|
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.”
License Number and Program Type: 1110410-CCC (Child Care Center) Investigator(s): Judie Schwanke Minnesota Department of Children, Youth, and Families Judith.schwanke@state.mn.us Suspected Maltreatment Reported: It was reported that three alleged victims (AV1, AV2, and AV3) left a fenced playground and walked away from the facility without staff persons’ (SP1, SP2, and SP3) supervision or knowledge. AV1, AV2, and AV3 were found by a community person (CP) who returned them to the facility unharmed. Date of Incident(s): July 7, 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 July 28, 2025; from documentation at the facility and law enforcement records; and through ten interviews conducted with a supervisory staff person (P1), facility staff persons (P2, SP1, SP2, and SP3), AV1 and AV2 and their family members (FM1, who was also a staff person at the facility, and FM2), and FM3. AV3 was not interviewed because s/he was not at the facility on the day of the site visit. The facility was housed in a charter school building and located on Hodgson Road, which was a busy two-lane road with a speed limit of 45 miles per hour. There were sidewalks along both sides of Hodgson Road. Approximately 0.2 miles to the north of the facility was a cross road, Tanglewood Drive, with stop lights and a pedestrian crossing button. Surrounding the facility were businesses including a fire station, a grocery store, a senior living complex, and single-family homes. The facility used two playgrounds: one was part of the facility’s approved licensed space, and the other was the charter school’s playground, which was not a part of the facility’s approved licensed space. The charter school playground was approximately 164 feet wide by 285 feet long. Its perimeter was enclosed by a chain link fence that was lined with trees and bushes. Inside the fence there were large trees, a large wooden play structure, a basketball court, a grassy area, and a hill. Due to the size of the charter school playground, the large trees, and the hill, staff persons were not able to see all areas of the playground simultaneously. Facility documentation showed that AV1, AV2, and AV3 were enrolled in a preschool children’s house summer camp classroom. At the time of the incident, AV1 and AV2 were each three years and eight months old and AV3 was five years old. AV1 stated s/he was enrolled in children’s house two. AV1 stated there were two playgrounds, one was for his/her age group, and one was for the charter school children. One day when AV1 was on the charter school playground, s/he put his/her head down and crawled under the fence with four other children, leaving the playground. Two children went back under the fence and returned to the playground and AV1, AV2, and AV3 walked down the sidewalk. A “stranger” (later identified as the CP) was in his/her car and asked AV1 if s/he was from his/her “home or school” and AV1 told the CP that s/he was from “school.” The CP told AV1, AV2, and AV3 to “hop in” his/her vehicle and then the CP drove them back to the facility. AV1 was “happy” when s/he left the playground because s/he anticipated going to AV3’s house. When the CP returned AV1, AV2, and AV3 to the facility, staff persons were “scared.” AV2 stated that s/he was on the “big kids’ playground” when s/he went “under” the fence with AV1 and AV3 to go to AV3’s house. AV2 was “scared” and looked for FM1 and did not see him/her “anywhere.” Then AV2, AV1, and AV3, walked “really far” without an adult until “someone” (later identified as the CP) found AV2. AV2, AV1, and AV3 got into the CP’s car. AV2 did not know how to buckle the seat belt, and the CP told him/her that it was “okay,” and AV2 did not wear a seat belt. Then the CP drove AV2, AV1, and AV3 back to the facility. When they got to the facility and got out of the CP’s vehicle, SP3 told AV2, AV1, and AV3 that s/he was looking for them “everywhere.” FM1 and FM2 provided the following consistent information: · On July 7, 2025, FM1 worked at the facility and AV1 and AV2 attended the facility. At the end of FM1’s shift, SP1 told him/her that AV1 and AV2 had got out from the fenced charter school playground and came back. FM1 understood this as a “quick encounter,” and s/he told SP1 that AV1 and AV2 were “very adventurous,” and loved to “explore.” FM1, AV1, and AV2, then left the facility. That night, AV1 and AV2 were “fine” and had a “normal night.” When FM1 arrived at home that night s/he told FM2 about the incident. FM1 and FM2 thought that AV1 and AV2 climbed over the fence and left the playground and staff persons immediately saw them and brought them back to the playground. · On July 8, 2025, FM1 heard facility staff persons