|
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: 1111725-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) was on a facility playground without staff persons’ (SP1 and SP2) knowledge or supervision for approximately 23 minutes. The AV was found by a family member (FM2) unharmed. Date of Incident(s): June 23, 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 July 14, 2025; from documentation at the facility; and through seven interviews conducted with the AV’s family members (FM1 and FM2), two supervisory staff persons (P1 and P2), and three facility staff persons (P3), SP1, and SP2. The AV was not at the facility at the time of the visit so this investigator did not meet with the AV. The following was observed during the site visit: · The facility was a standalone building located at the intersection of two streets. The speed limit of the each street was 30 miles per hour. The surrounding area included residential single family homes, an apartment complex, and a business that was not in operation. · The facility had multiple classrooms including a toddler classroom, prekindergarten and schoolage classroom. The facility also had a preschool playground and a schoolage playground. · The playgrounds were enclosed with a chain link fence and portions of the facility building. The chain link fence was approximately four feet high. · The schoolage playground was L shaped and adjacent to the facility parking lot. The schoolage playground had two climbing structures. One structure was square with a ladder and a yellow slide. The upper base of that structure was approximately five feet from the ground. The second structure was near the parking lot and had a rope ladder, a climbing wall, a green slide, two swings, a hanging rope bar, and a picnic table underneath it. The upper base of that structure was approximately four feet and eight inches from the ground. The fall zone of the playgroud was pea rock. · There were two gates on the schoolage playground. One gate led to an open lot that had two parked cars. Although that gate had a latch, even while latched, that gate opened when pushed by this investigator. The second gate was at the end of a long sidewalk and led to the preschool playground. · On the preschool playground there was a sandbox, a climber, and swings. The backyards of the residential homes were adjacent to the back side of the playgrounds’ fence. Facility documentation showed the AV was four years old and enrolled in the Preschool 2 classroom at the time of the incident. The facility used a mobile application (app) platform used to communicate with families and streamline administrative functions. The app was also used to track what children were in attendance in each classroom. FM2 stated that on June 23, 2025, at an unknown time, s/he drove to the facility to pick up the AV and had one of the AV’s siblings in the vehicle with him/her. FM2 pulled into the parking lot of the facility and the vehicle windows were down. From his/her vehicle s/he could hear “somebody” crying, “I want my mommy, I want my mommy.” The AV’s sibling told FM2 that it was the AV that was crying. FM2 “thought” the AV was crying because s/he had seen FM2’s vehicle. FM2 stepped out of the vehicle and saw the AV on the top of a play structure. FM2 went inside the facility and out to the playground and got the AV. FM2 saw that the AV was outside by him/herself. When FM2 and the AV went back inside the facility, an unknown staff person (later identified as P2) said, “Oh, I did not know she was out there,” and that s/he would “look back on the cameras.” FM2, the AV and the AV’s sibling left the facility. It took the AV between 15 and 20 minutes to calm. At the AV’s home, FM2 told FM1 that the AV had been left outside by his/herself and was “crying” because s/he was “afraid.” FM1 and FM2 talked with the AV and tried asking him/her how long s/he was outside by his/herself but the AV did not provide any additional information. FM1 stated that the AV was enrolled in the facility’s prekindergarten classroom. On June 23, 2025, FM2 and the AV’s sibling told him/her that when they arrived at the facility to pick up the AV, they recognized the AV’s cry coming from the schoolage playground. When they went to the playground, the AV was on the top of a play structure “clutching” a piece of equipment like s/he was “afraid” to get down from it. Later that evening, P1 called and talked with FM1’s spouse about the incident. Prior to the incident, FM1 had concerns regarding another one of his/her children that attended the facility. The AV and that sibling were no longer enrolled at the facility. P3 provided the following information: · On June 23, 2025, at approximately 5 p.m., P3 saw preschool and schoolage children coming in from outside and beginning to wash hands in the toddler