|
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: 1023615-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) had unexplained bruises received at the facility and not reported to the FM by staff persons (SP1 and SP2). Date of Incident(s): Unknown dates prior to August 21, 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 October 14, 2025; from documentation at the facility and law enforcement records; and through four interviews conducted with the AV’s family member (FM), a supervisory staff person (P) and SP1 and SP2. The AV was not interviewed due to his/her age. Facility documentation showed the AV was 21 months old and enrolled in the Toddler 1 classroom in July and August 2025. The facility was a stand-alone building with multiple toddler classrooms, including the Toddler 1 classroom. The Toddler 1 classroom was an open classroom. Upon entering the classroom door, there were two rectangular tables with two different heights of chairs. One table had chairs that were lower to the floor and one table had chairs that were higher. Beyond the tables were toy shelves and toys and a carpeted area. Along one wall was a set of children’s storage cubbies that had bench seating. Along another wall were upper and lower cabinets. There was a bathroom accessible from the classroom. The bathroom had a changing table and a toilet. There was a handwashing sink in the classroom, just outside the bathroom. The facility used a mobile application (app) platform to communicate with families and streamline administrative functions. In separate interviews with this DCYF investigator and a law enforcement officer (LEO), the FM provided the following information: · The AV was enrolled in one of the facility’s toddler classrooms and SP1 and SP2 were the staff persons in that classroom. · The FM had dates and photographs of the AV’s marks or injuries from May 2025. The FM started “journaling” the AV’s marks and understood that some of the marks may have occurred through regular play and s/he did not receive any injury reports. The FM talked with the P regarding the AV’s marks and the P told the FM that SP1 and SP2 did not document “every little injury,” and that SP1 and SP2 did not “see everything” that happened to the AV. After the FM spoke with the P and SP1 regarding the AV’s marks, SP1 wrote notes about the AV’s behavior with other children and gave them to the FM. · The AV’s worst mark was on August 21, 2025. The FM noticed a “large bruise” on the AV’s “left side.” The facility gave the FM a “sticky note” stating that the AV fell approximately three times that day and did not sustain any marks. · On August 27, 2025, the LEO told the FM that s/he was concerned about “two” of the AV’s marks, the bruise on the AV’s left side and an abrasion to the AV’s right shoulder/back. The FM told the LEO that s/he was most concerned that on July 3, 2025, the AV had a mark on his/her left cheek and a “bite mark” on his/her left arm. The FM told the LEO that s/he had a “bad feeling” that some of the AV’s marks could have been caused by SP1 and/or SP2. · Prior to August 22, 2025, the FM had concerns about the frequency of diaper changes in the classroom. The FM’s journal entries between July 18, and August 22, 2025, showed that the AV had numerous marks, scrapes, and bruises for which the FM did not receive injury reports. In the “middle of July,” the FM talked to an unnamed staff person regarding marks on the AV. The FM showed the staff person pictures of the AV’s marks and the staff person thought one of the marks looked like it was caused by a pinch. On July 18, 2025, the FM noted the AV had a cut on his/her chest and inner arm. On July 22, 2025, the AV had two bruises on an arm. On July 23, 2025, the AV had a scrape and mark on his/her upper back. On July 30, 2025, the FM talked with the P about the AV’s “unreported” marks. The P told the FM that s/he had “already handled it.” The P asked the FM if s/he had dates for the marks and told the FM s/he would review video footage. On July 30, 2025, the AV had scrapes on his/her cheek, forehead, and a cut on his/her ear. On August 5, 2025, the AV had a mark on his/her left cheek by his/her nose. On August 6, 2025, the AV had a bruise on the back of his/her arm. On August 11, 2025, the AV had a bruise on his/her leg. On August 15, 2025, the P told the FM that s/he watched four hours from one day of video from the Toddler 1 classroom and did not find “anything,” and that staff persons do not write reports for every “owie.” On August 22, 2025, a staff person sent an app message to the FM that when the AV