|
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: 1121510-CCC (Child Care Center) Investigator(s): Judie Schwanke Minnesota Department of Children, Youth, and Families 651-539-8268 Suspected Maltreatment Reported: It was reported that a staff person (SP) grabbed an alleged victim’s (AV) arms and the AV sustained bruising. Date of Incident(s): August 22, 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 was obtained during a site visit conducted on September 11, 2025; from documentation at the facility, law enforcement records, and medical records; and through five interviews conducted with the AV’s family member (FM), two supervisory staff persons (P1 and P2), and the SP. This investigator spoke with the AV, but s/he did not provide information pertinent to this investigation. Facility documentation showed that on August 22, 2025, the AV was four years old and enrolled in the prekindergarten classroom. The AV’s Individual Child Care Program Plan showed the AV had a “speech articulation disorder,” but did not require special needs services at the facility. The prekindergarten classroom was rectangular with multiple doors. Along one wall of the classroom were two doors that led to classroom bathrooms. Just outside of one of the bathrooms were two handwashing sinks. Across from the bathroom and hand sinks was a rug. There was a video camera near the ceiling in a corner of the classroom. The FM provided the following information: · On the evening of August 22, 2025, as the FM helped the AV put on his/her pajamas, the FM noticed three marks on each of the AV’s arms. The AV had bruises on his/her “upper biceps” that mirrored each other, except that the bruises on one arm were darker than the bruises on the other arm. The darker bruises lasted approximately eight days, and the lighter bruises lasted approximately six days. The FM asked the AV if s/he got “hurt,” and the AV did not answer the FM. The FM took pictures of the AV’s arms. · On August 23, 2025, the FM scheduled an appointment for the AV at his/her primary care medical facility on August 27, 2025. · On August 25, 2025, the FM took the AV to the facility and showed P2 the bruises on the AV’s arms and asked P2 if s/he knew how the AV got the bruises. P2 told the FM that s/he had “no idea” how the AV got the bruises. The FM then took the AV to his/her classroom and showed the SP the bruises and the SP had “no idea” how the AV got the bruises on his/her arms. That afternoon, P1 told the FM that s/he reviewed video footage and saw the SP kneeling on the floor. The AV had trouble buttoning his/her pants and the SP “pulled” the AV closer to him/her. · On August 27, 2025, the AV was seen at his/her primary care medical facility, who referred the AV to Midwest Children’s Resource Center (MCRC). The FM told a medical professional that the SP grabbed the AV’s arms. A medical professional at MCRC told the FM that the AV’s blood work was “fine,” and there was no other explanation for the AV’s bruises aside from the SP grabbing the AV’s arms. · On August 28, 2025, the FM watched video footage from August 22, 2025, and saw the SP pull the AV. · Prior to August 22, 2025, the FM did not have concerns with the SP’s interactions with the AV. · On September 8, 2025, the AV was physically and emotionally “fine.” The AV’s medical records provided the following information: · On August 25, 2025, P1 told the FM that there was a video that showed the SP “grabbing” the AV’s arms and pulling the AV toward him/her. · On August 27, 2025, the AV was seen at his/her primary care provider because on the evening of August 22, 2025, the FM noticed “some type of rash or bruising” to the AV’s upper arms. The AV’s primary care physician “was concerned regarding possible physical abuse.” The primary care physician contacted MCRC for a consultation. · On August 27, 2025, the AV was seen at MCRC. It was noted that the AV had three “parallel linear patterned contusions” that were approximately two inches in length on both of his/her upper arms. The contusions were more prominent on the AV’s left arm. · The “linear patterned bruises” were “consistent with squeeze marks to arms causing bruising,” and the AVs injuries were diagnostic of child physical abuse. · The AV did not have an underlying bleeding disorder. A local law enforcement report provided the following information: · On August 27, 2025, a law enforcement officer (LEO) received a phone call from MCRC regarding bruises on both AV’s upper arms that were “patterned bruises.” · On August 29, 2025, the LEO talked with P1 and requested documents and the incident video. The LEO also talked with the FM who told the LEO that s/he “believed” the incident was an “isolated incident,” and the SP did not intend to hurt the AV. The AV did not complain of any pain and did not “even have an understanding of something that went wrong.” · On