classroom. At 5:19 p.m., P3 left the facility and walked to his/her vehicle in the parking lot. P3 “heard noises” coming from the schoolage playground and stopped to look. The AV “popped up” from the corner of the “green” play structure and was “screaming” for his/her parent. P3 did not hear any other people outside. P3 used his/her cell phone to call P2, who was inside the facility, and told him/her that there was a child on the playground and no one else was outside. · P3 stayed on the phone with P2 and waited outside the playground. P3 saw the AV’s family members “beat” P2 to the playground and they got the AV. Then P3 left the facility. · On June 25, 2025, P3 attended a staff meeting at the facility. P1 told staff persons that “a child” was unsupervised for 23 minutes. · When transitioning children, P3 was trained to complete a Face to Name Sheet when leaving one location; then when arriving at the new location, to complete it again by writing a check mark next to each child’s name and writing how many children were present. P3 prefered the sheet over the app because the sheet “helped” better. P3 felt his/her training was adequate. P2 provided the following information: · On the day of the incident, between 4 and 5 p.m., P3 called P2 and told him/her that there was a child alone on the playground. P2 was “confused,” and P3 repeated what s/he had told P2. P2 then told P3 that s/he “was going” and “ran” down the hallway and into the toddler classroom where SP1 and a combined group of preschool and schoolage children were. The children were playing and SP1 was sitting at a table. P2 asked SP1 if s/he had “all” of his/her children and SP1 looked like s/he was “in a panic.” · P2 then walked out to the preschool playground and saw the AV with his/her sibling and FM2. The AV looked “upset” and was being comforted by his/her sibling. The sibling asked P2 if s/he wanted to hug the AV and P2 hugged the AV. FM2 asked P2 why the AV was out by him/herself and P2 told FM2 that s/he was not “sure” and would talk with P1. P2 then called P1 and told him/her what happened. · P2 watched video of the incident and saw the AV remained on a schoolage playground climbing structure when the rest of his/her class transitioned to the preschool playground. The AV was “distraught;” stood, sat, and walked on the upper platform of the structure; and “never went down.” When SP1 and the other children went inside from the preschool playground, one child opened the door and the group went inside without lining up. SP1 had the Name to Face Sheet and iPad. P2 did not see SP1 make marks on the sheet or use the iPad during the transition. SP1 pointed to the children when they walked inside. · P2 talked with SP1 and SP1 said that s/he counted ten children when they transitioned from the preschool playground to the toddler classroom. SP1 thought the AV must have gone back out to the playground after s/he was counted. SP1 did not do a name to face check in the app and counted the “wrong” number of children. P2 looked at the Name to Face Sheet for the date of the incident and it was not completed for the transition. · P2 stated that staff persons were trained that when transitioning children, they should line children up “according to names on the sheet,” and then do a name to face check using the app before leaving the original location and when arriving to the new location. P1 provided the following information: · In the late afternoon of June 23, 2025, P2 called P1 and told him/her that s/he “found out” that the AV was on the playground unsupervised and ran out to the playground. “Around the same time,” FM2 arrived at the facility to pick up the AV. P2 told FM2 that the AV had been unsupervised and that the Name to Face Sheet was not “filled out.” · P1 called and texted the AV’s family members. P1 texted FM1 that s/he would “get answers” regarding the incident and FM1 responded that s/he did not “want answers.” · The following day, P1 watched video footage of the incident and on June 25, 2025, P1 led a staff meeting at the facility during which s/he went over supervision and use of the Name to Face Sheets with staff persons. · Initially, P1 stated that video footage showed SP1 and the Preschool 2 children, including the AV, were on the schoolage playground with SP2 and his/her group of schoolage children. SP2 transitioned his/her children to the preschool playground, and then SP1 transitioned his/her children to the preschool playground and left the AV on the schoolage playground. P1 said that P2 was on the preschool playground when FM2 went out to the playground. From the time that SP1 left the playground and P2 got out the playground the AV was only outside of a staff person’s sight and sound for “less than a minute.” The AV sat on the climbing structure during the incident. The video did