|
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: 1114585-CCC (Child Care Center) Investigator(s): Danielle Morrison Minnesota Department of Children, Youth, and Families 651-539-8252 Suspected Maltreatment Reported: It was reported that an alleged victim (AV) was on a playground without staff person knowledge or supervision for approximately three and a half minutes. Date of Incident(s): April 24, 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 May 8, 2025; from documentation at the facility; and through five interviews conducted with two supervisory staff persons (P1 and P2), two facility staff persons (SP1 and SP2), and the AV’s family member (FM). The AV was 18 months old and enrolled in the Toddler One classroom at the time of the incident. This investigator met the AV but due to his/her age, s/he was not interviewed for this investigation. The facility was a stand-alone building that had three infant classrooms, three toddler classrooms, and four preschool classrooms. On one side of the building there was an infant playground and a toddler playground, each one with play structures designed for that specific age group. The playgrounds were enclosed by a five-foot metal fence with vertical slots and separated by a similar fence with a gate. There were two exterior doors on the infant playground that led to the Infant One and Infant Two classrooms, and there were three exterior doors on the toddler playground that led to the Infant Three, Toddler One, and Toddler Two classrooms. Facility documentation showed that on April 24, 2025, at 10:33 a.m., the AV was left on the playground for approximately three and a half minutes. On April 24, 2025, the FM received a telephone call from P1 explaining that the AV was left outside for three minutes when the group came inside from the playground without doing a headcount. The FM had no prior concerns and said that the AV “loved” his/her [staff persons]. P2 provided the following information: · On the day of the incicent, P2 was sitting at the facility’s front desk when SP1 called asking if P1 or P2 could come to the Toddler One classroom. P2 went to the classroom and SP1 and SP2 told P2 that the AV was left on the playground. They told P2 they thought the AV was on the playground alone “roughly” a minute and a half. · SP1 and SP2 told P2 that when the class transitioned from outside to the classroom, SP1 and SP2 completed a name to face check by the door. During the name to face check, SP1 asked SP2 if the AV and another child were inside, but SP2 thought SP1 asked about different children (not the AV) whose name was similar, and those two children were in the classroom so SP2 said they were in the classroom. SP1 then shut the outside door. Once the group got inside, P2 thought they gave the children water, then started another name to face during which they noticed the AV was still on the playground. · When P2 saw the AV after the incident, s/he seemed “fine.” P1 said staff persons were trained to conduct a name to face check at each threshold, and place a check mark on a roster once they saw each child. P2 had no prior concerns with SP1 and SP2. P1 provided the following information: · On the day on the incident, SP1 and SP2 were working in the Toddler One classroom with the AV. After the AV was left on the playground, one of the staff persons called the office from the classroom, spoke with P2, and told P2 what happened. · P1 had SP1 and SP2 come down to the office separately and tell P1 what had happened. SP1 stated that the group went through the gate and SP1 and SP2 did a name to face check, but when coming inside a name to face check was not completed, and the AV was left outside until another child pointed out the window. SP2 stated that s/he was at the exterior door as SP1 gave children to SP2. Once inside they started helping children take off their jackets when another child pointed to the door saying the AV’s name, and they brought the AV inside. · P1 reviewed video footage and noted that the AV was outside for three and a half minutes and the AV seemed “totally fine.” The policy for transitioning children was to complete a name to face at each threshold, and count the children once at their destination to ensure all of the children were accounted for. P1 had no prior concers about SP1 or SP2. SP1 provided the following information to this DCYF investigator and during the facilty’s internal investigation: · On the day of the incident, around 10:30 a.m., SP1 and SP2 were on a playground with 12 children, including the AV. The playground they were on (the infant playground), was not right outside of their classroom door, so they lined the children up on the first playground and SP1 conducted a name to face check. · SP2 went to the hold the classroom door open, while SP1 let one or two children at a time go through the gate checking off their names as they went onto the second playground toward the classroom door. Once everyone was off of the first playground, SP1 scanned to make sure no one was left on the first playground and s/he closed the gate and went toward the classroom door. · At that time SP1 asked SP2 if the AV and another child made it inside the door, and SP2 said they were inside. SP1 was not sure if s/he accidentally said another child’s name that was similar to the AV’s or if SP2 misheard SP1. · Once inside, some children started to fight, so SP1 and SP2 redirected those children, then helped children with their jackets and shoes. A child said the AV’s name and SP1 and SP2 noticed the AV was still outside on the toddler playground. SP2 went out to get the AV, and SP1 completed a name to face count. When SP2 brought the AV back inside, the AV looked “a little sad.” P1 and P2 told SP1 that the AV was outside for three and a half minutes. · SP1 was trained to perform a name to face before transitioning to a new location, throughout the transition, and once reaching the new location. On that day SP1 did not perform a name to face once inside, but rather completed it as the group went through the door. SP2 provided the following information to this investigator and during the facility’s internal investigation: · On April 24, 2025, SP1 and SP2 were outside on the playground with 11 children including the AV. As the group transitioned back to inside, SP1 stood at the gate between the infant and toddler playgrounds, while SP2 held the door open. SP2 remembered seeing the AV on the toddler playground after s/he passed through the gate. · A few children squeezed past SP2 to get inside as SP1 asked SP2 if two children were inside. SP2 saw both of those children’s coats inside, so s/he responded, “Yes,” to SP1. One of the children’s names was similar to the AV’s name. SP1 carried in the last child and SP2 started taking off the children’s jackets. · As SP2 assisted children, s/he noticed a child pointing outside and saying something. SP2 did not understand what the child was saying so s/he got to the child’s level to ask the child what