fell, it was because s/he walked too fast or tripped over his/her feet. The FM replied that the AV would not be returning to the facility. This investigator viewed photographs that were taken by the FM on multiple dates. The photos showed that on May 16, 2025, the AV had a reddish-purple mark on the back of his/her head near his/her neck. On June 27, 2025, the AV had a red mark on his/her right cheek. On July 10, 2025, the AV had a mark that resembled a bite mark on his/her left lower back. On July 18, 2025, the AV had a red mark on his/her chest. On July 23, 2025, the AV had an open scrape on his/her right shoulder. On August 13, 2025, the AV had a red mark on the underside of his/her left arm near his/her elbow. On August 15, 2025, the AV had a red mark on his/her right cheek under his/her right eye. On August 21, 2025, the AV had a scratch on his/her upper right leg and a red mark on his/her right chest near his/her rib cage. A facility Non-Reportable Incident Report Form, written by an unknown staff person dated June 6, 2025, stated that the AV went down a slide too fast and bit his/her tongue. The FM signed the injury report. A facility Non-Reportable Incident Report Form, written by SP2 dated July 29, 2025, stated that the AV was in a playhouse on the playground and walked out crying. Staff persons “noticed” that the AV’s nose was bleeding, but did not see what happened to the AV. The FM signed the injury report. A facility Non-Reportable Incident Report Form, written by an unknown staff person dated August 1, 2025, stated that the AV threw a toy at another child. The FM signed the injury report. A facility Non-Reportable Incident Report Form, written by SP1 dated August 6, 2025, stated that as the AV walked in the classroom, s/he tripped and fell. The AV bit his/her bottom lip. The FM signed the injury report. A facility Non-Reportable Incident Report Form, written by SP1 dated August 14, 2025, stated that the AV pushed a child, and SP1 had the AV sit by a wall for 30 seconds. After the AV got up, s/he pushed another child and SP1 had the AV sit in a chair for 30 seconds. The FM signed the injury report. A facility Non-Reportable Incident Report Form, written by SP2 and dated August 20, 2025, stated that when the AV was running on the playground that s/he fell and scraped his/her knee. The AV received “TLC” and was “cleaned up.” The FM signed the injury report. A local law enforcement report provided the following information: · On August 27, 2025, the LEO visited the facility and requested video from the P regarding specific dates that involved marks on the AV. The P told the LEO that s/he watched video from July 3, 2025, and did not see anything out of the “ordinary.” SP1 told the LEO that the FM was an “overly concerned” family member and when the AV was injured, it was due to “normal” play. · The LEO observed ten injury reports for the AV. Each report was signed by the FM. Later the LEO learned that the incident reports did not coincide with marks the FM documented. · On September 12, 2025, the LEO reviewed facility video footage from July 3, July 15, July 23, July 31, and August 21, 2025. The video did not “appear” to show any “criminal behavior” from either SP1 or SP2 but did show SP1 potentially “rough handling” “different” children. The videos showed the following: o On July 3, 2025, at 9:08:39 a.m., the AV was seated in a chair and SP1 picked up the AV by his/her arms/bicep area. SP1 appeared to “briefly” shake the AV to clear crumbs from his/her clothing. The AV was placed back onto his/her chair. SP1 pushed the chair forward with enough force to cause the AV’s head to “slightly bobble backward.” o On July 31, 2025, at 9:23:15 a.m., a child was seated in a chair and SP1 picked up the child by his/her right arm/bicep. SP1 placed in the child back into the chair in a “in what does not look like a gentle manner.” SP1 then “forcibly” pushed the child’s chair towards the table. o At 9:27:25 a.m., SP1 picked up the same child and “forcibly” placed the child back onto the chair. o At 9:31:56 a.m., SP1 picked up a different child and moved the child to his/her right arm and then picked up a second child by their right arm only. SP1 carried the two children, one under his/her arm and the other by their right arm. o On August 21, 2025, at 9:45:20 a.m., SP1 appeared to lift the AV by his/her right arm/bicep area with a “fair amount of force.” o At 9:45:40 a.m., SP1 “yanked” the left arm of another child, causing him/her to lose his/her balance to fall backward. SP1 then grabbed the child’s other arm. o At 11:48:25 a.m., a child