talking about the incident and learned that AV1, AV2, and AV3 had gone under the fence and left the charter school playground area. When FM1 learned about this, facility staff persons had already fixed the fence by adding a pole and placing some logs in front of the fence and s/he did not see the hole under the fence. · On July 9, 2025, a facility family member asked FM1 if the family members of the children who left the fenced area were told that a “van” returned the children. FM1 was “shocked” because s/he did not know what that family member was referring to. That night at home, FM1 and FM2 talked with AV1 and AV2. AV2 told them that they had been in a car with a “good stranger.” FM1 and FM2 sent an email to P1 and asked for details about the incident because it seemed “more severe” than they were led to believe. · On July 10, 2025, FM1 and FM2 talked with facility administration and were told that AV1 and AV2 were brought back to the facility in the CP’s van and the facility was looking into getting more information about the incident. FM2 called FM3 and told him/her that AV1, AV2, and AV3 had been found by the CP, who drove them back to the facility in his/her vehicle. · FM1 stated that AV1 and AV2 had used the charter school playground every day since the beginning of summer. FM2 stated that prior to this incident, s/he did not have safety concerns with the facility. FM3 provided the following information: · On July 7, 2025, FM3’s spouse went to the facility to pick up AV3. SP1 told him/her that AV3 went through a hole in the playground fence and staff persons found AV3 on the other side of the fence. When the spouse and AV3 got home, the spouse told FM3 what had happened. FM3 asked AV3 if s/he found a hole in the fence and AV3 told FM3, “Yeah.” FM3 then asked AV3 what s/he did next. AV3 told FM3 that another child did not want to go through the hole so AV3 went through. FM3 told AV3 that s/he should not have gone through the hole and should have told a staff person about the hole. AV3 told FM3 that AV1 and AV2 also went through the hole, and s/he was going to show AV1 and AV2 his/her “new house.” That night AV3 was fine and FM3 did not think AV3 was “traumatized” by the incident. · On July 10, 2025, FM3 received an email from P1 that was sent to all facility family members. The email stated that children had gotten out of the playground and were returned to the school by a community person. FM3 then received a call from FM2 asking if s/he knew that a community person had returned AV1, AV2, and AV3 to the facility and FM3 told him/her that s/he did not know that. FM3 then asked AV3 if s/he had been in someone’s car and AV3 told him/her that s/he had been in a car and that s/he could not find the seatbelts. FM3 asked AV3 if the person was “nice” or “mean” and AV3 told FM3 that the person was “nice.” FM3 kept asking AV3 questions and AV3 started to cry and told FM3 to stop and that s/he did not want to talk about “it.” FM3 did not want to blame AV3 and stated that staff persons should have seen the children leave the playground. · On July 11, 2025, FM3 called the facility and left a message with the staff person who answered the phone that s/he wanted to know what had happened the day AV3 left the playground. FM3 received a phone call from a facility administrator who told FM3 that AV3 and other children had dug a hole under the fence, gone out of the charter school playground, and were found outside of the fence. FM3 asked the administrator how long AV3 had been “missing,” and was told that AV3 had been missing for “minutes.” FM3 asked how AV3 was returned to the facility and the administrator told him/her that s/he could not answer that because s/he was not there. · On July 11, 2025, FM3 sent an email to P1 and requested a phone call from him/her. FM3 did not receive a phone call back. · On July 14, 2025, FM3 called law enforcement (LEO). The LEO came to FM3’s home and talked with him/her. The LEO went to the facility and viewed video footage and then talked with FM3 again and told him/her what s/he learned. · Prior to this incident, FM3 did not have concerns regarding the facility. Law enforcement records provided the following information: · On July 14, 2025, the LEO was dispatched to FM3’s home. FM3 told the LEO that on July 7, 2025, when FM3’s spouse arrived at the facility to pick up AV3, s/he was told that AV3 left the facility property and was “brought back shortly later.” On July 10, 2025, FM1 and FM2 told FM3 that AV1, AV2, and AV3 tunneled under a playground fence and were in the local neighborhood when a van “collected” them and brought them back to the facility. When FM3 attempted to talk with AV3 about the incident, AV3 cried and would not talk about it anymore. · The