not have audio but P3 told P1 that the AV cried. · During a follow up interview after this investigator obtained additional information, P1 stated that because s/he watched video footage “all the time” s/he was “confused” about this incident during his/her initial interview. P1 said s/he rewatched the video footage and “got more information.” P1 saw that the AV was on a different play structure than what s/he initially “had in [his/her] head,” and the AV was not within sight and sound the “entire time” of the incident. SP1 and SP2 were on the schoolage playground together and “transitioned together” to the preschool playground. P1 did not know “for certain” how long the AV was unsupervised but at “one point” had it written down on a piece of paper. · P1 stated that staff persons had clipboards with a Name to Face Sheet and an app on a tablet. Staff persons were trained that during transitions, they should go through the list of children on the Name to Face Sheet and app, looking at each child to make sure that each child was accounted for. SP1 provide the following information: · On the afternoon of June 23, 2025, SP1 was on the schoolage playground with ten Preschool 2 children, including the AV. SP2 and the schoolage children were on the schoolage playground too. SP1 and SP2 each had an iPad and a Name to Face Sheet for their respective classrooms. SP1 recalled seeing the AV on the schoolage play structure with the swings. · Between 4:30 and 5 p.m., SP1 and SP2 had the Preschool 2 and school age children line up together by the fence between the schoolage and preschool playground. There was already another preschool group on the preschool playground. SP1 went into the preschool playground to relieve that staff person because his/her shift was done, leaving SP2 with the group of Preschool 2 and school age children that were lined up. Approximately five minutes later, SP2 walked down the line of children that stood by the fence and then opened the gate and walked the Preschool 2 and schoolage children into the preschool playground. SP1 stated that SP2 was responsible for ensuring all the Preschool 2 and school age children transitioned to the preschool playground. · While SP1 was on the preschool playground, s/he could not see the schoolage play structure with the swings and did not hear noise from the schoolage playground. · Once all the classes had transitioned to the preschool playground, SP2 combined all the children into one iPad classroom and one Name to Face Sheet. SP1 said s/he did not count the children or complete a name to face check when they first combined on the preschool playground because s/he was walking around the playground and supervising children. Later, while the children played, SP1 “physically” counted the children several times, was “conscious” of the number of children on the iPad, and “checked” children out on the iPad as they left for the day. · When the number of children present dropped to ten, SP2 took an iPad that was low on battery and walked into the toddler classroom, leaving SP1 with an iPad with all the children’s names on it and the Name to Face Sheet. · When SP1 and the children walked into the toddler classroom, SP1 looked at the Name to Face Sheet and counted ten children. SP1 did not recall if s/he saw the AV’s name on the list or on the iPad at that time. Once in the classroom, the children washed their hands, used the restroom, and drank water and SP1 counted them again. Then the children played with toys or colored and SP1 supervised the children. · After a “few minutes,” P2 ran through the room to the playground and “grabbed” the AV. · SP1 was trained to use the Name to Face Sheet and iPad and to “physically” count when children transitioned from one location to another. SP2 provided the following information: · On the day of the incident, between 3 and 4 p.m., SP2 transitioned the schoolage children to the schoolage playground. SP1 was already on the playground with the Preschool 2 children, including the AV. When SP2 got to the playground, s/he combined all the children on the schoolage playground onto the Preschool 2 Name to Face Sheet. SP2 recalled seeing the AV “somewhere in the rocks” on the schoolage playground. · Between 5:15 and 5:30 p.m., SP1 and SP2 had the children line up near the fence between the two playgrounds. SP2 stated s/he believed there were ten children and s/he counted ten children. SP2 did not complete a name to face check. SP1 had his/her iPad and Name to Face Sheet and SP2 had his/her iPad and Name to Face Sheet. SP2 stated that SP1 did not count or mark children on the Name to Face Sheet and knew this because “normally” they each would count out loud and SP1 did not do that. · SP2 then opened the gate between the two playgrounds and walked into the preschool playground. SP2 was at the