|
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: 1053885-CCC (Child Care Center) Investigator(s): Van Mulheron Minnesota Department of Children, Youth, and Families 651-539-8253 Suspected Maltreatment Reported: It was reported that an alleged victim (AV) was left in a classroom without three staff person’s (SP1 -SP3) knowledge or supervision for approximately 40 minutes and was discovered by a community person unharmed. Date of Incident(s): June 20, 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. Summary of Findings: Pertinent information was obtained during a site visit conducted on July 3, 2025; from documentation at the facility; and through nine interviews conducted with three supervisory staff persons (P1-P3), four staff persons (P4 and SP1-SP3), the AV’s family member (FM), and a community person (CP). At the time of the investigation the AV was not available for an interview. At the time of the incident the AV was four years old and enrolled in the preschool 2 classroom. The facility provided care for infants, toddlers, and preschool children. There were two preschool classrooms (pre-1 and pre-2) located next to each other. The pre-2 class had an exterior wall with windows that looked out to the prekindergarten playground. An exit door opened to an outdoor courtyard that was fenced in. On one side of the door was a gate that led to the prekindergarten playground. On the other side of the door was the pre-1 classroom door and then a fence with a gate that led to the preschool playground. The pre-2 classroom shared two “jack and jill” bathrooms with the pre-1 classroom. The second bathroom had a full door and toilets that could not be seen unless a person was at the doorway with the door open. The facility used ProCare, a mobile application (app) platform used to communicate with families and streamline administrative functions. Information obtained showed that on June 20, 2025, SP1-SP3 were working in the AV’s classroom with 15 children, including the AV. The FM said that s/he was contacted by a supervisory staff person immediately after the incident. The AV said that s/he was in line but left the line to go back into the bathroom and the staff persons did not see him/her and they left the class. The FM had no concerns about the facility. The CP said that on an unspecified date, before lunch, s/he arrived at the facility to pick up his/her child for an appointment. As s/he walked through the pre-2 classroom to the exit door s/he saw the AV standing at the bathroom door with his/her pants down and the AV “obviously” needed help. The CP asked if the AV needed help “wiping” and the AV said “yes.” The CP helped the AV wipe and the AV refastened his/her own clothing. As the AV washed his/her hands the CP walked to the preschool playground and picked up his/her child. When the CP reentered the room s/he saw the AV back in the bathroom and on the toilet. The CP asked the AV if s/he needed help and the AV replied, “yes.” The CP said that “you could tell that the [AV] was not feeling the greatest” and that AV’s “tummy was upset.” The CP went back to the preschool playground and told a staff person that the AV was in the bathroom and needed assistance. The CP came in with a staff person and then left the facility. P4 said that s/he was on the prekindergarten playground when s/he looked through the window into the pre-2 classroom. P4 saw the CP enter the pre-2 classroom and the AV was standing next to the bathroom door. P4 said s/he assumed that a staff person was in the room. The CP exited the classroom through the playground door. Approximately two to three minutes later the CP returned to the classroom with his/her child. The CP saw the AV still in the bathroom and then left the classroom and went back out to the preschool playground and returned with SP1. P4 said that it was approximately six to ten minutes from the time the CP arrived until the AV was brought to the playground by SP1. P4 said that the AV was crying when SP1 brought him/her to the playground. P4 informed P3. P3 said that after P4 informed him/her about the incident s/he spoke with SP1-SP3 on the playground. SP1-SP3 said that the CP came early to pick up his/her child, saw the AV inside in the bathroom and brought the AV out to the playground. P3 said that AV was happy and playing on the playground. SP1-SP3 said that a name to face count was completed prior to going outside and that it was possible that they missed a count at one of the thresholds. P1 and P2 provided the following consistent information: · After P3 informed them that the AV was unsupervised for 45 minutes, P1 and P2 spoke with the AV. The AV said that s/he had diarrhea and was in the bathroom and that his/her teachers left him/her alone. · P1 and P2 spoke with SP1-SP3 and each said the following: o SP1 was “distraught” and said that s/he had helped the AV in the bathroom prior to going outside but that they did not complete a head count when the class was outside because they were just trying to get the kids outside. The CP came out on to the playground and told him/her that the AV was in bathroom. o SP2 said that s/he was sure the AV was in line and that there was name to face count completed before the class went outside. SP2 said that there was another child being “unruly” so staff persons had the class sit on the rug again and then had the children line up again. SP2 said that it was a “hectic” day and that they were “flustered” because the class was behind schedule. o SP3 said that a name to face count was completed but not in the “proper way” and that the AV was in line prior to going outside. SP3 said that s/he completed the name to face at the door and then completed a headcount at 11 a.m. while the class was on the playground. · P2 said that although SP1-SP3 said a