LEO then went to the facility and talked with P1 who told him/her that on July 7, 2025, AV1, AV2, and AV3 were on the charter school playground. Between 1:45 and 1:50 p.m., they tunneled under the playground fence, left the facility, and were returned to the facility by the CP who drove a van. The LEO was given the license plate number of the van. P1 told the LEO that AV1, AV2, and AV3, were unsupervised for between five and ten minutes. · The LEO then watched video footage and saw what P1 described to him/her. The LEO saw the CP’s van enter the parking lot. AV1, AV2, and AV3 exited the van and were “happy and jumping up and down.” The CP exited the van and talked with a facility staff person for a few minutes and then left the parking lot. · On July 15, 2025, the LEO called the CP who told him/her that s/he was driving southbound on Hodgson Road and approached Tanglewood Drive. At the intersection, the CP saw AV1, AV2, and AV3 standing by the stop light and AV3 was pressing the crosswalk button. The CP did not see any adults with AV1, AV2, and AV3 so s/he turned his/her vehicle around and asked them where they were going. AV1, AV2, and AV3 each pointed in “different directions” and the CP asked if they should be in “school.” AV1, AV2, and AV3 said, “Yes.” The CP then “collected” AV1, AV2, and AV3 and drove them back to the facility. At the facility, the CP had AV1, AV2, and AV3 step out of his/her van and a staff person said, “Thank God.” The CP talked with the staff person and then left the facility. Law enforcement records did not include information about what time the CP found or returned AV1, AV2, and AV3. · The LEO then updated FM3 on the information that s/he gathered. SP3 provided the following information: · On July 7, 2025, SP3 was on the charter school playground with SP1, SP2, and 19 children, including AV1, AV2, and AV3. Just after 1 p.m., SP1 took a child inside the facility to use the restroom. At that time, SP3 recalled seeing AV1 and AV2 playing near the hill behind the play structure. SP3 did not recall seeing AV3. · After SP1 returned to the playground, SP3 took a child inside the facility to use the restroom. SP3 and that child were inside between 20-25 minutes and then returned to the charter school playground between 1:25 and 1:30 p.m. · “A couple minutes” after SP3 returned to the playground, a child told SP3 that AV1, AV2, and AV3 “crawled” under the fence and left the playground. SP3 then told SP1 and SP2 that s/he “suspected” that some children left the playground. SP1, SP2, and SP3 “rounded” up the children and lined them up by a building near the playground gate. SP3 supervised the children in the line while SP2 and SP3 conducted a “sweep” of the playground. · After SP1 and SP2 swept the playground, they returned to the line and told SP3 that they did not find AV1, AV2, and AV3. SP3 then saw a van pull into the facility parking lot. SP3 walked out of the playground and into the parking lot while SP1 and SP2 supervised the children in line. SP3 walked up to the van and saw that another car had pulled in behind the van. AV1, AV2, and AV3 got out of the van and seemed like they were in a “silly mood.” The CP told SP3 that s/he found AV1, AV2, and AV3 three blocks away from the facility. SP3, AV1, AV2, and AV3 rejoined SP1, SP2, and the other children. SP3 then helped SP1 and SP2 transition the children inside the facility. · SP3 did not know how long AV1, AV2, and AV3 were unsupervised outside the fenced area. · Before using the charter school playground on July 7, 2025, SP3 did not check the playground fence and did not “think” that SP1 or SP2 did either. · Prior to July 7, 2025, the preschool children’s house children used the charter school playground every day unless there was “stormy” weather. · SP3 was trained to use active supervision while supervising children on the playground and to count children at transitions and different intervals of time to ensure all children were accounted for. SP1 provided the following information: · On July 7, 2025, SP1 was on the charter school playground with SP2, SP3, and 19 children including AV1, AV2, and AV3. At approximately 2 p.m., SP1 counted and accounted for “all” of the children, including AV1, AV2, and AV3. SP1 then took a child inside the facility to use the restroom. When the child was finished, SP1 returned to the playground and dug in soil with two other children, talking with them about plant roots. SP2 was near the “middle” of the playground near the play structure and SP3 took a child inside the facility to use the restroom. · When SP3 returned to the playground, a child told SP3 that three children went “under” the fence. SP1, SP2, and SP3 started to look for those children. SP1 went to the far side of