|
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.” On June 18, 2025, most of the children and family work, including investigations of maltreatment at childcare centers, at the MN Department of Human Services (DHS) Office of Inspector General transferred to the new Minnesota Department of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF), as directed by state law. While this investigation began under DHS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 15.039, subdivision 2, this Investigation Memorandum is being issued by DCYF pursuant to that transfer.
License Number and Program Type: 1091067-CCC (Child Care Center) Investigator(s): Kimberly Anderson Minnesota Department of Children, Youth, and Families 651-539-8226 Suspected Maltreatment Reported: It was reported that an alleged victim (AV) left the facility without staff person’s knowledge or supervision and was found in the community by a local law enforcement officer. The AV was without supervision for sixteen minutes. Date of Incident(s): May 12, 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 May 22, 2026; from documentation at the facility and law enforcement records; and through four interviews conducted with the AV’s family member (FM1) and facility staff persons (P1-P3). The facility was located in a residential neighborhood mixed with a commercial building to the east of the facility. The facility was off of a dead-end road and shared a parking lot with a community outreach program. Children were not allowed in the parking lot unless with adult supervision. The facility’s entry way was shared with a director’s office and had two hallways that branched out from the entry way. The kitchen was off of the hallway to the right. The AV’s classroom was across the hallway from the kitchen. The entry doors led outside to a sidewalk that was adjacent to a fenced playground. The facility’s lunch carts were rolling carts that had three open shelves. The AV’s enrollment file showed that the AV was five years old at the time of the incident and enrolled in the facility’s preschool program. The AV had an Individual Child Care Program Plan that stated the AV had a history of leaving the classroom when s/he felt bored or dysregulated. Staff persons were to provide the AV with reasonable alternative activities and sensory options whenever the AV was dysregulated. Staff persons may supervise the AV in an alternative environment for calming and getting back on track. The facility’s written documentation regarding the incident stated that on May 12, 2025, the AV was struggling with regulating his/her emotions and disrupting the classroom. A staff person (P1) asked a facility management person (P2) for assistance. P2 was working as the cook at that time and asked the AV if s/he wanted to help P2 pass out the lunch carts to other classrooms, but the AV refused to help. P2 took the AV to another staff person (P3) while P2 finished passing out the lunch carts. A “miscommunication” between P1 and P2 occurred and P2 believed that the AV went back into his/her classroom with P1 because P2 heard P1 ask the AV if s/he was ready to come back to the classroom. At that time, the AV hid in the front entry way behind some boxes for approximately eight minutes and then left the facility through the front door and was unsupervised in the community for twelve minutes. The facility’s video surveillance of the incident showed that at 11:16 a.m., P2 took the AV out of the preschool classroom. P2 took the AV to another preschool classroom, but video showed that at 11:20 a.m., 11:23 a.m., and 11:26 a.m. the AV attempted to leave the classroom. At 11:28 a.m., the AV opened the door and left the classroom and P3 told P2 that the AV left his/her classroom. At 11:38 a.m., the AV ran to the front entry way and crouched down under a table then moved to hide behind a stack of boxes. At 11:46 a.m., the AV walked to the front door, opened it, walked the outside edge of a fenced playground, and sat on a ledge. At 11:48 a.m., the AV ran on the facility’s sidewalk and at 11:50 a.m., the AV crossed the street. At 11:59 a.m., the AV returned to the facility with three law enforcement officers. A Saint Paul Police Department incident report dated May 12, 2025, at 11:51 a.m. stated that a juvenile, approximately four years old was spotted on the corner York Avenue without an adult. The juvenile had wandered away from the facility and was returned to staff persons at 12:02 p.m. The AV’s family member (FM) told this investigator that s/he was aware of the incident but did not provide additional details regarding the incident. P1, P2, and P3 provided the following information during an interview with this investigator: · On May 12, 2025, P1 was working in the preschool classroom because the regular staff person for that classroom was out. The AV was struggling with listening to P1 and did not want to participate in a group activity. A few minutes