|
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: 1081593-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 an alleged victim (AV) sustained bruising on his/her arm when a staff person (SP) grabbed the AV by his/her arm. Date of Incident(s): August 11, 2025 Nature of Alleged Maltreatment Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 260E.03, subdivision 15, paragraph (a), clauses (1) and (2); subdivision 18, paragraph (a), and subdivision 23, paragraph (a): 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. "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 August 21, 2025; from documentation at the facility and law enforcement records; and through six interviews conducted with the AV, the AV’s family member (FM), two supervisory staff persons (P1 and P2), and two facility staff persons (P3, and the SP). Attempts were made via phone and US mail to contact a staff person that was in the classroom at the time of the incident, but those attempts were unsuccessful. On August 11, 2025, the AV was five years old and enrolled in the Preschool 3 classroom. On the day of the incident, there were fifteen students in Preschool 3 including the AV, and the SP and the other staff person who worked in the classroom. The AV’s Individualized Education Program plan stated that the AV demonstrated delays and needed support throughout his/her day. The AV’s Individual Child Care Program Plan stated that the AV had identified needs for an Autism Spectrum Disorder. The AV climbed objects not suitable for climbing, threw objects and screamed. When the AV displayed unsafe behaviors, staff persons were to stop any unsafe behavior and help the AV back into a position of safety, provide the AV with any supportive sensory materials, and increase tracking of the AV’s behavior to support physical safety. The AV had access to noise cancelling headphones as needed throughout the day. The SP signed the AV’s Individual Child Care Program Plan on July 16, 2025.
The Preschool 3 classroom was rectangular and had tables, chairs, toy/bookshelves, and a small sitting area with a couch. Along one wall was a counter top and at the end of the counter top was a sensory table. In front of the cabinets was an area with a child-sized couch. There was a door that led to the facility’s main hallway. There was a video camera in an upper corner of the wall. The AV stated that s/he had a bruise on his/her arm from “mister” grabbing his/her arm. The AV stated s/he told “mister” to stop grabbing his/her arm because it “really hurt,” and “mister” told the AV s/he was “taking a break.” The FM provided the following information:
· On August 11, 2025, after the FM picked up the AV from the facility, s/he noticed the AV had “at least five big bruises” on the upper part of his/her left arm. The bruises looked like “dark red lines” and went “around” the inside and outside of the AV’s arm. The bruises lasted for approximately three days.
· The FM asked the AV who “grabbed” him/her and the AV responded with the SP’s name. The FM then asked what the SP said to the AV when s/he grabbed him/her, and the AV told the FM that the SP told him/her to “stop throwing things.” Later that night the FM asked the AV if s/he cried when the SP grabbed his/her arm and the AV said, “Yeah.” The AV told the FM that the SP took his/her toys and s/he was going to “bang” his/her head on a door and the SP grabbed him/her.
· On August 12, 2025, the FM told P2 about the AV’s bruises and what the AV had told the FM. P2 was apologetic and told the FM that the facility would review video footage. The FM asked P2 that when the SP needed to grab the AV to stop him/her from banging his/her head, should s/he have grabbed the AV under his/her arms, and P2 said, “Yes.” Later in the day, P1 told the FM that s/he watched video from August 11, 2025, in the morning until 10:30 a.m. P1 saw the AV “falling” off a chair, and the SP grabbed the AV to prevent him/her from falling and the AV did not cry. The FM told P1 that the AV had a “different” story and showed P1 the AV’s bruises. P1 told the FM that s/he would have “someone” else review the video footage. · The FM stated that after August 11, 2025, when s/he left the AV at the facility, s/he reminded the AV that s/he was safe and no one would “hurt” him/her. The facility provided a video segment from a portion of the day on August 11, 2025 for the Preschool 3 classroom. The video was time stamped and did not have audio. The video provided the following information:
· At 11:37 a.m., the AV stood in the classroom, approximately six feet from the SP. The AV held his/her blanket. There were fourteen other children throughout the classroom. Some children sat at tables and some moved around the classroom. The SP sat on a window sill and used a cell phone. The other staff person in the classroom sat on the child sized couch and used a cell phone. The AV walked to a table and sat in a chair. A child walked up to the AV and placed his/her hand on the AV’s right shoulder. The AV stood and the other child sat in the chair. The AV waved his/her blanket up and down in the air. The AV walked away and walked to a toy shelf and took out a piece of paper. The SP stood up, still on his/her phone, and walked away from the sill. The AV walked to another toy shelf and slid a toy basket partially off a shelf. The SP put his/her phone in his/her pocket and walked behind the AV and tapped the AV’s toy basket back onto the shelf. The AV raised a piece of paper and swung it down toward the SP and the SP put his hands on the AV’s head. The AV held the paper out toward the SP and the SP swung his/her hand and hit the paper out of the AV’s hand and the paper fell to the floor. The SP picked up the paper, balled it up, and tossed it into a garbage can. The AV walked to a toy shelf and grabbed another piece of paper.