lay on a cot on his/her stomach. SP1 picked up the child by his/her thighs/hips. The child was “briefly” upside down as SP1 moved the child to a different cot. o At 11:49:40 a.m., SP1 picked up another child by both of his/her arms/bicep area. That child was put down on a cot. This did not look “gentle.” o At 11:52:32 a.m., that child was walking and SP1 picked up him/her by both of his/her arms/biceps. SP1 “dropped” him/her a “short distance” onto his/her cot. Immediately after, SP1 picked up the AV and “slightly tossed” him/her back onto his/her cot. o At 2:55:12 p.m., SP1 picked up the AV and carried him/her to a chair at a table and s/he did not appear to be “gentle” as s/he placed the AV in a chair. SP1 then “shoved” the chair forward until the AV’s abdomen came into contact with the table. o At 3:06:14 p.m., SP1 picked up the AV and placed him/her in a chair at the table and pushed the chair forward. SP2 then picked up another child by his/her arms/bicep area and carried him/her to the door and placed him/her on the floor. SP1 then picked up another child by his/her arms/bicep and carried him/her to the door. · On September 22, 2025, the LEO asked SP2 if s/he had any concerns that SP1’s interactions with children could have injured a child. SP2 told the LEO that s/he never “noticed” that any of SP1’s interactions injured a child and s/he did not “really” see SP1 become frustrated with children. · On September 24, 2025, the LEO told the P that after s/he reviewed facility video, s/he had concerns that SP1 possibly rough handled children. The LEO showed the P video footage where SP1 “frequently” picked up children by their arms, biceps, and triceps, and a time when SP1 picked up a child by “one arm,” and movements did not appear to be “very gentle.” The P told the LEO s/he would talk with SP1 about how s/he lifted children. · No further action was taken. In an interview with this DCYF investigator and the LEO, the P provided the following consistent information: · On October 14, 2025, the P told the LEO that after his/her initial visit, the P followed up with SP1 and SP2 and they told the P that the FM showed them two or three photos of marks on the AV. SP1 and SP2 told the P that there was “maybe” only one mark visible in the photos. SP1 and SP2 “agreed” to increase their focus on the AV and document injuries. On August 22, 2025, the P and SP1 had a conversation and reviewed video footage. SP1 did not deny that s/he picked up a child by one arm and the P thought talking with SP1 was a “good reminder” to SP1 on how to pick up children. SP1 told the P that s/he “understood” that someone watching the video may think that the lift “looked worse” than it was. The P did not have any further follow-up with SP1 and told the LEO that no additional measures were taken. · Initially, the P stated that s/he watched “almost three days” of videos of the Toddler 1 classroom from July 2 and 3, 2025. In the videos s/he did not see anything out of the “normal,” and SP1 and/or SP2 lifted children either under their armpits or by the sides of their arms. The P stated that lifting a child by the sides of their arms did not cause an injury or leave a mark because the children were “light,” and were not “squeezed” by either SP1 or SP2. · During the interview with this DCYF investigator and the LEO, the P was shown the video from July 31, 2025, of the Toddler 1 classroom in which SP1 lifted a child up from his/her chair by one arm. The P thought that SP1 did not lift the child appropriately. The P explained that SP1 had his/her hand under the opposite arm of the child and the child looked like s/he was falling so the P believed that SP1 was “appropriate.” The P was then shown the video from July 3, 2025, in which SP1 lifted the AV from his/her chair, shook the AV, and placed the AV back on the chair and pushed the chair forward with enough force to cause the AV’s head to move backwards. The P stated s/he that this action did not appear to be appropriate and that SP1’s The P stated that in some of the video footage, SP1’s actions “looked rough.” · The P did not know if the way SP1 or SP2 lifted children could have caused marks on the AV or any other child. · The P was not trained in how to pick up children because s/he did not pick up children. The P stated that s/he did not know what SP1 and SP2 were trained to do if they became frustrated in the classroom because s/he did not train SP1 or SP2. In an interview with this DCYF investigator and the LEO, SP1 provided the following consistent information: · SP1 stated that after the LEO’s first visit to