before lunch was scheduled to arrive in the classroom, P1 asked the AV to wash his/her hands with the other children, but the AV refused and became angry. The AV started to throw toys off the toy shelves and chairs around the classroom. P1 asked P2 for assistance. P2 came into the classroom and sat with the AV for a short time and then asked the AV if s/he wanted to help P2 deliver lunch carts so the AV left the classroom with P2. The AV did not return to P1’s classroom for approximately one hour. · On May 12, 2025, P2 asked the AV to sit on a chair in the hallway outside the kitchen door so P2 could finish preparing the lunch carts. The AV would not sit in the chair and attempted to run down the hall. P2 took the AV to P3’s classroom while s/he prepared the lunch carts. After approximately three minutes in P3’s classroom, the AV ran out of the classroom but P2 was able to stop the AV. At that time, the AV climbed into one of the lunch carts and lay on the bottom shelf. The AV was calm at that time so P2 allowed him/her to stay on the lunch cart. · P1 opened his/her classroom door and asked P2 for serving spoons. While P2 went into the kitchen to get the serving spoons for P1, s/he heard P1 ask the AV if s/he wanted to return to the classroom. The AV was calm at that time and P2 thought that the AV walked into the classroom with P1 because the AV was no longer on the lunch cart. · At 12:02 p.m., P2 was in his/her office and heard a knock on the front door. Three police officers brought the AV back to the facility. P2 did not know that the AV had left the building and was in the community without supervision or a staff person’s knowledge. The AV told P2 that s/he was trying to go home. · The AV was known to run out of the classroom and away from staff persons, but the AV had never tried to leave the facility through the front door. The facility’s Child Care Risk Reduction Plan and Safety and Supervision policy stated that all children “must” be within sight and sound at all times. Facility documentation showed that prior to the incident, P1, P2, and P3 received training on the Reporting of Maltreatment of Minors Act, the facility’s Child Care Risk Reduction Plan and Safety and Supervision policies. Relevant Rules and/or Statutes: Minnesota Statutes, section 142B.01, subdivision 27, , and Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0045, subpart 1, item A, state 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: On May 12, 2025, the AV left the facility without a staff person’s knowledge or supervision for nineteen minutes. The facility’s video surveillance showed that the AV was hiding in the facility’s entry way behind boxes for approximately eight minutes before leaving through the front entrance. After the AV exited the facility, the AV first walked the outside edge of a fenced playground and sat on a ledge. Shortly after, the AV ran on the facility’s sidewalk and then crossed the street. Law enforcement received a call that the AV was alone on the street corner, and officers returned the AV to the facility approximately eleven minutes later. P2 was supervising the AV at the time of the incident and mistakenly believed that the AV had returned to P1’s classroom. 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 without a staff person’s supervision for approximately nineteen minutes it was determined that P2’s actions or conduct were determined to be a nonmaltreatment mistake for the following reasons: 1) P2 had not been found responsible for a similar incident that resulted in the finding of maltreatment. 2) P2 had not been found responsible for a similar nonmaltreatment mistake in the past. 3) The AV was not injured and did not require medical treatment after the incident. 4) Except for the period of time when the incident occurred, the facility and P2 were compliant with all licensing requirements relevant to the incident. 5) At the time of the incident, P2 was performing job-related duties and was serving lunch at the same time as s/he was supervising the AV. Although P2 did not verify that the AV returned to the classroom with P1, s/he heard P1 ask the AV if s/he was ready to return to the classroom and then did not see the AV in the hallway. 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 their policies and procedures were adequate but not followed at the time of the incident. P2 was retrained on the facility’s Safety and Supervision policy. Action Taken by Department of Children, Youth, and Families, Office of Inspector General: P2 was not determined as a perpetrator of maltreatment of the AV because the Department of Children, Youth, and Families found that the incident for which P2 was responsible met the criteria to be determined a nonmaltreatment mistake. P2 was notified by the Office of Inspector General that any future incident of possible neglect of an alleged victim for which P2 is 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.
|