front of the line of children and SP1 was at the end of the line. SP1 put toys away and then closed the gate after the group entered the preschool playground. After transitioning to the preschool playground, SP2 did not count the children and did not see or hear SP1 count the children. SP2 did not document the transition on the Name to Face Sheet. “Normally” each staff person counted out loud the number of children in their class. SP2 “made sure” s/he saw “all” of the schoolage children. SP2 stated s/he “should have” counted all of the children but “assumed” SP1 would count the Preschool 2 children. · There was already a group on the preschool playground when SP1, SP2, and the children arrived to that playground. SP1 stood in the middle of the playground and SP2 combined all the children on the preschool playground onto one Name to Face Sheet, and in the app, moved all the children to one classroom. SP2 stated there was a combined total of 20 children at that time but s/he did not count the children. · While on the preschool playground, SP2 did not see or hear the AV on the schoolage playground. · When there were ten children remaining in the group, SP2 made sure “all” children were in the app and on the Name to Face Sheet. Then SP1 opened the toddler classroom door and had the children go in. SP2 did not see or hear SP1 count the children before going inside. SP2 collected toys and then walked in behind SP1 and did not see or hear SP1 count the children once everyone was in the classroom. SP2 gave SP1 the clipboard with the Name to Face Sheet. The children were “all over the place,” and SP2 left the toddler classroom and went to the schoolage classroom. SP2 did not count the children before leaving the classroom because s/he was no longer considered in ratio with the group, and was preparing to leave. · While SP2 was in the schoolage classroom, SP1 came and told him/her that the AV had been left on the playground. SP2 then wrote down an account of the incident. · SP2 was trained that when children transitioned from one location to another, s/he was to line the children up and use the Name to Face Sheet and app to make sure each child was accounted for. The facility provided four video segments of the incident that were time stamped, did not contain audio, and showed the following: o At 4:54:16 p.m., on the schoolage playground, there were children scattered throughout the playground. The AV sat on the top platform of the play structure with the swings. SP1 and SP2 stood on the sidewalk. o The AV remained on the climber for the next 23 minutes (until 5:19:35). During that time, the AV stood, sat, and walked around the platform at the top of the structure. o At 4:56:52 p.m., six children walked down the sidewalk toward the preschool playground and SP1 followed them and carried iPads and clipboards. SP2 and two children followed SP1 and two children walked behind SP2. o At 4:57:26 p.m., on the preschool playground, there was a staff person and children. SP2 opened the gate between the two playgrounds and walked into the preschool playground. Ten children walked through the gate followed by SP1. Neither SP1 nor SP2 appeared to count the children or marked children on the Name to Face Sheet as they entered the preschool playground. The children ran to different parts of the playground and SP2 shut the gate. SP1 placed the iPads and clipboards on the ground near the gate. The staff person that was already on the preschool playground handed his/her clipboard and iPad to SP2 and then that staff person left the playground. SP2 sat on the ground and made movements on the iPad. SP1 stood near SP2 and then walked around the playground. SP2 then picked up a clipboard and made marks on it. o At 5:12:17 p.m., SP1 walked to the clipboards and iPads s/he had placed on the ground, picked them up, and walked to SP2. SP2 stood up and and SP1 and SP2 looked at a clipboard together. SP1 then walked into the facility carrying a stack of iPads and clipboards. SP2 had a clipboard and iPad and placed them on the ground. SP2 walked down the playground and SP1 came back out to the playground and moved the paper on the clipboard on the ground. SP2 walked back to the clipboard and made marks on it and used the iPad. o At 5:16:45 p.m., a child opened the door from the preschool playground to the toddler classroom and nine children walked into the classroom and to a hand sink. SP1 and SP2 stood near the clipboard on the ground that was approximately four feet from the door. The door remained open. SP1 picked up the clipboard and the iPad from the ground and followed the children inside, and SP2 walked into the schoolage playground. Neither SP1 nor SP2 appeared to count the children or marked children on the Name to Face Sheet as they entered the classroom. o At 5:17:20 p.m., inside the