the playground where s/he had seen some children and called for them to see if they had climbed trees or were hiding where they could not be seen. P2 was outside the facility and joined in the search for the missing children. SP1 told SP2 to gather the rest of the children and take them inside. · Between five and ten minutes later, SP1 saw a van and a car pull into the facility parking lot and heard SP3 say s/he found AV1, AV2, and AV3. SP1 approached AV1, AV2, and AV3 and they were smiling, giggling, and appeared to be “happy.” AV1, AV2, and AV3 talked about going to find AV3’s house. Then SP1 took AV1, AV2, and AV3 into the facility office to talk with P1. P1 told SP1 to tell the AVs’ family members only the “bare bones” of the incident: that they went under the fence and had returned safely. P1 said s/he would send an email to the families later that explained the incident in more detail. · SP1 estimated that AV1, AV2, and AV3 were outside the fenced area for approximately 20 minutes. S/he had last seen them at approximately 2 p.m., and planned to bring all the children inside by 2:30 p.m. · Prior to July 7, 2025, at the beginning of the summer, a facility management person sent an email to SP1 that included a daily schedule for the summer camp. According to the daily schedule, each day, the summer camp children were scheduled to eat lunch on the charter school playground and after lunch, children were allowed to play on that playground. · During the school year, SP1 did not think the preschool children’s house children used the charter school playground “at all.” SP1 worked at the facility on July 6, 2025, and the summer camp children used the charter school playground that day. · SP1 was trained to check the environment children used for “hazards,” ensure children stayed safe on equipment, and ensure children were always supervised by a staff person. SP1 was not given a checklist or other reference to use when checking an area for hazards. On July 7, 2025, before AV1, AV2, and AV3 left the charter school playground, SP1 checked the fence gate to make sure it was latched. SP2 provided the following information: · On an unknown date, SP2 was on the charter school playground with SP1, SP3, and over 20 children, including AV1, AV2, and AV3. SP2 was near the hill supervising children on a play structure. SP3 took some children inside the facility to use the restroom and SP2 thought s/he was alone on the playground so s/he “repositioned” him/herself and then saw SP1 on the playground. SP2 then went back to his/her position near the play structure. Prior to the incident, SP2 last saw AV1 and AV2 on the play structure and then in the playground and SP2 did not recall where s/he last saw AV3. · SP2 saw SP3 return to the playground and saw SP1 run from an area near the gate to an open area of the playground. SP2 did not know “what was going on,” and heard AV1’s, AV2’s, and AV3’s names called, and someone say that they could not be found. SP2 started to look for AV1, AV2, and AV3 around the edges of the fence and in open areas and called their names. SP2 did not see a hole in the fence at that time. SP3 did not see or hear AV1, AV2, or AV3. P2 was near the playground and also helped search for AV1, AV2, and AV3. Between three and four minutes later, SP2 looked up and saw a van pull into the parking lot. SP2 had the children lined up near the gate while SP1 and SP3 continued to look for AV1, AV2, and AV3. SP2 then heard SP3 say s/he found “them” and saw SP3 walk to the van. · SP2 saw either AV1 or AV2 get out of the van and saw SP3 talk with the CP. SP3 brought AV1, AV2, and AV3 to the line of children and they all walked inside. SP2 tried “to hold it together” and counted the children as they walked into the facility and into the classroom. · SP2 did not know how long AV1, AV2, and AV3 were unsupervised but heard from SP3 that they were gone for approximately 20 minutes. P1 told SP2 that AV1, AV2, and AV3 were found “a couple blocks down the road.” · When using the facility’s playground, SP2 routinely completed a safety check to ensure there were no hazards. On July 7, 2025, SP2 did not complete a safety check of the charter school playground. That day, SP2 sat up against the fence and remembered that it “was wobbly” but SP2 did not know there was a hole in the fence. · SP2 did not recall receiving supervision training from the facility. SP2 received supervision training when s/he worked at other facilities and knew that children’s safety was staff persons’ “number one” priority. P1 provided the following information: · On July 7, 2025, SP1, SP2, SP3 and 20 children, including AV1, AV2, and AV3, were on the charter school playground. When they transitioned into the facility, SP1 entered P1’s