the facility, s/he had a conversation with the P about the videos s/he watched. SP1 stated that they discussed that the camera made things look “more aggressive” than SP1 and SP2 “really” were. The camera made the way SP1 picked up a child “look weird” because the video skipped and was recorded at a “weird angle.” · SP1 was trained to lift children under their arms, in their armpit area. SP1 stated it was not appropriate to lift a child by grasping the outside of their arms and lifting. If s/he did lift a child by the outside of his/her arms, s/he did it “softly.” SP1 stated s/he was trained not to lift a child by one arm because it could cause a serious injury. If SP1 ever needed to lift a child by one arm, it was because the child was going to fall and “seriously” hurt themselves if SP1 did not intervene. · SP1 denied lifting a child by one arm or lifting by grasping the outside of their arm. SP1 denied dropping a child onto his/her cot. · SP1 denied grabbing the AV’s arms “hard enough” to cause marks or bruises. · SP1 did not see a bruise on the AV’s left side and did not have knowledge of anything that would have caused the bruise to the AV’s left side on August 21, 2025. · SP1 did not have any concerns with SP2’s or any other staff persons’ interactions with children. In an interview with this DCYF investigator and the LEO, SP2 provided the following consistent information: · On an unknown date, the FM told SP2 and SP1 about a bruise on the AV’s left side. SP2 did not see a bruise on the AV’s side and did not recall anything happening to the AV that would have caused a bruise. SP2 and SP1 made sure to tell the FM when the AV fell and when the AV scratched him/herself. SP2 saw a “scratch” on one of the AV’s arms after the AV fell on a sidewalk outside. · SP2 was trained to lift children under their arms, in the arm pit area. SP2 denied lifting children in any way other than under the armpits except that for “fun” s/he lifted some “lighter” children up by grasping their hands and did not lift children like this for “very long.” · SP2 saw SP1 “quickly” grab a child that was about to fall out of a chair and onto the floor. SP1 grabbed the child’s hands and lifted the child and then put his/her other hand in the middle of their torso under their arm pit. · SP2 denied causing any bruises or marks on the AV. · SP2 did not have any concerns with SP1’s or any other staff persons’ interactions with children. The facility provided 49 video segments of multiple days between July 3, and August 21, 2025, of the Toddler 1 classroom. The video segments were time stamped, did not contain audio and showed the following: o On July 3, 2025, at approximately 9:06 a.m., the AV was seated at a table. The AV shook his/her sippy cup over his/her bowl. SP1 walked to the AV, bent over, and grabbed the AV’s cup out of his/her hand. SP1 placed the cup onto the table and walked away from the AV. o At 9:07 a.m., a child picked something out of his/her bowl and threw it. SP1 walked to the child, grasped his/her biceps, and lifted the child from his/her chair. SP1 placed the child on the cubby bench and walked to the table and picked the child’s bowl and cup and placed them on the counter. o At 9:08 a.m., the AV held his/her cup in his/her bowl. SP1 walked to the AV, grabbed the AV’s cup out of his/her hands with his/her right hand and pushed the AV on the side of his/her jaw/neck area with the back of his/her left hand. The AV’s head moved to the right. SP1 then grasped the AV’s biceps and pulled the AV and his/her chair backward. SP1 lifted the AV and shook the AV twice and then dropped him/her back into his/her chair. SP1 then brushed items from the table into the AV’s bowl and moved the bowl and cup to the side. SP1 then placed his/her hands on the back of the AV’s chair and shoved it forward with enough force to cause the AV’s head to jerk backward. SP1 pushed the AV forward until his/her stomach hit the table. The AV appeared to cry and SP1 picked up the AV’s bowl and cup and walked away from the table. o At 9:09 a.m., a child across the table from the AV stood on his/her chair. SP1 walked to the child and put his/her right arm around the child’s waist and grabbed the child’s left leg with his/her left hand. SP1 then roughly set the child onto his/her chair. That child placed his/her hands to his/her mouth and appeared to cry. o On July 23, 2025, at approximately 2:47 p.m., a child was seated at the table. SP1 walked behind the child and grasped his/her biceps and lifted the child to his/her waist. SP1 then put his/her left arm around the child’s waist