· At 11:40 a.m., the SP grabbed the AV’s blanket in his/her right hand and grabbed the upper portion of the AV’s right hand in his/her left hand. The AV jumped and the SP let go of the AV’s arm. The AV fell to the floor and sat on the floor and then sat up on his/her knees toward the SP. The SP hit the AV twice in his/her face with his/her blanket. The AV stood up and the SP threw the AV’s blanket across the classroom. The AV ran across the room and grabbed his/her blanket. The AV then walked to the paper shelf, took out another piece of paper, and crumpled it.
· At 11:41 a.m., the SP grabbed the upper portion of the AV’s right arm and directed the AV toward the tables. The AV walked two steps away from the SP, turned to face the SP, and waved his/her blanket at the SP. The SP caught the AV’s blanket and took it from the AV. The SP rolled up the AV’s blanket and held it behind his/her back. The AV swatted his/her hand at the SP. The SP walked away from the AV and the AV followed the SP. The AV stopped at a toy shelf and took out a toy. The SP placed the AV’s blanket on a shelf and walked to the AV. The SP took the toy from the AV’s hand and placed it in a basket. The AV ran to the paper shelf and swiped paper onto the floor.
· At 11:42 a.m., the SP grabbed the upper portion of the AV’s left arm with his/her right hand and took something out of the AV’s hand. The AV and the SP walked toward the front of the classroom. The AV dropped to the floor and the SP lifted the AV by his/her arm and walked out of the view of the camera. Four seconds later, the SP walked into camera view and the AV’s legs were in camera view as the AV lay on the floor. Then the SP walked over to the AV and grabbed the AV’s upper left arm with his/her right hand and lifted the AV and walked toward the tables. The AV was parallel to the floor at the SP’s waist line as the SP lifted the AV and then placed the AV on the floor near the tables and a sensory table.
· At 11:43 a.m., the AV sat on the floor and lifted the lid from the sensory table and the SP picked up the paper off the floor and placed it back on the shelf. The AV then stood up and ran out of camera view. The SP walked to the AV and bent down. The SP picked up the AV by his/her upper left arm. The AV had his/her feet tucked up and they did not touch the floor. The SP carried the AV by his/her left arm and set him/her down on the floor near the sensory table. The AV stood and lifted the lid of the sensory table and dropped it onto the sensory table and then jumped up and down. The SP walked to the AV and the AV threw a shoe at the SP. The AV then sat down on the floor and moved the sensory table back and forth with his/her hands. The SP walked away from the AV and retrieved the AV’s blanket and placed the blanket on a counter top near the AV. The other staff person prepared lunch for the children seated at the tables. The SP then stood near the sensory table and the AV. The AV stood up and put one knee on the sensory table. The SP pushed the AV off the table by placing his/her hand on the AV’s left shoulder and pushing the AV back. The AV then ran away from the sensory table and the SP grabbed the upper portion of the AV’s right arm and sat the AV back on the floor along side the sensory table.
· At 11:45 a.m., the AV pushed the sensory table and the SP stood with his/her legs against the table so it would not move.
· At 11:46 a.m., the SP bent over the AV and lifted the AV by grabbing the AV by his/her upper left arm in his/her right hand. The SP then set the AV on the floor and held the AV’s arm as they walked to the classroom door. The SP sat the AV down with his/her back against the door. The SP walked away from the AV and s/he and the other staff person passed out lunch items. The AV sat by the door for approximately two minutes and then walked away from the door and sat on a child sized couch and the video ended. A law enforcement report provided the followed information: · On August 25, 2025, a law enforcement officer (LEO) obtained video footage from the Preschool 3 classroom on August 11, 2025, and then called the FM and talked with him/her. The FM told the LEO that the AV had bruising on his/her arm, that s/he did not seek medical attention for the bruises, and the bruises had since healed. The LEO attempted to set up a forensic interview with the AV, but the FM declined the interview. · On September 4, 2025, the SP told the LEO that the AV was “autistic” and knew how to “throw” him/herself when s/he was upset. The SP stated that the AV climbed onto a window sill and the SP pulled the AV down, but that did not happen on August 11, 2025. The facility informed the SP that the AV had bruises after s/he grabbed the AV to put him/her on a “break,” but the SP did not know how the AV’s bruises occurred. · The LEO told the SP what s/he viewed in the video and the SP told the LEO that s/he was trying to calm the AV by putting him/her on a “break” and attemping to give him/her “headphones.” The SP told the LEO that s/he didn’t know what else to do because s/he did not have training specific to children with autism and s/he did his/her best to handle situations. · The LEO report was forwarded to the county attorney for charges. The county attorney declined charges. P2 provided the following information:
· On the morning of August 12, 2025, the FM showed P2 a picture of the AV’s arm and told P2 that the SP caused bruising on the AV’s arm when s/he grabbed the AV because the AV was “throwing toys.” P2 then told P1 what the FM had told him/her.