office with AV1, AV2, and AV3. SP1 told P1 that s/he needed to talk with AV1, AV2, and AV3 because they went “under the fence.” P1 “assumed” that the children “crawled” under the fence and were within sight of staff persons the “whole time.” · P1 then talked with AV1, AV2, and AV3 for approximately ten minutes and discussed why it was important that staff persons could always see them. AV1, AV2, and AV3 told P1 that they dug a hole under the fence, and that they crawled under the fence there, leaving the playground to walk to AV3’s house. They also discussed making “good choices,” and where the children could and could not be in the playground. Then P1, AV1, AV2, AV3, and a maintenance person walked to the charter school playground. AV1, AV2, and AV3 showed the maintenance person where they left the playground, and the maintenance staff person fixed the area by putting a log in front of it and installing an extra stake in the fence. · P1 talked with SP1 again and learned that SP3 walked a child into the facility to use the restroom and when they walked to the playground, another child told SP3 that “somebody” crawled under the fence. SP1, SP2, and SP3 were looking for the children when a van pulled into the facility parking lot near the fence. P1 was unsure if SP1, SP2, and SP3 saw AV1, AV2, and AV3 while they were still in the van or if AV1, AV2, and AV3 exited the van and were then seen by SP1, SP2, and SP3. · On a different unknown day, P1 watched a video of the incident with the LEO. In the video from July 7, 2025, at approximately 1:55 p.m., P1 saw a van enter the facility parking lot. The driver’s side door opened, and the CP stepped out of the van. The CP walked to the back of the van and opened a door and AV1, AV2, and AV3 got out and were “skipping and happy.” One of the AV’s ran back to the van because s/he left his/her shoe in the van. · P1 stated that from “information” s/he had, AV1, AV2, and AV3 were unsupervised for three minutes but s/he could not “confirm” that time. In addition, P1 did not think AV1, AV2, and AV3 would be able to walk to the intersection where they were found in three minutes. · Prior to July 7, 2025, P1 was “aware” that the summer camp children used the charter school playground on Wednesdays but was not aware they used the charter school playground “regularly.” During the school year, preschool children’s house children went to the charter school playground in small groups. P1 thought it was “fine” that the charter school playground was used for the summer camp because there were extra staff persons to watch the children, and s/he did not have concerns because SP1 ran the summer program during the summer of 2024. · Staff persons were trained that when on a playground, they should “divide” the playground and have each staff person stand in a place with a line of sight to each spot in the playground. If there was a spot that a staff person could not see, they should make sure that another staff person could see the area. Staff persons actively watched and counted children on the playground. P2 provided the following information: · On July 7, 2025, at approximately 1:52 p.m., P2 was outside near the charter school playground when SP1 told him/her that three children went through a “hole” in the fence and were “missing.” P2 went into the facility and then ran back to the playground to help look for the children. · SP1 was near the playground gate gathering children. P2 walked toward the basketball area and saw SP2 checking the perimeter of the charter school playground. P2 walked to SP2 and asked him/her what s/he knew. SP2 told P2 that three children were missing, and s/he did not know more. P2 walked back toward the basketball court. After approximately five minutes of looking for the missing children, P2 saw a van and a car pull into the facility parking lot. · SP3 left the playground and walked to the van. P2 counted the children on the playground and counted the “right” number minus three children (at the time of his/her interview, P2 did not recall what that number was). P2 walked with SP1, SP2, and the children toward the facility and saw AV1, AV2, and AV3 with SP3. SP1 told P2 that the children were brought back to the facility in the van. P2 asked SP1 if s/he got the CP’s information and SP1 told P2 that s/he did not so P2 wrote down the van’s license plate number. · P2 estimated that AV1, AV2, and AV3 were unsupervised between five and ten minutes based on the time s/he first went outside and when the CP returned AV1, AV2, and AV3. · P2 stated that the preschool summer camp children used the charter school playground “every day” in the summer. · P2 was trained that while on the playground, staff persons should “actively” supervise the playground by looking in all directions. Staff persons should check “perimeters” to make sure children were safe. A Summer Camp Daily Schedule showed that each day at 12:00 noon, the preschool children’s house summer camp children ate lunch on the charter school playground basketball court or in an activity room. At 1:30 p.m., children used the restroom, reapplied sunscreen, and refilled water bottles. At 2 p.m., the children went inside for snack.