and walked to the bathroom with the child. o On July 31, 2025, at approximately 8:49 a.m., SP2 grasped a child’s biceps and lifted the child from a seated position to SP2’s chest height. SP2 then held the child around his/her waist and carried the child facing outward. In the same video segment, SP1 grasped a child’s biceps, lifted the child, and carried the child to a shelf. SP1 sat on a sensory table and placed the child down in front of him/her. SP1 then placed his/her legs on each side of the child’s head. SP1 moved his/her legs from the child’s head when the classroom door opened. o At 8:59 a.m., SP1 placed chairs at tables and SP2 put shoes on children’s feet. A child sat on the floor and SP1 walked up to the child, grasped his/her biceps and lifted the child to waist height. SP1 then put his/her right arm around the child’s waist and carried him/her. SP1 then moved his/her right arm to the side and the child turned sideways and downward and appeared to be crying. SP1 then sat the child on a chair and pushed it into the table. The child put his/her head in his/her hands and then put his/her head down on the table. o At 9:06 a.m., there were seven children seated at one table and SP1 stood between the two tables. No child touched another child when SP1 turned and stomped his/her left foot on the table. S/he bent forward and appeared to talk with one of the children and then removed his/her foot from the table and walked away. SP1 then placed bowls of food on the table in front of the children. o At 9:18 a.m., a child was seated at the table with a cup and bowl. S/he tucked his/her knees between his/her chest and table. SP1 walked behind the child and pulled his/her chair out from the table. SP1 bent over the child and grasped the child’s thighs. SP1 then lifted the child and set him/her down roughly in the chair. SP1 pushed the chair into the table and stood behind the chair. The child appeared to be crying and then SP1 walked away. Five minutes later the same child tucked his/her knees again and was sideways in his/her chair. SP1 grasped the child’s right bicep and lifted the child. S/he then put his/her arm around the child’s waist and set the child onto the chair and pushed the chair in forcefully. The child appeared to cry. SP1 walked away from him/her. Approximately eight minutes passed when the same child tucked his/her knees between his/her chest and the table. SP1 walked behind the child, grasped his/her right bicep with his/her right hand and pulled the chair away from the table with his/her left hand. SP1 lifted the child by his/her bicep and then with his/her left hand grasped the child’s left arm. SP1 then roughly placed the child onto the chair. S/he then pushed the chair to the table until the child’s stomach hit the table. The child appeared to cry. SP1 took the child’s cup and bowl and walked away. The child put one leg over the arm of the chair and placed it on the floor. His/her other leg was on the chair. SP1 walked to the child and stood on the opposite side of the chair. SP1 bent over the chair and lifted the child while rotating him/her so that his/her body was horizontal with his/her feet higher than his/her head. SP1 carried the child to the sink and rotated him/her again and set the child on his/her feet in front of the sink. SP1 rinsed and dried the child’s hands and the child walked away from the sink. o At 11:49 a.m., SP1, with his/her right arm, held a child around his/her waist, and with his/her left hand, picked up the AV by his/her right bicep and carried the AV approximately four feet and then sat the AV on his/her cot. o On August 21, 2025, at approximately 9:45 a.m., most children were seated on a rug next to the exterior door, one child sat on the floor near the sink, a child stood near the tables, and a child sat on the carpet, and the AV and another child stood on the carpet. SP1 took hold of one child’s hand and walked with him/her to the rug and the AV walked to the cubbies. SP1 then walked to the AV and grasped the AV’s right bicep in his/her right hand. SP1 lifted the AV and grasped his/her left arm in his/her left hand. SP1 then put his/her right arm around the AV’s waist and carried him/her to the rug and set him/her down on the rug. SP1 then walked to the cabinet. The children were on the rug until 9:50 a.m., and the video ended. o On August 21, 2025, at approximately 11:49 a.m., a child stood near the cubbies and held a shoe in his/her right hand. SP1 walked behind the child and grasped the child’s arms. SP1 shook the child’s right arm, and the child dropped the shoe. SP1 then grasped