September 2, 2025, the LEO watched the video footage from August 22, 2025, and saw the SP apply sunscreen to another child. The AV then walked over to the SP and appeared to ask the SP for help in buckling his/her pants. The SP “appeared” to grab both AV’s upper arms and “squeeze tightly” with his/her hands for a period of “two to three seconds.” · On September 3, 2025, the FM told the LEO that s/he did not want to “pursue charges.” The case was closed, and no further action was taken. A facility Injury Report stated that on August 25, 2025, the FM reported that the AV had bruises on his/her arm and the facility would check with the SP to see if there was an explanation for the bruises. P1 and P2 provided the following consistent information: · P2 stated that on August 25, 2025, at approximately 7:30 a.m., the FM showed him/her “really big,” “red and purple” bruises on the AV’s arms that looked like “finger marks.” P2 told the FM that s/he did not know how the AV sustained the bruises. P2 then asked the AV if s/he knew what happened to cause the bruising and the AV told P2 that s/he did not know. When the SP arrived at the facility, P2 asked the SP if s/he knew how the AV sustained the bruises and the SP s/he did not know “what happened” to the AV and told P2 that the AV “maybe” got them while s/he played on the “playground.” When P1 arrived at the facility, P2 asked him/her to check the camera footage from August 22, 2025. · P2 watched video footage with P1 and saw the SP put his/her hands on the AV’s arms and the AV cried. · P1 stated that on the afternoon of August 25, 2025, s/he watched video footage of the prekindergarten classroom from August 22, 2025. At approximately 9 a.m., the AV had “issues” with his/her pants. The SP “grabbed” the AV by his/her arms “hard” and “pinched” the AV’s arms as s/he “pulled” the AV towards him/her. That afternoon, P1 told the FM what s/he saw in the video. · On August 25, 2025, P1 asked the SP what s/he did when s/he had a “challenging behavior” in the classroom. The SP told P1 that s/he would help the child breathe and something else that P1 did not recall. P1 then told the SP about the incident s/he saw on the video and the SP told P1 that s/he was “trying to explain” to the AV how to button his/her pants and the AV was “fine.” · P1 stated that on August 28, 2025, s/he saw faded “red-ish lines” on one of the AV’s arms. On August 28, 2025, P1 showed the FM video footage of the incident. · Prior to August 22, 2025, P1 did not have concerns with the SP’s interactions with children. · P1 and P2 each stated that staff persons were trained on prohibited actions like pulling and on behavior guidance. Staff persons were trained that if they were “overwhelmed” with a challenging behavior, they should ask for help. The SP provided the following information: · On August 25, 2025, P2 showed the SP bruises on the upper part of the AV’s arms and “wanted to know” what happened to the AV. The SP told P2 s/he did not know if the AV’s injuries were “made” at the facility. · Later that day, P1 told the SP that s/he had watched video footage and “suspected” that the bruises on the AV’s arms were made on August 22, 2025, between 8:45 and 9:30 a.m. when the SP was teaching the AV how to button up his/her pants. The SP told P1 that s/he did not cause the AV’s bruises and did not “intend” to harm the AV. The SP felt “affection” for the AV and took “special” care of him/her. · The AV had “challenging” behaviors and when s/he became upset or angry, the SP used breathing exercises to “calm” the AV. The SP stated s/he was trained to provide a “safe and healthy” environment for the AV and to be “more understanding” and “patient” with him/her. · The SP stated that on August 22, 2025, s/he was applying sunscreen to a child and called the AV over to help him/her button his/her pants. The SP was at the AV’s “level” and told the AV s/he would help the AV. The SP then “brought” the AV’s shoulders and other parts of the AV’s arms closer to him/her and buttoned the AV’s pants. The SP told the AV, “That was it.” The AV was “sad” because s/he wanted to button his/her pants him/herself. · The SP stated s/he did not use “excessive force” and denied causing the bruising on the AV’s arms. This investigator viewed photos of the AV’s arms that were taken by the FM on August 22, 2025. The FM’s photos showed three parallel lines on the outer portion of each of the AV’s upper arms. The AV’s left arm had three maroon, lower case t-shaped bruises that had some darker purple marks in them. The bruises on the right arm were not as dark as the bruises on his/her left arm and there was a bruise connecting two of the parallel bruises. The facility provided a video segment of the prekindergarten classroom on August 22, 2025. The video was time stamped and did not contain audio and showed the following: o At 9:29 a.m., the