In a phone conversation with an administrative staff person (P3), P3 stated that the charter school playground was not an “approved,” “licensed” space for the preschool children and was not “intended” to be used as a “free play space” by the preschool children’s house children. P3 said facility’s Risk Reduction Plan indicated that the charter school playground was used for “walks,” in a “line,” around the playground. P3 was not aware that the Summer Daily Camp Schedule directed use of the charter school playground every day. The facility’s Child Care Program Plan stated that children were supervised at “all times.” When children were outdoors, staff persons adequately supervised them. The facility’s Parent and Student Handbook stated that when children were outdoors, staff persons supervised them. Staff persons reported any observed safety hazards to facility management. The facility’s Risk Reduction Plan stated that the facility had three playgrounds: a toddler playground, a preschool playground, and the charter school playground. Each playground had “developmentally appropriate” play structures and equipment for the children. There was “shrubbery or play equipment” that made areas of the playgrounds “hard to supervise.” In the areas that were difficult to supervise, staff persons were trained to monitor closely, position themselves strategically, and move about the environment to see those areas every few minutes. Staff persons were stationed at different parts of the playground so there were no parts of the playground hidden from the view of “at least one staff person.” Staff persons were to move about the playground to ensure that all children were “safe and accounted for.” “Sometimes” toddler and smaller groups of preschool children took outdoor “playtime/nature walks” on the large open space of the charter school playground. The children were not allowed on the equipment and were only allowed in the grassy area. In addition, only children with “appropriate self-management skills” were allowed to play on the grassy area. The facility’s Missing Child Policy stated that if a child was missing, staff persons would conduct a thorough search of the area and if the child was unable to be found within five to fifteen minutes, police and the child’s family members would be notified. Facility documentation showed that P1, P2, SP1, SP2, and SP3 each received training on the Reporting of Maltreatment of Minors Act and on the facility’s policies, including the Child Care Program Plan, Parent and Student Handbook, Missing Child Policy, and the Risk Reduction Plan prior to the incident. Relevant Rules and Statutes:
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: A. Maltreatment: Information from all sources was consistent that on July 7, 2025, AV1, AV2, and AV3 dug a hole under the charter school playground fence, went under the fence, walked approximately 0.2 miles to a nearby intersection, and waited to cross the road. The CP saw AV1, AV2, and AV3 at the intersection and asked them if they should be at home or at school and they told the CP they should be at school. The CP got AV1, AV2, and AV3 into his/her van and drove them back to the facility. SP1, SP2, and SP3, were not aware of AV1, AV2, and AV3’s whereabouts for approximately 20 minutes (as estimated by SP1 and SP2) when they left the playground, which was inconsistent with the facility’s Child Care Program Plan. At the time of the incident, AV1, AV2, AV3 and other preschool children were playing on the charter school playground, which was not a part of the facility’s approved licensed space. In addition, SP1, SP2, and SP3 each stated that before using the charter school playground they did not check the fence for any safety issues. When AV1, AV2, and AV3 left the playground, SP1 and SP2 were supervising and engaging with children in different parts of the charter school playground, and SP3 was inside the facility with a child that needed to use the restroom. Due to the layout of the charter school playground, not all areas of the playground were visible to SP1 and SP2 at all times, including the area where AV1, AV2, and AV3 slipped under the fence. When SP3 returned to the playground, another child had told SP3 that AV1, AV2, and AV3 had gone under the fence and left the playground so SP1, SP2, and