the child’s biceps, lifted the child, and carried the child approximately a foot to a cot. SP1 swung the child forward and let go of his/her arms. The child fell forward onto the cot. Another child stood at the edge of his/her cot and SP1 walked to that cot, grasped the child by his/her left bicep, and pulled that child down onto the middle of his/her cot. SP1 then walked into the bathroom. o At 1:52 p.m., SP1 walked out of the bathroom, and grasped a standing child by his/her biceps. SP1 swung that child backwards and set him/her down on the floor on his/her bottom aggressively. SP1 then walked to another child that stood by his/her cot. S/he grasped that child’s right bicep and pulled that child down face first down on their cot. SP1 then walked to another child that was standing near the tables. SP1 stood behind that child and grasped his/her biceps and lifted that child. SP1 walked and lifted the child so s/he held the child around the waist with his/her right arm. S/he walked to a cot and held the child a short distance above his/her cot and dropped the child face first on his/her cot. SP1 then stepped toward the AV’s cot and the AV crawled to the edge of his/her cot. SP1 grasped the AV’s left upper arm/shoulder area in his/her left hand, and the AV’s upper left leg with his/her right hand and lifted the AV. SP1 then dropped the AV between four to six inches onto his/her cot. During these interactions, SP2 was in the table area, cleaning tables and sweeping the floor. o At approximately 3:07 p.m., the AV stood in the classroom. SP2 walked to the AV and stood behind him/her. SP2 placed his/her left hand on the AV’s left wrist and his/her right hand on the AV’s right bicep. SP2 lifted the AV off the floor, turned and moved the AV forward approximately a foot. SP2 put down the AV down on with his/her feet on the floor and held the AV’s hands above his/her head and they walked to the sink. At approximately 3:12 p.m., the AV lay on the floor and SP2 walked behind the AV, grasped his/her biceps, and picked the AV up off the floor. SP2 moved the AV approximately one foot and then set the AV on his/her feet on the floor. The AV slouched to the ground while SP2 still held his/her biceps. SP2 then lifted the AV to a standing position, and the AV’s arms were above his/her head. SP2 then walked behind the AV to the bathroom. The facility’s Behavior Guidance policy stated that staff persons provided children with guidance that helped children acquire positive self-concept and self-control. The primary goal of the facility was to provide a safe, nurturing, and pleasant environment for all children served. Each child was provided with a positive model of acceptable behavior. Children were encouraged to use words to handle differences and express themselves in a controlled manner. When staff persons needed to intervene, age-appropriate and constructive methods of discipline were used, such as verbal intervention and redirection. A child’s physical or emotional danger was grounds for a staff person to intervene immediately. Staff persons were prohibited from using unproductive or shaming methods of punishment and prohibited from using corporal punishment including rough handling, shoving, hair or ear pulling, shaking, kicking, slapping, biting, pinching, hitting or spanking. Children would not be separated from the group unless less intrusive methods had been tried and were ineffective or the child’s behavior was dangerous to him/herself or others. All separations were noted on a daily log. The facility’s Employee Handbook stated that to help acquaint staff persons with all aspects of their position, they were given training on all policies and procedures specific to the facility before starting their duties. During snack and lunch, staff persons were expected to sit at the tables with the children. Mealtime was an opportunity for quiet, relaxed conversation between staff persons and children. The facility’s Parent Handbook stated that child injuries were recorded for family member notification. For “minor” accidents, first aid was administered, and family members were notified. Facility documentation showed that the P, SP1, and SP2 were each trained on the Reporting of Maltreatment of Minors Act, and the facility’s Behavior Guidance policy, Employee Handbook, and Parent Handbook. Relevant Rules and/or Statutes Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0055, subpart 3, item A, states that the license holder must have and enforce a policy that prohibits the subjection of a child to corporal punishment. Corporal punishment includes, but