toddler classroom, SP1 shut the door from to the playground and the children washed their hands. SP1 placed the iPad and clipboard on a counter. SP1 did not appear to count the children or mark them on the Name to Face Sheet after they entered the classroom. After the children washed their hands they went to different parts of the classroom and began to play. SP2 entered the toddler classroom from the preschool playground. SP1 talked with SP2 and then SP2 exited the classroom. SP1 then washed his/her hands, walked around the classroom, and closed window blinds. o At 5:19:35 p.m., FM2 and the AV’s sibling walked into the schoolage playground. The AV’s sibling ran up the play structure and hugged the AV. They then walked down the structure and out of camera view. o At 5:19:48 p.m., P2 entered the toddler classroom and ran to the playground door. S/he opened the door and went out to the preschool playground. SP1 then picked up the clipboard and iPad and sat down at a table. S/he made marks on the paper on the clipboard and then picked up the iPad and looked around the classroom. o At 5:21:24 p.m., P2 and FM2 walked into the toddler classroom from the playground. The AV’s sibling followed behind them carrying the AV. SP1 put down the iPad and stood up. S/he appeared to talk with P2. FM2, the AV’s sibling, and the AV walked out of camera view. P2 then moved his/her right hand and pointed to the children in the classroom. P2 picked up the iPad, SP1 walked out of camera view, and the video ended. A Name to Face Sheet for the Preschool 2 classroom, dated July 23, 2025, showed the AV’s arrival time was 9:33 a.m. The AV transitioned to the playground at 10 a.m. and back to the classroom at 11:05 a.m. SP1 signed in at 2:30 p.m. and there were 10 children present at that time. There was no afternoon transition to the playground documented. The AV was signed into the Preschool 1 classroom and no time indicated. There was not written departure time for the AV. The facility’s Family Handbook stated that children from various classes were combined at the beginning and at the end of each day. Activities that met the individual needs of children were provided. On the playground, staff persons positioned themselves to supervise children in all areas of the playground. All staff persons were mandated reporters and required to report suspected child abuse, including “leaving a child unattended for any amount of time.” The facility’s Supervision Policy stated that staff persons should always be aware of how many children were in their care and where all the children were at all times. The playground was considered an extension of the classroom and the “same” supervision standards were required. When transitioning children from one location to another, staff persons used the Child Attendance Records (referred to as Name to Face Sheets in this report) to track the children. Staff persons were required to log children in and out on the app when they joined or left a group; know the names and number of children in their care at all times; use Child Attendance Records to account for the children in their care; conduct transitions with a name to face roll call and headcount whenever a transition through doors occurred; and conduct periodic name to face head counts throught the day. Supervisory staff persons were responsible for understanding and enforcing the policies and procedures and training staff persons on them. The facility’s Program Plan stated that all children in the preschool program were “always” supervised. The facility’s Risk Reduction Plan stated that children were supervised at all times, including when children transitioned from one location to another. Staff persons performed head counts when children transitioned from the playground to the classroom. During transitions, one staff person was at the front of the line and one staff person was at the back of the line. All playground equipment was age appropriate for the age of the child utilizing the equipment. Facility documentation showed that P1, P2, P3, SP1, and SP2 each received training on the Reporting of Maltreatment of Minors Act and on the facility’s policies, including the Family Handbook, Supervision Policy, Program Plan, and Risk Reduction Plan. Relevant Rules and Statutes:
Minnesota Statutes, section 142B.01, subdivision 27 and Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0045, subpart 1, item A, state that “supervision” means 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; and that children are required to be supervised at all times. Conclusion: A. Maltreatment: Information was consistent that on June 23, 2025, the AV was on the schoolage playground for approximately 23 minutes without the knowledge or supervision of SP1 and SP2. When the AV’s family members arrived in the parking lot to pick up the AV, they heard the AV crying and found him/her alone on the schoolage playground. SP1 stated that s/he was with the Preschool 2 children on the schoolage playground with SP2. SP1 then went to the preschool playground to relieve another staff person. After approximately five minutes, SP2 transitioned the children into the preschool playground, and therefore SP1 did not count the children during that transition. However, the video and SP2’s statement showed that at 4:57 p.m., SP1, SP2 and the children transitioned to the preschool playground together. SP2 stated at that time, s/he did not count the children but “knew” s/he had all of his/her schoolage children. On the preschool playground, SP1 stated s/he counted the children several times. SP2 stated s/he combined the groups onto one Name to Face Sheet and one class on the iPad and there were 20 children, but did SP2 not count the children once they arrived at the preschool playground. SP1 and SP2 each stated that when the number of children dropped to ten, SP1 transitioned the children from the preschool playground into the toddler classroom. SP1 stated s/he counted ten children as they walked into the classroom and counted ten children again once inside the room. SP2 did not count the children because s/he did not go inside at that time. The video showed that the children entered the classroom and walked to a sink and SP1 walked in behind the children and placed the Name to Face Sheet and iPad on a counter near the sink. It was not until 5:19:48 p.m., when P2 ran through the classroom, that SP1 looked at the Name to Face Sheet and iPad. SP1 and SP2 each stated they did not count the children when they transitioned from the schoolage playground to the preschool playground, and evidence obtained during the investigation showed that SP1 and SP2 did not follow procedures to ensure that all children were accounted for while on the preschool playground, and again when the children went back inside. This left the AV, who was four years old and preschool aged, unsupervised on the facility’s school age playground for approximately 23 minutes before being found by FM2.
The facility was located at the intersection of two streets each with a speed limit of 30 miles per hour, and the school age playground had an unsecure gate that led to the facility parking lot. While unsupervised, the AV was on a play structure intended for older children; was visible and accessible to passersby; the location and fencing of the playground left the AV exposed the AV to community persons; and the AV had access to a gate that was easily pushed open even when latched. Therefore, there was a preponderance of the evidence that there was a failure to supply the AV with the necessary care when reasonably able to do so; and a failure to protect the AV from conditions or actions that seriously endangered the AV’s physical health when reasonably able to do so. 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). B. Responsibility pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 260E.30, subdivision 4, paragraph (a), clauses (1) and (2): 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. SP1 and SP2 were trained on the Reporting of Maltreatment of Minors Act and on the facility’s policies including the Family Handbook, Supervision Policy, Program Plan, and the Risk Reduction Plan. At the time of the incident, SP1 and SP2 had combined the Preschool 2 and schoolage children and were each responsible for the care and supervision of all the children in the combined group, including the AV. SP1 and SP2 were each responsible for the 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 SP1. All staff members were retrained on the Supervision policies. SP1 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 SP1 and SP2 were each determined responsible for maltreatment. The determination that SP1 and SP2 are responsible for maltreatment is subject to appeal. During the course of the investigation, it was determined that a supervisory staff person provided false and/or misleading information. In addition, it was determined that facility mandated reporters including supervisory staff persons had knowledge of the alleged incidents and did not report the incidents as required. Based on the licensing violations determined in this report, and other licensing violations determined during licensing complaint investigations on multiple previous dates, the Department of Children, Youth, and Families placed the facility’s license to provide child care on conditional status for one year, beginning May 29, 2026. A letter from DCYF was also sent to three mandated reporters regarding their failure to report the suspected maltreatment and potential consequences for future such failures. 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.
|
