|
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: 1117962-CCC (Child Care Center) Investigator(s): Danielle Morrison Minnesota Department of Children, Youth, and Families 651-539-8252 Suspected Maltreatment Reported: It was reported that two alleged victims (AV1 and AV2) were left without a staff person’s knowledge or supervision for two to five minutes. Date of Incident(s): October 14 and 15, 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 October 30, 2025; from documentation at the facility; and through six interviews conducted with a supervisory staff person (P1), three facility staff persons (SP, P2, and P3), AV1’s family member (FM1), and AV2’s family member (FM2). The facility was located inside of a church. There were doors on the side of the building which entered a lobby area that had three benches, an elevator, stairs leading upstairs two flights to the facility which had a secure entrance, and stairs leading downstairs one flight to a gym. Outside of the gym was a door leading to a coat room with a secure door on the opposite side leading to the lower level of the church which had bathrooms the facility used. The facility’s Risk Reduction Plan stated, “Headcount and attendance sheet updated prior to transition. One teacher is in front and one teacher at the end of the line of children. Staff open and shut all doors. Headcount and attendance sheet updated once at the other area of the facility.” Facility documentation showed that the SP, P1, P2, and P3 each received training on the facility’s Risk Reduction Plan and the Reporting of Maltreatment of Minors Act. Regarding the incident on October 14, 2025 AV1 was three and a half years old and enrolled in a preschool classroom at the time of the incident. AV1 was not in attendance on the day of the investigator’s site visit. The facility’s Day Care Accident/Incident Report Forms showed that on October 14, 2025, at 4:10 p.m., the SP led his/her classroom downstairs to the gym and as they approached the gym door another staff person opened the door letting the group inside. The SP assumed all children were inside and closed the door. After two minutes, another staff person (based on information provided this was P3) was bringing down his/her children and heard AV1 calling, “Teacher” and once downstairs, P3 saw AV1 standing outside of the gym doors. P3 opened the gym door, brought the children inside, including AV1, and notified the SP that AV1 was locked out and was waiting by the door unsupervised. Once inside the gym AV1 started crying. AV1 was comforted, P1 was informed, and FM1 was notified. FM1 said P1 called after FM1 had picked up AV1, to share that AV1 had been left on the outside of the gym door after the door closed with AV1’s class and the SP inside the gym. Another staff person arrived at the gym door from upstairs a short time later and found AV1 who was “upset.” AV1 told FM1 that s/he was “sad” then another staff person was there and then they went into the gym, AV1 found the SP and the SP gave AV1 a hug. FM1 had no prior concerns. P3 provided the following information: · On an unknown Tuesday or Wednesday (October 14, 2025, was a Tuesday), around 4 p.m., P3 shut down his/her classroom and walked down to the gym with his/her class since it was a rainy day outside. As the group walked downstairs, P3 heard AV1 saying, “Hello it is me, teacher I am out here.” · P3 got to the bottom of the stairs with his/her class and saw AV1 standing outside of the gym door by him/herself. AV1 told P3 that the SP left AV1 there. P3 gave AV1 a hug and brought AV1 into the gym along with P3’s class. P3 said AV1 was “upset” but was not crying. · P3 found the SP taking toys out of the storage room in the gym and told the SP that AV1 was outside the gym door by him/herself. AV1 then started to cry, and the SP “rushed” over to AV1 and held AV1 when s/he cried. P3 was not sure how long AV1 was by him/herself, but thought it was between two to seven minutes, based on the timespan of when AV1’s class went downstairs, to when P3 brought his/her class downstairs. · P3 was trained that when taking the stairs to the gym, a staff person led the way and stopped at each landing to ensure all the children were there before moving on. Staff persons knew how many children they have by using BrightWheel (an app used to track attendance and communicate with families), counting children, and performing a name to face before leaving a space. The SP provided the following information: · On an unknown date around 4 p.m., the SP went to take his/her class down the three flights of stairs to the gym to combine with the other classrooms. The SP stated s/he had nine children and they walked downstairs. As the group was walking downstairs, they stopped at each floor to make sure all the children were still following. Children were asking the SP if they could get the trucks out of the storage room in the gym and the SP said they would figure it out when they got there. · Once at the gym door, the SP stated there were two children still making