was out there. The child said, “[the AV].” SP2 looked outside onto the toddler playground and saw the AV holding a pen. SP2 went outside and brought the AV back into the classroom. SP2 said the AV was giggling. · SP1 and SP2 got the children ready for lunch and SP1 called the office to ask P1 or P2 to come to the classroom. P2 came to the classroom and SP1 and SP2 told P2 that the AV had been left outside. SP2 thought the AV was unattended for two to three minutes. SP2 said s/he was trained to use a Name to Face roster to account for each child when transitioning. Video footage was reviewed and it showed SP2 standing at the exterior door holding it open while SP1 left the infant playground with four children, including the AV. Two children darted for a play structure on the toddler playground and tried to climb up the stairs. Meanwhile, the AV wandered off behind the play structure. SP1 got the two children (not the AV) off the play structure and walked them inside and the door shut. After approximately three and a half minutes, the AV walked out from behind the play structure. Five seconds after the AV walked out from behind the play structure, SP2 opened the exterior door and picked up the AV to bring him/her back inside. The facility’s Risk Reduction Plan stated, “Children will be monitored at all times. When children are moving through the facility, headcounts/name-to-face counts will be taken when exiting a room as well as entering a new room.” The facility’s Child Care Program Plan stated, “[The facility’s staff persons] will ensure that children are supervised at all times while in our care.” The facility’s Active Supervision and Name to Face Procedure Steps for transitions stated: #1 Leaving the Classroom-Prepare the children to exit the classroom. Complete a Name to Face check for all children on the roster who do not have a departure time listed, place a checkmark in the first box under Transition Times. Count the children and confirm the number matches the number of children accounted for via Name to Face. Write the time you left the classroom and the destination. #2 Arriving at Destination-Walk to your destination with one staff person at the front of the group and a second at the back. When you arrive at your destination, complete a Name to Face check before releasing children to play, and place a checkmark in the second box under Tranistion Times. #3 Leaving Destination-Group children together at the door and complete a Name to Face check, place a checkmark in the third box under Transition Times. Count the children to confirm the number of children present matches the Name to Face check. Return to the classroom with one staff person at the front of the group and a second at the back. #4 Arriving at Classroom-When you arrive at your classroom, complete a Name to Face check immediately, and place a checkmark in the fourth box under Transitions Times. Write the time you returned to the classroom. The facility’s Name to Face roster from April 24, 2025, for the Toddler One classroom showed 11 children were present (including the AV) at the start of the 10:20 a.m. transition from the playground to the classroom. For the transition involved in the incident, the AV had an “X” marked in all four transition boxes (two for the gate and two for the door). At the bottom of the NTF roster there were boxes to mark the number of children, the number of staff, and a staff person’s initials for every 30 minutes throughout the day. SP1’s initials were in the 10:00 and 10:30 a.m. spots. Facility records showed P1, P2, SP1, and SP2 were each trained on the facility’s Name to Face Procedure Steps, the facility’s Risk Reduction Plan, the facility’s Child Care Program Plan, and the Reporting of Maltreatment of Minors Act. Relevant Rule and/or Statute Minnesota Statutes, section 142B.01, subdivision 27 and Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0045, subpart 1, item A, state that “supervision” means 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; and that children are required to be supervised at all times.
Conclusion: On April 24, 2025, around 10:20 a.m., SP1 and SP2 were on the infant playground with 11 children including the AV. After a name to face check was completed on the infant playground, SP1 sent children through the gate and over to SP2, who was holding the classroom door open. Video footage showed that the two children went toward a play structure on the toddler playground, and the AV wandered behind the play structure. SP1 gathered two of those children (not the AV) and brought them to the classroom. SP1 said s/he completed a name to face check as the children entered the classroom, which was consistent with documentation on the Name to Face roster for April 24, 2025. Information was consistent that as SP1 entered the classroom, SP1 asked SP2 if the AV and another child made it into the classroom. SP2 told SP1 that those children were inside. However, the AV’s name was similar to another child’s name and might have been misheard by SP2. SP1 carried in the last child, SP1 and SP2 redirected children who were fighting, and then SP1 and SP2 assisted the children with their jackets and shoes. A child pointed outside and told SP2 that the AV was still outside on the toddler playground. SP2 brought the AV back inside. Video footage showed that the AV was outside for three and a half minutes which was a violation of Minnesota Statutes, section 142B.01, subdivision 27 and Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0045, subpart 1, item A. 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 when SP1 and SP2 went inside the classroom, SP1’s and SP2’s actions were determined to be a nonmaltreatment mistake for the following reasons: (1) SP1 and SP2 had not been determined responsible for a similar incident that resulted in a finding of maltreatment; (2) SP1 and SP2 had not been determined to have committed a similar nonmaltreatment 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, SP1, and SP2 were in compliance with all licensing and certification requirements relevant to the incident; and (5) at the time of the incident, SP1 and SP2 were performing duties as required. As the children went throught the door, SP1 competed a check and asked SP2 if the AV and another child made it inside. SP2 might have thought SP1 stated another child’s name that was similar to the AV’s name and told SP1 that the children had made it inside. Once inside SP1 and SP2 assisted the children in removing their jackets. 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 found their policies and procedures were adequate, but were not followed by SP1 and SP2. SP1 and SP2 each received a written warning. Action Taken by Department of Children, Youth, and Families, Office of Inspector General: SP1 and SP2 were each 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 October 3, 2025, the facility was issued a Correction Order for the violation 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.
|