name to face was completed in the classroom it was not submitted in ProCare. The pre-2 classroom went outside at approximately 10:40-10:45 a.m., and the CP arrived at 11:20 a.m., showing that the AV was unsupervised for 40 to 45 minutes. · P1 and P2 said that staff persons were trained to complete a name to face count prior to leaving the classroom and to submit the count through ProCare. Another name to face count was to be completed at the preschool playground gate before the children entered the gated area. In addition, name-to-face counts were to be completed every 30 minutes. P1 said that a name to face check was completed outside at 11 a.m. and submitted in ProCare, and that the AV was marked as present. P2 thought that the staff person instead of individually checking each child, s/he may have clicked “select all” for the transition. · P1 and P2 had no prior concerns about SP1-SP3. SP1 provided the following information: · On the day of the incident, after morning snack SP2 and SP3 were supervising the children at each of the bathrooms while SP1 was communicating with a family through ProCare. SP1 said that s/he had helped the AV while s/he was in the bathroom before the children lined up and then went back to the iPad. SP1 was not aware that the AV was not feeling well before the class went outside. · When the children finished up in the bathroom SP2 went and sat on the group rug with the children. As SP1 finished with the iPad SP2 began to call the children on the rug to line up at the exit door. Some of the children were being “too rowdy” in line and SP2 had the children sit back on the rug again and then had the children line up again. SP1 “assumed” that everyone was accounted for. · SP1 then grabbed the outdoor backpack and the iPad and went to the front of the line. SP2 stood near SP1 and SP3 was at the end of the line. SP1 said that the morning was “hectic” and in a “rush” and they were “just ready to go outside at that point.” SP1 said that s/he did not think anyone had completed a name to face count before leaving the room. SP1 said that s/he looked around the classroom for any additional children but did not check the bathroom before exiting. · SP1 led the class to the preschool playground gate and joined the pre-1 classroom on the playground. As the children passed through the gate s/he called their names. At 11 a.m. SP3 said that s/he had completed a name to face count of the class and that everyone was accounted for. · After an unknown amount of time, the CP entered the playground and spoke with a pre-1 staff person. SP1 overheard the CP say that the AV was in the bathroom and needed some help. SP1 went inside and saw the AV in the bathroom. The AV said that s/he needed to use the toilet again and needed help. SP1 saw tear stains on the AV’s cheeks. SP1 said that the AV was in the classroom alone for approximately 30-40 minutes. SP2 provided the following information: · On the day of the incident, the class had finished morning snack and the children were using the bathroom before going outside to the playground. SP2 stood near the exit door and saw SP1 help the AV in the bathroom. The AV then went to the sink and washed his/her hands. SP2 thanked SP1 for helping the AV and then went and sat on the rug with the children. SP2 was not aware that the AV was not feeling well before the class went outside. · At approximately 10:30 a.m., SP3, who held the iPad and was by the exit door, completed a name to face count of the children, including the AV, to the line up at the door using the iPad. SP2 said that the children were “wiggling” and had “ants in their pants” so s/he called them back to sit on the rug. SP2 then called the children on the rug by name to line up again. When all the children on the rug were in line SP3 opened the door and led the children outside and to the preschool playground gate followed by SP1 and SP2 at the end of the line. SP2 was not sure if SP3 completed another name to face count of the children before the class left the room. · When the class reached the playground gate SP2 heard SP3 say the children’s names as they entered the playground. SP2 was not sure if SP3 completed a “proper” name to face count. Approximately five minutes later SP2 went inside through the pre-1 classroom to get cups and then returned to the playground through the pre-2 door. SP2 did not see or hear the AV when s/he passed through the pre-2 classroom. · Approximately 30 minutes later the CP arrived to pick up his/her child for an appointment. The CP left the playground with his/her child and then returned to the playground and spoke with SP1. SP2 thought that the CP was locked out and needed a key. SP2 saw SP1 enter the facility with the CP and then later walked out with the AV, who was crying. SP1 said that the AV was left in the bathroom and was found by the CP. · SP2 did not know how s/he missed the AV when s/he reentered the building to get cups, and also that at 11 a.m., when the next name to face check was due, s/he asked SP3 if s/he had completed a name to face check. SP3 replied that s/he had seen every child before marking the child off in ProCare. · SP2 later learned that the AV had diarrhea and may have returned to the bathroom when the children went to the rug again. SP2 said that s/he did not complete a “proper” name to face count when s/he had the children line up again. SP2 estimated that the AV was unsupervised for 15-30 minutes. SP3 provided the following information: · When the class was getting ready to go outside, SP2 was at the front of the line and had the iPad. SP3 saw the AV in line and was “positive” that SP2 completed a name to face count of the children, including the AV, while they were in line. SP3 said that process took two to three minutes as they were also singing songs. SP2 