their way down the last set of stairs and the rest were by the SP at the door. The SP’s class went inside, the SP set down his/her stuff, and s/he went to open the storage room. · About two minutes later, P3 approached the SP and told the SP that AV1 was locked out of the gym door and P3 found AV1. The SP went over to AV1 to “comfort” AV1 and tell AV1 that s/he did not mean to leave AV1 behind. The SP stated s/he was trained to count children before leaving the classroom and if s/he was the only staff person to be in the front of the line. P1 provided the following information: · On October 14, 2025, sometime after 4:50 p.m. (this was when AV1 was checked out for the day), the SP told P1 that around 4 p.m., when the SP took his/her class to the gym, AV1 was behind the SP, and the gym door shut on AV1 leaving him/her locked out of the gym. The SP said AV1 was outside of the gym door for one to two minutes. · P3 told P1 that when s/he brought his/her class downstairs, P3 heard AV1 crying in the hallway. P3 brought AV1 into the gym with his/her class and the SP comforted AV1. P1 said the time the SP provided P1 that AV1 was alone was reasonable based on what P1 heard from P3. · P1 said staff persons were trained to use BrightWheel for attendance and do a name to face check before leaving the classroom and then count the children when entering the gym. The SP told P1 that s/he did not count the children as they entered the gym. Regarding the incident on October 15, 2025 AV2 was almost four years old and was enrolled in a preschool classroom at the time of the incident. The DCYF investigator met AV2, but s/he did not provide any information related to the incident. The facility’s Day Care Accident/Incident Report Forms provided the following information: · On October 15, 2025, at 3:15 p.m., a staff person (based on information provided this was the SP), took eight children to a bathroom downstairs and AV2 was locked out of an entrance to the bathrooms and then went upstairs to the church lobby and laid down on a bench. All staff persons were informed and AV2 was located, comforted, and rejoined the class. FM2 was notified. FM2 said s/he had a conference with P1 to talk about the SP taking a group of children to the bathroom downstairs. The SP thought all the children were in front of him/her, but AV2 was behind the SP. The security door closed to the bathroom area, so AV2 left the lower floor and walked to the lobby area and laid down on one of the benches. The SP called P1 when s/he realized AV2 was not with the group, and the building went into lockdown until they found AV2 in the lobby. When FM2 picked up AV2, AV2 told FM2 that, “They locked the door on me.” AV2 told FM2 s/he was “scared.” FM2 had no prior concerns, and this came as “quite a surprise.” The SP provided the following information: · On the day after the incident with AV1, around 3 p.m., the SP was downstairs in the gym with his/her class. As the group left the gym, the SP conducted his/her attendance and had all the children s/he was supposed to have. The SP led his/her class through the secure door downstairs to use the bathrooms. · The SP propped open the bathrooms doors and let the children go in and use the stalls. There were three children on the bench, and the stalls were full. As the children left the bathroom, the SP realized s/he was missing a child. The SP said AV2 was “pretty quiet”, so the SP checked the stalls and looked in the area but did not see AV2. · The SP called P1 to let him/her know what was happening. P1 was going to send staff persons down from upstairs to look for AV2. The SP took his/her group back upstairs to the lobby and heard AV2 with P2. The SP thought AV2 was alone for three to four minutes. P1 provided the following information: · On October 15, 2025, P1 was out of the building when s/he received a call from the SP stating that the SP had brought his/her class downstairs to the gym between 2 – 3 p.m., and on the way back to the classroom, the SP brought the group through the secure door downstairs to use the bathrooms and wash their hands for snack. · The SP thought AV2 was in one of the stalls but then realized AV2 was missing. The SP started looking and then called P1. P1 called P2 who was in the office and P2 ran downstairs and found AV2 lying on a bench in the lobby. P2 said AV2 was “scared” but was comforted. The SP came upstairs from the lower level with his/her children and saw AV2 in the lobby with P2. · P2 took the SP’s class upstairs and had the SP take time to compose him/herself. P1 thought AV2 was alone for around five minutes. P2 provided the following information: · On an unspecified date, around 3 p.m., P2 was working in the office when P1 called saying that the SP just called P1 to say that s/he “lost” AV2. P2 ran downstairs and found AV2 immediately when P2 reached the lobby. AV2 was “calmly” lying on a bench. At first P2 thought AV2 walked away from the group so P2 told AV2, “We do not run away.” · AV2 started crying and told P2 that s/he was locked out. P2 