is not limited to, rough handling, shoving, hair pulling, ear pulling, shaking, slapping, kicking, biting, pinching, hitting, and spanking. Conclusion: A. Maltreatment: Regarding the injuries to the AV: Information provided by the FM showed that on multiple dates between July 3, and August 21, 2025, s/he noticed the AV left the facility with marks and bruises for which s/he did not receive injury reports. The FM was concerned that SP1 or SP2 may have caused some of the bruises or marks on the AV. Video footage between July 3 to August 21, 2025, provided by the facility, showed multiple occasions when SP1 and SP2 grasped the AV’s biceps and lifted the AV. SP1 shook the AV and roughly placed him/her back onto his/her chair and forcefully pushed the AV into the table, all while the AV was not a danger to him/herself or others. The P reviewed video footage and stated that SP1’s actions of lifting the AV by one arm and pushing him/her into the table did not appear to be appropriate and looked rough. Although the FM was concerned that SP1 and SP2 may have hurt the AV and caused marks and/or bruising on the AV, given that the dates the FM noted marks on the AV did not coincide with incidents on the video footage and that SP1 and SP2 each denied causing marks and/or bruises on the AV, there was not a preponderance of the evidence that SP1’s and SP2’s actions caused injury or represented a substantial risk of injury to the AV. The video footage also showed SP1 and SP2 grasp children, other than the AV, that were not a danger to themselves or others, by their biceps and then lift and carry them by holding their biceps. SP1 carried a child by one arm and set children on chairs, cots, and the floor roughly. SP2 lifted and carried children by holding their hands. SP1’s and SP2’s actions of grasping and lifting the AV, and other children by their biceps, SP2 lifting children by their hands, SP1 grabbing children by one arm, and placing children roughly onto chairs, cots and the floor were inconsistent with the standards of a professional caregiver in a facility licensed by the Minnesota Department of Children, Youth, and Families; a violation of the facility’s Behavior Guidance policy; and a violation of Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0055, subpart 3, item A. Regarding the behavior of SP1 and SP2 toward the AV and other children:
SP1 and SP2 each denied lifting the AV and children other than under their armpits, and each denied roughly handling children. However, given that video footage showed multiple incidents of SP1 and SP2 each grasping and lifting children, including the AV, by their biceps; SP2 lifting children by their hands; and SP1 lifting children by one arm and setting children down roughly; there was a preponderance of the evidence that SP1 and SP2 engaged in a pattern of aggressive interactions with toddler aged children on a repeated basis that placed the AV and the other children at substantial risk of injury. SP1’s and SP2’s actions represented both a failure to supply the AV and other children, with necessary care; and a failure to protect the AV and other children from conditions or actions that seriously endangered the AV’s and other children’s physical or mental health when reasonably able to do so. It was not 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). 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 reasonable 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): 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 each responsible for the care of all the children, including the AV, in the Toddler 1 classroom. SP1 and SP2 each received training on the Reporting of Maltreatment of Minors Act and the facility’s Behavior Guidance policy, Employee Handbook, and Parent Handbook. SP1 and SP2 were each responsible for the maltreatment of the AV, and other children, in the classroom. 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 and followed and there was no additional need for staff training. 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. On July 15, 2026, the facility was issued a Correction Order for separating children before other less intrusive methods were tried and when the children’s behavior did not threaten the wellbeing of themselves or other children, for staff persons not seated with children during meals and snacks, for failing to wash tables after shoes were placed on the table during meal service, for failing to follow diaper changing procedures, and for using an action that threatens children. 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.
|
