell without two staff persons’ (SP1 and SP2) knowledge or supervision for approximately two minutes and was found by a community person. Date of Incident(s): February 27, 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 21, 2025; from documentation at the facility; and through seven interviews conducted with a supervisory staff person (P1), four staff persons (P2, P3, SP1, and SP2), the AV’s family member (FM), and a community person (CP). At the time of the incident the AV was 22 months old and enrolled in the toddler classroom. The AV was not interviewed due to his/her age. The facility was located within a church and was accessible to church members and community members who had a code to enter the building. The facility had classrooms along a central hallway on each of two floors. One end of the hallway was open to other areas of the church on both levels. At the other end of the hallway, there was a stairwell that connected the upper and lower levels of the facility, with a landing at the midpoint of the stairs. From that landing, there were doors that exited to the playground. The preschool classrooms were located on the upper floor and the toddler classroom was located on the lower floor near the end of the hallway that was open to the church. There were cubbies located across from the toddler classroom. The FM said that s/he received a phone call on February 27, 2025, from SP1 who said that when the class came inside, the staff persons and the rest of the class went down the stairs to their classroom. SP1 said that the AV was found wandering the hallway after approximately five minutes. The FM had no prior concerns about the facility. The CP said on an unspecified date s/he was walking down the stairwell to the facility’s lower level when s/he saw the AV sitting quietly on the stairs by the playground door. The AV had one shoe off. The CP helped put on the AV’s shoe and then took the AV upstairs to the preschool class. The CP gave the AV to a staff person and told him/her about the incident and then left the room. P2 said that on February 27, 2025, at approximately 4 p.m. the CP came into the preschool classroom with the AV. P2 said that s/he did not recognize the AV and had P3 come not the classroom to help. P3 entered the room, picked up the AV and then left the classroom. P2 said that when the AV came into the room s/he was happy and began to play. P3 said that on an unspecified date s/he was in his/her classroom when P2 entered and said that a parent came into his/her classroom with a child and that s/he did not know who the child was. P3 walked into P2’s classroom and recognized the AV. P3 brought the AV to the toddler room and to SP1. P3 said to SP1, “Did you lose someone?” and then explained that the CP found the AV. P3 said that SP1 seemed “surprised” and told P3 “thank you.” The facility provided two videos for February 27, 2025: a video of the toddler hallway (timestamped 4:01:30 – 4:10:25 p.m.) and a video of the preschool hallway (timestamped 4:01:12 - 4:08:10 p.m.). · The toddler hallway video provided the following information.: o From 4:01:30 to 4:02:19 p.m., SP1, eight children, and a family member are at the bottom of the stairwell and joined by SP2. A toddler child then ran toward another family member in the hallway. o From 4:02:23 to 4:04:31 p.m., SP1 and SP2 walked toward the classroom, helped the children take off their coats in the hallway, then brought the children into the classroom. During this time, two children left the group with their family members, leaving six number of children in the classroom with SP1 and SP2. o At 4:04:53 p.m., SP2 entered the hallway and went into another classroom. o At 4:08:07 p.m., P3 walked into the hallway holding the AV and stopped at the toddler classroom and handed the AV to SP1. · The preschool hallway video showed that at 4:07:18 p.m., P2 held the AV and walked out of view of the camera toward the stairwell. (Note: Due to technical issues footage from 4:06:11 to 4:07:18 p.m. could not be seen.) SP1 and SP2 provided the following information: · SP2 and SP1 had nine children, including the AV, on the playground prior to the incident. SP2 and SP1 completed a head count of the children, including the AV, at the playground gate and then completed another count at the door to the facility. · After the second head count was completed SP1 opened the door and led the children inside and onto the landing. SP2 was at the end of the line and the AV entered the facility before SP2 closed the door. Once the door was closed, SP1 and SP2 completed another head count of the children, including the AV. SP1 then began to lead the toddlers down the steps. SP2 was at the end of the line near the AV. · As the children began to go down the stairs SP1 and SP2 began to help some of the children walk down. SP2 said at that time a parent was coming down the stairs from the preschool floor and was trying to surprise his/her child. SP2 said that s/he got “distracted” as s/he was trying to help the parent find his/her child. SP2 then followed the children and the parent down the stairs. · When SP2 reached the bottom of the stairs another child left with his/family member. SP2 said that another count should have been completed at the bottom of the stairs and “thought” SP1 had completed the count as s/he walked down the steps. SP1 said that s/he forgot to complete another count at the bottom of the stairs because s/he was distracted by the parents picking up. · SP1 and SP2 then walked the children down the hall to help them take off their coats. Two children ran into the classroom before they took off their coats and SP1 followed them while SP2 helped the children in the hallway. SP2 then walked the rest of the children into the classroom. SP1 had the children sit at the table and then looked out into the hallway and did not see any other children. SP1 said that since they were within ratio, SP2 then left the classroom as s/he was no longer needed to maintain ratio. · SP1 said that s/he then placed books on the table for the children and began to complete a headcount when s/he realized that s/he was missing a child. P3 then walked into the classroom with the AV and said that the AV was found upstairs. SP1 said that the AV was happy and joined his/her classmates at the table. · At approximately 4:40 p.m. when SP2 returned to the toddler classroom, SP1 informed SP2 that the AV was found wandering the hallway upstairs. SP1 said that it was approximately five minutes from the time they walked down the stairs to when P3 brought the AV to the toddler classroom. P1 provided information that was consistent with SP1 and SP2. P1 had no prior concerns about SP1 or SP2. The facility’s Risk Reduction Plan stated, “Staff will supervise children at all times when using other areas of the school building,” “Staff will take a headcount of the group of children prior to leaving one area, and re-count when group arrives at the second area when transitioning children from one area within the facility to another,” and, “When staff are transitioning to and from the playground they will use a name to face check.” Facility records showed that prior to the incident, P1-P3, SP1, and SP2 were trained 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 February 27, 2025, SP1 and SP2 had nine toddler children, including the AV, on the playground. As the toddler class walked inside and toward the classroom, the 22-month-old AV went up the stairs while the rest of the class went down the stairs and to the toddler classroom. The AV was left unsupervised in the stairwell, which was a violation of Minnesota Statutes, section 142B.01, subdivision 27, and Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0045, subpart 1, item A. The AV was unsupervised for approximately two minutes on stairs before s/he was found uninjured by the CP and taken to P2. 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 two minutes on stairs, and was found and moved by a community person, SP1’s and SP2’s actions were determined to be a non-maltreatment mistake for the following reasons: (1) SP1 and SP2 had not been determined responsible for a previous incident that resulted in a finding of maltreatment; (2) SP1 and 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) at the time of the incident, SP1 and SP2 were performing job related duties. SP1 and SP2 had completed three head counts of the children prior to walking down the stairs. SP1 and SP2 were helping the children walk down the stairs, interacting with family members as they picked up their children, and helping the children take off their coats. SP1 was in the process of completing a name to face count of the children in the classroom when P3 arrived with the AV; and (5) except for the period when the incident occurred, the facility, SP1, and SP2 were in compliance with all licensing requirements relevant to the incident. 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 completed an internal review and determined that policies and procedures were adequate but not followed at the time of the incident. In the response the facility added that SP1 and SP2 were retrained on the facility’s transition procedure and Risk Reduction Plan. 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 November 7, 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.
|