comforted AV2 and said it was not his/her fault and that s/he was safe. P2 heard the SP on the stairs so P2 said s/he had AV2. The SP had the other children with him/her and the SP seemed “overwhelmed.” P2 told the SP to take five minutes to take a break. Two other staff persons arrived and took the group back to their classroom. · P2 said staff persons were trained to use BrightWheel and count the children before leaving an area. P2 stated the whole-time s/he transitioned children s/he was counting them. Relevant Rule and/or Statute 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: Regarding the incident on October 14, 2025 Consistent information was provided that on October 14, 2025, around 4 p.m., the SP brought his/her children down to the gym. P3 came downstairs one to two minutes later and found AV1 on the outside of the gym door calling for a staff person that s/he was left behind. P3 brought AV1 into the gym and told the SP that s/he was left on the outside of the door. AV1 was without supervision for one to two minutes which was a violation of Minnesota Statutes, section 142B.01, subdivision 27 and Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0045, subpart 1, item A. However, no additional hazards were present, AV1 was not harmed, and was unsupervised in an area that was used by the facility at that time of the day for a limited amount of time. Therefore, the risk of harm to AV1 was considered low. Based on the information obtained, there was not a preponderance of the evidence that neglect occurred under Minnesota Statutes, section 260E.03, subdivision 15. Specifically, the record does not demonstrate that there was 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, and/or a failure to protect a child from conditions or actions that seriously endanger the child physical or mental health when reasonably able to do so. Regarding the incident on October 15, 2025 Consistent information was provided that on October 15, 2025, around 3 p.m., the SP left the gym with his/her preschool class, and they went through the secure door to use the bathroom on the lower level before heading upstairs. While down there, the SP realized AV2 was no longer with the group and notified P1. P1 was not at the facility at that time, so s/he called P2 who went to search for AV2. P2 found AV2 lying on a bench in the lobby of the church. The church lobby had unlocked doors, was accessible to community persons, and was on a different floor than the secured areas utilized by the facility. AV2 was without staff person supervision for three to five minutes and during this time was exposed to potential hazards such as unknown community persons entering the building or risk that AV2 would leave the building to seek help after AV2 was locked out of the areas in the church building used by the facility. This incident represented a failure to protect AV2 from conditions or actions that seriously endangered the AV’s physical or mental health when reasonably able to do so; and a failure to supply AV2 with necessary care required for the AV’s physical or mental health 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 there was a failure to protect AV2 from conditions or actions that seriously endangered AV2’s physical or mental health when reasonably able to do so; and a failure to supply AV2 with necessary care required for AV2’s physical or mental health when reasonably able to do so; the SP’s actions were determined to be a nonmaltreatment mistake for the following reasons: 1) the SP had not been determined responsible for a similar incident that resulted in a finding of maltreatment; 2) the SP had not been determined to have committed a similar nonmaltreatment mistake; 3) there was no injury to AV2; 4) except for the period when the incident occurred, the facility and the SP were both in compliance with all licensing and certification requirements relevant to the incident; and 5) at the time of the incident, the SP was supervising other children while they utilized the bathroom, and as soon as the SP noticed AV2 was not with the group, the SP alerted his/her supervisor. The nonmaltreatment mistake to AV2 by the SP was not maltreatment. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 260E.35, subdivision 6, paragraph (b) all 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 found their policies and procedures were adequate, but were 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 SP was not determined as a perpetrator of maltreatment of AV2 because the Department of Children, Youth, and Families found that the incident for which the SP was responsible met the criteria to be determined a nonmaltreatment mistake. The SP was notified by the Office of Inspector General that any future incident of possible neglect of an alleged victim for which the SP is responsible might not be considered a nonmaltreatment mistake. On June 12, 2026, the facility was issued a Correction Order for the violations outlined in this report. 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.
|