· At approximately 10 a.m., P1 and P2 went to the Preschool 3 classroom and looked at the AV’s arm. P2 did not recall which of the AV’s arms s/he looked at but s/he saw a “handprint bruise” on the upper portion of the AV’s arm. P2 stated s/he saw the “purple outline of fingertips,” that were the size of a “hand” and surrounded the AV’s “whole” arm. P2 did not talk with the AV because s/he did not want to “upset” the AV. · At approximately 12 p.m., P2 watched portions of the video of the Preschool 3 classroom on August 11, 2025. P2 saw the SP take the AV’s blanket away from him/her and then throw the blanket across the classroom. P2 saw the SP move the AV from one area to another in the classroom by carrying the AV by “one” of the AV’s arms.
· The AV was “autistic” and had some “challenging behaviors.” When the AV was “escalated,” staff persons, including the SP, were trained on the AV’s plans, which included giving the AV “headphones” and his/her blanket, that was a “safe” item for him/her. Staff persons were to get on the AV’s level when talking with him/her. If these things did not work, staff persons contacted P1 or P2 and then the FM.
· Staff persons were trained on ways to “properly handle” children. Instead of grabbing the AV by one arm, the SP should have asked P1 or P2 for a break, lifted and held the AV “correctly,” got down to the AV’s level, gave the AV headphones, and not taken away the AV’s blanket. · Prior to August 12, 2025, P2 did not have concerns with the SP’s interactions with children. P1 provided the following information:
· On the morning of August 12, 2025, P1 was not at the facility. P2 called and told P1 that the FM had concerns that the SP caused bruises on the AV’s arm. Later that day P1 watched video footage of the Preschool 3 classroom from August 11, 2025 and saw the SP “grab” the AV by his/her arm at approximately 10:30 a.m. P1 stopped watching because s/he thought that “grab” was what caused the bruises on the AV’s arm. P1 looked at the AV’s arm and saw “red” “finger marks” on the AV’s left upper arm. P1 told the FM about that grab and that s/he would watch more video.
· In watching more video of the classroom from August 11, 2025, P1 saw the SP carry the AV “by one arm” from one part of the room to another. P1 did not recall what the AV was doing before the move but stated s/he was not at risk of injuring others or him/herself.
· The AV was sometimes “dysregulated” and climbed on shelves, screamed, threw toys, and dumped baskets. Staff persons were to get down to the AV’s level, give the AV “noise cancelling headphones,” and encourage him/her to use a “safe” spot in the classroom near the couch.
· The SP was trained on how to properly lift children and on August 11, 2025, should have lifted the AV by his/her “trunk.”
· Staff persons “read” the AV’s plans.
· Prior to August 12, 2025, P1 did not have concerns with the SP’s interactions with children. P3 provided the following information: · P3 was a staff person in the Preschool 3 classroom and “usually” worked with the SP but did not work at the facility on August 11, 2025. · The AV liked to “climb” and staff persons told him/her what s/he was doing was not safe and distracted him/her by reading books. Staff persons were trained on what to do with the AV by reading his/her plans. · Staff persons were trained not to grab children by their arms. · P3 did not see bruises on the AV’s arms. · Prior to August 11, 2025, P3 had concerns that the SP “raised” his/her voice when speaking to the children.
The SP provided the following information:
· On an unknown date, the SP worked in the Preschool 3 classroom with another staff person, and children, including the AV. The AV was on a “cabinet” that was between three and four feet off the ground. The SP assisted the AV in getting down from the cabinet and did not recall if s/he grabbed the AV’s bicep. · The next day the SP was told the AV had bruises on his/her arm. The SP looked at the AV’s arm and did not see any bruises. When the SP assisted the AV off the cabinet on the previous day, the AV “squirmed,” so if s/he had bruising on his/her arm, that is what caused it.