AV stood at one of the hand sinks washing his/her hands and the SP knelt on the rug, applying sunscreen to another child. Five other children were in the classroom. When the AV finished washing his/her hands, s/he walked toward the rug, lifted his/her shirt with his/her left hand, and held the top of his/her pants in his/her right hand. The AV appeared to talk with the SP and the SP continued to apply sunscreen to the other child. The AV then used both hands and attempted to button his/her pants. o At 9:30 a.m., the SP finished applying sunscreen to the child and the child walked away from the SP. The AV stood approximately two feet from the SP. The SP removed a pair of latex gloves and looked at the AV. The SP then leaned toward the AV and clapped his hands and then reached out and grabbed the AV’s biceps. The SP pulled the AV forward, squeezing his/her arms and then relaxed the grip on the AV and let go of his/her biceps. The SP and the AV were face to face and the AV appeared to be crying. The AV attempted to button his/her pants again, and another staff person walked into the classroom. o At 9:31 a.m., the SP made a motion with his/hands to show the AV how to button his/her pants. o At 9:32 a.m., the SP put his/her hands over the AV’s hands and buttoned the AV’s pants. The AV walked away from the SP and sat down on another rug and played with a toy. The SP stood up and put on another pair of gloves and the video ended. The facility’s Behavior Guidance Policy stated that staff persons modeled appropriate behaviors such as respect for others, listening carefully, sharing toys, and using words. Staff persons taught children to use words to describe their emotions, and ways to get what they wanted without hurting anyone. A staff person’s rough handling or pulling of a child was “strictly prohibited” Facility documentation showed that prior to the incident P1, P2, and the SP each received training on the Reporting of Maltreatment of Minors Act and on the facility’s Behavior Guidance Policy. Relevant Rules and Statutes: Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0055, subpart 3, item A, prohibits the use of corporal punishment including but not limited to in part, rough handling, shoving, pinching, or hitting. Conclusion: A. Maltreatment: P1 and P2 each stated that they watched video footage of the prekindergarten classroom from August 22, 2025. At approximately 9:30 a.m., the AV had trouble buttoning his/her pants. The SP grabbed the upper portion of the AV’s arms and pulled the AV toward him/her. On August 25, 2025, P2 saw red and purple “finger” like bruises on the AV’s arms. The location of the bruises on the AV’s biceps matched the video footage of where the SP grabbed the AV’s arms. After the SP grabbed the AV’s arms and pulled the AV forward, the AV appeared to be crying. According to the FM, the bruises lasted between six and eight days. The SP stated s/he “brought” the AV’s shoulders and other parts of the AV’s arm closer to him/her to help the AV with his/her pants. The AV was not a danger to him/herself or others at the time of the incident. The SP’s action of applying enough pressure to cause bruising to the AV’s arms was inconsistent with the standards of a professional caregiver in a facility licensed by the Minnesota Department of Human Services; a violation of the facility’s behavior guidance policy; and a violation of Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0055, subpart 3, item A. The AV’s medical records showed that a medical professional documented the AV’s bruises were “linear patterned bruises” that were “consistent with squeeze marks to arms causing bruising,” and the AVs injuries were diagnostic of child physical abuse. In addition, the location, timing, and appearance of the AV’s bruises matched the circumstances of the incident and there was no information the AV’s bruises were sustained by other means. Therefore, there was a preponderance of the evidence that the SP inflicted a physical injury on the AV by means other than accidental. It was determined that physical abuse (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.) 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. 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. The SP was responsible for the care and supervision of the AV on August 22, 2025, and was trained on the facility’s Behavior Guidance Policy, and the Reporting of Maltreatment of Minors Act. The SP was responsible for maltreatment of the AV. Action Taken by Facility: The facility completed an internal review and determined that their policies and procedures were adequate but not followed by the staff person. The SP no longer worked at the facility. All other staff persons were retrained on the Reporting of Maltreatment of Minors Act and on the facility’s Behavior Guidance 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.
|