then opened the door and led the class outside followed by SP1 and SP3. SP3 glanced around the room to check for any other children but did not check the bathroom. SP3 was not aware that the AV was not feeling well before the class went outside. · SP3 “vaguely” remembered that when SP2 reached the preschool playground gate and let the children through to the playground, SP2 did a count of the children, but not a name to face check. · SP3 said that the next name to face check was scheduled for 11:15 a.m., but the CP arrived before the check happened. SP3 saw the AV when s/he came outside with SP1. SP3 said that the AV seemed “fine” when s/he entered the playground but SP1 said that the AV had been crying inside. SP3 gave the AV a hug and asked if s/he had gone back inside with a staff person. The AV said that s/he was inside the whole time and did not give any other explanations. · SP3 said that the class went outside between 10:40 to 10:45 a.m. and the AV came outside at 11:10 a.m., and the AV was unsupervised inside for 25 to 30 minutes. The facility’s ProCare Transition Log showed that on June 20, 2025, there were name to face checks at 7:32 a.m., 8:30 a.m., 9:01 a.m., 9:31 a.m., 10 a.m., 11 a.m., and 11:46 a.m. The AV was marked present at each check. The facility’s Name-to-Face Attendance Policy provided the following information: · “Teachers should directly supervise infants, toddlers, and preschoolers by sight and hearing at all times including when the children are indoors or outdoors.” · “Teachers should be aware of the children in their care at all times. Never leave children unattended. Know exactly how many children are present at all times – whether in the classroom, on the playground, or in ancillary activities and who those children are. Use the facility’s iPad to conduct head counts every time the class moves locations and every 15 minutes. The facility’s Risk Reduction Plan stated that head counts were to be done every 30 minutes.” · “Staff completed name to face counts of the children in their care anytime they cross a threshold within the building or outdoor areas. "Thresholds" were doorways, hallways, gates, stairwells, room dividers, etc.” Facility documentation stated that P1-P4 and SP1-SP3 received training on the facility’s policies and procedures and the Reporting of Maltreatment of Minors Act. Relevant Rules and Statutes: Minnesota Statutes, section 142B.01, subdivision 27, and Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0045, subpart 1, item A, states that a child must have supervision at all times and that supervision is defined as occurring when 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.
Conclusion: Information was consistent that on June 20, 2025, the AV was left unsupervised in the classroom bathroom for approximately 40 minutes when SP1-SP3 took the rest of the pre-B class outdoors to the playground. This was a violation of Minnesota Statutes, section 142B.01, subdivision 27, and Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0045, subpart 1, item A. During the incident, neither SP1, SP2, nor SP3 ensured that all children under their care were accounted for despite multiple points during the incident when a headcount or name to face check was expected: when the children lined up to go outside, when the children arrived at the playground, and during the scheduled name to face check at 11 a.m. The AV did not receive needed care during the incident. At the time of the incident, the four year old AV was ill with diarrhea and apparent stomach upset. According to the CP, when the CP encountered the AV alone in the classroom, the AV was standing at the bathroom door with his/her pants down and “obviously” needed help from caregivers to wipe him/herself, so the CP him/herself helped the AV wipe. Given the AV’s age, the AV likely also needed help from caregivers to otherwise manage his/her illness and hygiene. The AV’s behavior during the incident showed that s/he did not have the skills to effectively seek help independently, given the circumstances. Therefore, it was determined that there was a failure to supply the AV with necessary care when reasonably able to do so. 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 for approximately 40 minutes and did not receive necessary care during that time, SP1-SP3’s actions were determined to be a non-maltreatment mistake for the following reasons: 1) SP1-SP3 had not been determined to have committed a non-maltreatment mistake under this paragraph; 2) SP1-SP3 had not been determined responsible for a previous incident that resulted in a finding of maltreatment; 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-SP3 were in compliance with all licensing requirements relevant to the incident; and 5) at the time of the incident, SP1-SP3 were performing job related duties in that they were on the playground supervising the other children from the pre-B class. The non-maltreatment mistake to the AV by SP1-SP3 was not maltreatment. 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 determined that policies and procedures were adequate but not followed. SP1-SP3 received additional training on supervision of children and the facility implemented a double check system to verify that all children are in attendance during transitions. Action Taken by Department of Children, Youth, and Families, Office of Inspector General: SP1-SP3 were 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-SP3 were responsible met the criteria to be determined a nonmaltreatment mistake. SP1-SP3 were notified by the Office of Inspector General that any future incident of possible neglect of an alleged victim for which they are responsible might not be considered a nonmaltreatment mistake. 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.
|