· If the SP lifted the AV off the ground by his/her bicep, it was because the AV needed to be put on a “break” because s/he was “hitting” other children. The SP was strong and if s/he lifted the AV by one arm, s/he would have broke the AV’s arm and the AV would have been in “severe” pain.
· The SP was trained not to lift children by their elbows and not to lift them by one of their arms. Staff persons should be gentle with children. The SP was not trained on the AV’s plans.
· The SP denied causing the bruising on the AV’s arm and stated the AV could have bruised him/herself. In an untitled facility document there was a summary of staff interviews regarding the incident. The SP was asked what s/he cannot do with children and the SP responded, “Don’t be too aggressive, Know your strength.” When asked if s/he had a good understanding on how to properly lift children, the SP shook his/her head in a “yes” motion and demonstrated lifting a child by putting his/her hands under his/her armpits. When asked about August 11, 2025, the SP stated that the AV had a “tough” day. When asked what s/he should do when the AV had a tough day, the SP responded, “Nothing works. You give [him/her] headphones that do not work, take away [his/her] toys, …[s/he] does what [s/he] wants to do.” When asked if s/he picked up the AV by the arm on August 11, 2025, the SP replied, “A lot.” When asked if s/he moved the AV by the arm, the SP said s/he did not know. The facility reviewed video footage from the Preschool 3 classroom on August 11, 2025 and saw that the SP may have caused the bruising on the AV’s arm because the SP “aggressively” grabbed the AV’s arm on four separate occasions.
This investigator viewed three photos of the AV’s left arm that were taken by the FM on August 11, 2025, and saw a T-shaped bruise on the front outer portion of the AV’s left arm, between the elbow and the shoulder. The bruise was red. On the inner portion of the AV’s left arm were three to five thin red lines that were approximately finger width apart from one another. Those bruises were located just to the inside of the T-shaped bruise. This investigator also viewed a ten second video taken by the FM on August 11, 2025. The video was of the AV’s left arm and showed the bruising on the AV’s arm. The facility’s Behavior Guidance Policy stated that staff persons used a nurturing touch, engaged children in warm interactions, and were present in the moment. Staff persons gave children choices between two acceptable appropriate behaviors. Staff persons used “brief,” “supportive physical interventions” when a child demonstrated imminent physical danger to him/herself or others. When a child with learning differences was enrolled at the facility, a plan was created and all behavior guidance techniques used with the child fell within their guidelines. The facility’s Prohibited Regulations included rough handling and pulling of arms.
Facility documents showed that P1, P2, P3 and the SP were trained on the facility’s policies, including the facility’s Behavior Guidance Policy, Prohibited Regulations, and the Reporting of Maltreatment of Minors Act. 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. Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0055, subpart 1, items A and E, state that a license holder must develop and carry out policies and procedures that ensure that each child is provided with a positive role model of acceptable behavior and protect the safety of children and staff persons. Conclusion: A. Maltreatment The AV stated, and the video showed that on August 11, 2025, between 11:41 and 11:46 a.m., the SP grabbed the upper portion of the AV’s left arm five times and the upper portion of the AV’s right arm two times. At several times, the AV was lifted off the floor and at least once was lifted as high as the SP’s waist. The AV sustained bruising on the upper portion of his/her left arm. The SP’s actions of lifting the AV by his/her arms was inconsistent with the standards of a professional caregiver licensed by the Department of Children, Youth, and Families, and were violations of Minnesota Rules, chapter 9503.0055, subdivision 3, item A. At the time of the incident, the AV was not a danger to him/herself or others, and in fact, the SP further aggravated the situation by hitting the AV’s paper out of his/her hand and taking away his/her blanket. The SP’s actions were not accidental. There was a preponderance of the evidence the the SP’s actions of grabbing, lifting, and moving the AV by the arm was a failure to supply the AV with necessary care, a failure to protect the AV from conditions or actions that seriously endangered the AV; and that the SP’s actions both caused injury to the AV and represented a substantial risk of injury. 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. 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).
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. The SP was responsible for the care and supervision of the AV on August 11, 2025, and was trained on the facility’s Behavior Guidance Policy, Prohibited Regulations, and the Reporting of Maltreatment of Minors Act. 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 their policies and procedures were adequate but not followed by the SP. The SP no longer worked at the facility. 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.
|