SP3 began looking for AV1, AV2, and AV3. While doing so, the CP pulled into the facility parking lot with AV1, AV2, and AV3, who exited the CP’s vehicle and rejoined the class. While AV1, AV2, and AV3 were unsupervised in the community for approximately 20 minutes, they got into an unfamiliar person’s (the CP’s) vehicle and were driven back to the facility. AV1, AV2, and AV3 were also exposed to additional community dangers including vehicle traffic and unknown community persons. Therefore, there was a preponderance of the evidence that there was a failure to supply AV1, AV2, and AV3 with necessary care; and a failure to protect AV1, AV2, and AV3 from conditions or actions that seriously endangered AV1’s, AV2’s, and AV3’s physical or mental health when reasonably able to do so. It was determined that neglect occurred (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; and 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. When AV1, AV2, and AV3 left the playground without supervision, SP1 and SP2 were engaged with children on the charter school playground and SP3 was inside the facility helping another child. SP1, P2, and the Summer Camp Daily Schedule provided consistent information that common practice for the summer was for preschool children’s house summer camp children to use the unlicensed charter school playground daily for lunch and for free play after lunch. This was inconsistent with the facility’s Risk Reduction Plan, which stated that “sometimes” toddler and smaller groups of preschool children were given outdoor “playtime/nature walks” on the large open space in the charter school playground. In addition, because the layout of the charter school playground did not allow staff persons to simultaneously supervise all areas where children could play, this practice did not ensure the summer camp children were supervised according to Minnesota Statutes, section 142B.01, subdivision 27, and Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0045, subpart 1, item A. Therefore SP1’s, SP2’s, and SP3’s individual responsibility was mitigated and the facility was determined responsible for the maltreatment of AV1, AV2, and AV3. C. Serious Maltreatment: The Office of Inspector General is required to evaluate whether substantiated maltreatment by a facility meets the statutory criteria to be determined as “serious.” Minnesota Statutes, section 245C.02, subdivision 18, states: "Serious maltreatment" means sexual abuse, maltreatment resulting in death, neglect resulting in serious injury which reasonably requires the care of a physician whether or not the care of a physician was sought, or abuse resulting in serious injury. For purposes of this definition, "care of a physician" is treatment received or ordered by a physician, physician assistant, or nurse practitioner, but does not include diagnostic testing, assessment, or observation; the application of, recommendation to use, or prescription solely for a remedy that is available over the counter without a prescription; or a prescription solely for a topical antibiotic to treat burns when there is no follow-up appointment. For purposes of this definition, "abuse resulting in serious injury" means: bruises, bites, skin laceration, or tissue damage; fractures; dislocations; evidence of internal injuries; head injuries with loss of consciousness; extensive second-degree or third-degree burns and other burns for which complications are present; extensive second-degree or third-degree frostbite and other frostbite for which complications are present; irreversible mobility or avulsion of teeth; injuries to the eyes; ingestion of foreign substances and objects that are harmful; near drowning; and heat exhaustion or sunstroke. Serious maltreatment includes neglect when it results in criminal sexual conduct against a child or vulnerable adult. Neither AV1, AV2, nor AV3 was injured as a result of the neglect determined in this report. It was determined that the substantiated maltreatment for which the facility was responsible did not meet statutory criteria to be determined as serious. 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 their policies and procedures were adequate but not followed by SP1, SP2, and SP3. SP1, SP2, and SP3 were retrained on the facility’s supervision policy, Risk Reduction Plan, and Child Care Program Plan. Action Taken by Department of Children, Youth, and Families, Office of Inspector General: On March 11, 2026, the license holder was ordered to forfeit a fine of $1,000 as a result of the substantiated maltreatment for which the facility was responsible. The maltreatment determination and the Order to Forfeit a Fine are each subject to appeal. 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.
|
