|
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: 800435-CCC (Child Care Center) Investigator(s): Tessa Ripka/Danielle Morrison Minnesota Department of Children, Youth, and Families 651-539-8252 Suspected Maltreatment Reported: It was reported that a staff person (SP) yelled and “smacked” an alleged victim (AV) on the ear. Date of Incident(s): October 21, 2025 Nature of Alleged Maltreatment Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 260E.03, subdivision 18, paragraph (a), and subdivision 23, paragraph (a): "Physical abuse" means any physical injury, mental injury, or threatened injury, inflicted by a person responsible for the child's care on a child other than by accidental means. "Threatened injury" means a statement, overt act, condition, or status that represents a substantial risk of physical or sexual abuse or mental injury. Summary of Findings: Pertinent information for this investigation was obtained during a site visit conducted on October 30, 2025, from documentation at the facility; and through three interviews conducted with two facility staff persons (P1, P2) and the AV’s family member (FM). This investigator made attempts to contact the SP through phone calls, text messages, and mail, but attempts were unsuccessful. The AV had delayed speech and did not provide any information about the incident. The toddler area was a large open room that was divided in half by a half wall. The AV’s classroom was on the far-right side and had tables and small shelving units. There was a changing table area that was near the half wall that both classrooms used. The AV was 33 months old at the time of the incident and enrolled in a toddler classroom. P1, P2, and the Incident Investigation Form provided the following information: · On October 21, 2025, at approximately 4:30 p.m., P1 was in a toddler classroom with the SP. P1 was in the diaper changing area wiping a child’s face when s/he saw the AV try to pick up a goldfish cracker off the floor in the classroom. The SP yelled the AV’s name and “smacked” the AV with an open hand on the AV’s head near his/her ear and the side of his/her face. The SP told the AV that it was “nasty” to eat off the floor. The AV started crying. · P1 yelled the SP’s name after P1 saw the SP hit the AV. The SP said, “I’m sorry but [the AV] eating off the floor and that is so nasty,” and the SP laughed “a little bit.” Shortly after, P1 left the classroom to report the incident. · The following day, P2 spoke with the SP about the incident. The SP told P2 that s/he was cleaning up and the AV tried to eat off the floor. The SP went to get the cracker from the AV and when s/he got there it was already gone. The SP initially denied hitting the AV and said the AV cried because s/he loved goldfish crackers. When P2 asked if P1 said anything, the SP said that P1 said something like, “Why would you hit [the AV],” and then the SP “stopped [him/herself]“ and said, “[P1] said something like, ‘[the SP], be nice.’” When asked why P1 would say this, the SP said that it could have looked like the SP hit the AV from where P1 was positioned. The SP then admitted to “swatting” at the AV but said that s/he did not hit the AV. · Prior to the incident, P2 had some concerns and heard concerns from other staff persons that the SP was loud and yelled at one child that was the SP’s family member. P2 spoke with the SP about that issue, and it had improved. P2 had no previous concerns about the SP‘s physical interactions with children. During their interviews, the FM, P1, and P2 each said they were not aware of any injury to the AV resulting from the incident. The Behavior Guidance Policy stated that staff persons modeled and enforced appropriate behavior, maintained consistent supervision, set reasonable expectations for children’s behavior, became familiar with children’s special needs, and provided interesting, challenging, age-appropriate things to do. Staff persons used behavior guidance techniques such as ignoring, redirection/distraction, verbal intervention, logical consequences, and taking a break. The facility did not permit corporal punishment, emotional punishment, withholding food, light, weather, clothing, or medical care, or physical restraint other than when necessary to protect a child or others from harm.
Facility documentation showed that P1, P2, and the SP were each trained on the facility’s policies and the Reporting of Maltreatment of Minors Act. Law enforcement did not investigate this incident. Relevant Rule and/or Statute: Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0055, subpart 3, item A, states that the license holder must have and enforce a policy that prohibits the following actions by or at the direction of a staff persons: Subjection of a child to corporal punishment, which includes, but is not limited to, rough handling, shoving, hair pulling, ear pulling, shaking, slapping, kicking, biting, pinching, hitting, and spanking Conclusion: A. Maltreatment: On October 21, 2025, P1 heard the SP yell the AV’s name, then saw the SP “smack” the AV with an open hand on the AV’s head near his/her ear down the side of his/her face. The SP told the AV that it was “nasty” to eat off the floor. The AV started crying. Neither the FM, P1, nor P2 noticed any related injury to the AV. The SP did not provide information to this investigator but did initially deny that s/he hit the AV when talking with P2. Later during his/her conversation with P2, the SP acknowledged “swatting” the AV but denied hitting the AV. Given that P1 said that the SP hit the AV with an open hand on the AV’s head going down the side of the face, that the SP initially denied hitting the AV but later acknowledged “swatting” the AV to P2, and that the SP had reason to minimize his/her actions, it was more likely than not that the incident occurred as described by P1. Therefore, there was a preponderance of the evidence that the SP hit the AV on the side of his/her head with an open hand with sufficient force that the AV cried. The AV was a toddler with delayed speech. Although the AV was not injured, the SP’s actions of hitting the AV in the head represented a substantial risk of physical injury to the AV. It was determined that physical abuse occurred ("physical abuse" means any physical injury, mental injury, or threatened injury, inflicted by a person responsible for the child's care on a child other than by accidental means. "Threatened injury" means a statement, overt act, condition, or status that represents a substantial risk of physical or sexual abuse or mental injury). 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. Facility documentation showed that the SP received training on the facility’s policies and the Reporting of Maltreatment of Minors Act prior to the incident. The SP was responsible for maltreatment of the AV. 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 policies and procedures were adequate but not followed as outlined in the behavior policy. Action Taken by Department of Children, Youth, and Families, Office of Inspector General: The Department of Children, Youth, and Families informed the Department of Human Services, Office of Inspector General, Background Studies Division that the SP was determined responsible for maltreatment. The determination that the SP is responsible for maltreatment is 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.
|
