|
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: 1100180-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 pinched by a staff person (SP). The SP dug his/her fingernails into AV1’s and AV2’s hands when they did not listen. AV1 had small scratch on his/her palm. Date of Incident(s): Multiple unknown dates prior to November 2, 2025 Nature of Alleged Maltreatment Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 260E.03, subdivision 15, paragraph (a), clause (2); subdivision 18, paragraph (a); and subdivision 23, paragraph (a): 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 November 25, 2025; from documentation at the facility; and through five interviews conducted with a supervisory staff person (P1), two facility staff persons (SP and P2), AV2, and AV1’s family member (FM1). AV2’s family member (FM2) was notified, but s/he did not provide information pertaining to this investigation. Attempts were made by mail, telephone, and email to interview another staff person (P3). However, P3 did not respond to those requests. AV1 and AV2 were both four years old and enrolled in a preschool classroom at the time of the incidents. AV1 was sleeping during the investigator’s site visit so s/he was not interviewed. The facility was a stand-alone building. It had 12 classrooms serving infants through preschool aged children. The preschool classroom was split into two sides. In the middle of the classroom was a full wall which extended from the exterior wall to the midpoint of the classroom. On one side of the classroom there was an area rug near a whiteboard, two tables in the middle of the space, and shelves full of items along the edges. AV2 demonstrated on his/herself to the DCYF investigator that when s/he and other children did not listen, the SP dug his/her fingernails into the children’s palms. AV2 said it “hurt a lot” and that the SP did it to AV2, AV1, and another unspecified child. AV2 said it did not bleed but left a scratch mark. FM1 stated that on an unspecified date in late September 2025, AV1 told FM1 that the SP pinched AV1. FM1 said there was a “skin tear” on AV1’s palm. FM1 thought maybe it was an accident, so s/he did not tell anyone at the facility about it. In early October 2025, AV1 told FM1 again that the SP pinched him/her when AV1 was not listening. FM1 told P1 and P1 was going to look at video footage. FM1 was told that P1 reviewed video footage and did not find anything. After the third incident which happened on a Thursday, FM1 spoke with a friend who had a child in the classroom as well and their child said similar things (based on information provided this was likely FM2). FM1 emailed the facility on November 3, 2025, at 7:47 a.m., stating that AV1 said the SP pinched AV1 “everyday” on the inside of AV1’s hand for “not listening.” FM1 tried to get more details from AV1 as to what day and/or the time of day, but could not get a clear answer. On November 4, 2025, at 8:17 a.m., FM1 sent another email with the photos s/he had taken the day before of the marks on AV1’s hands. FM1 stated the one on AV1’s palm happened last Wednesday or Thursday (October 29 or 30, 2025). On November 3, 2025, FM1 took photos of three marks on AV1’s hands: one between AV1’s left thumb and forefinger, one on an unknown finger, and one on the heel AV1’s right palm. The mark on AV1’s right palm was a small circular mark with the skin torn, which appeared to be healing. The other marks were difficult to discern in the photos, but FM1 described them as “pinch marks.” P1 provided the following information: · P1 received an email (P1 thought in the beginning of October 2025) from FM1 stating that AV1 said the SP pinched AV1. AV1 did not say when it happened, so P1 reviewed video footage for a few different days and could not see anything that looked like pinching. · A few weeks later (P1 thought in the first week of November 2025), P1 received another email about AV1 saying the SP pinched him/her. FM1 sent photos as well. P1 and other members of the executive team looked at different dates and found an incident where AV1 started crying after the SP grabbed his/her hand. The SP did not appear to be aggressive, or losing his/her patience with AV1. The SP led AV1 to his/her cubby, AV1 started to cry, and when AV1 sat back down, the SP was touching AV1’s hand that was the same hand as the photo FM1 provided. · FM1 told P1 that s/he had mentioned what was happening to FM2 and FM2 shared similar concerns. By the time P1 spoke with FM2, the facility had already made the decision to terminate the SP’s employment. P1 did not provide information about what FM2 said about the allegations. P2 stated that the classroom was split into sections, and s/he worked on one side and the SP worked on the other. P2 “never” saw the SP pinch the children’s hands. P2 said the SP had “very good” interactions with the children and no child ever told P2 that the SP pinched him/her. The SP provided the following information: · The SP worked in a preschool classroom with P2. In the summer of 2025, the SP stated that they had some children with behavior issues such as throwing toys at staff persons, bruising staff persons, and kicking. The SP asked facility management for help and sometimes there were other staff persons to help with these situations, but not all the time. · P1 told the SP that AV1 said the SP scratched AV1. The SP said that s/he talked “sternly” to the children to tell them to not do certain things, but the SP denied scratching AV1. The SP stated that AV1 did not always listen (i.e. it was time to sit down at the tables to color, and AV1 got up and ran away from the table). The SP said that s/he had grabbed AV1’s wrist (not hand) to prevent AV1 from running away. · The SP did not notice that s/he had ever pinched or scratched AV1 or other children, even “accidentally.” The facility reviewed video from October 29 and 30, 2025, and only identified one concerning interaction. Video footage of that incident showed that on October 29, 2025, at 9:41 a.m., the class was sitting down for a snack. AV1 was on the floor. The SP walked over to AV1, took something off AV1’s finger, led AV1 by his/her right hand over to the cubbies to put something away, and then led AV1 back to sit at the table. The SP held onto AV1’s hand between AV1’s wrist and first set of knuckles. The DCYF investigator could not tell how AV1 responded to the SP during this interaction. The facility’s Behavior Guidance Policies and Procedures stated, “Guidance will be positive and constructive in nature and will include such methods as modeling positive behaviors, redirection away from problems and toward constructive activities, teaching acceptable alternative behaviors, praise of appropriate behavior, or if necessary gentle physical restrain, such as holding to ensure the safety of children and staff. Corporal (physical) punishment of any kind is prohibited. This includes but is not limited to: rough handling, shoving, jerking, hair pulling, arm pulling, pinching, or harsh squeezing.” P1, P2, and the SP each received training on the facility’s Behavior Guidance Policy and the Reporting of Maltreatment of Minors Act. This report was cross reported to law enforcement, but law enforcement did not investigate. Conclusion: A. Maltreatment: Information was provided that in September 2025, AV1 told FM1 that the SP pinched AV1. FM1 said there was a “skin tear,” but FM1 thought maybe it was an accident, so FM1 did not let anyone at the facility know. In early October 2025, AV1 said the SP pinched AV1 again when AV1 was not listening. FM1 told P1 who reviewed video footage and did not see anything. On November 3, 2025, FM1 sent P1 an email stating that AV1 said the SP pinched him/her on the previous Wednesday or Thursday (October 29 or 30, 2025), and FM1 provided photos on November 4, 2025. After the third incident, FM1 spoke with another parent (likely FM2) who shared that AV2 said similar things about the SP’s actions. During an interview, AV2 demonstrated to the DCYF investigator that when s/he and other children did not listen, the SP dug his/her nails into the children’s palms. AV2 said it “hurt a lot” and that the SP did it to AV2, AV1, and another unspecified child. AV2 said it did not bleed but left a scratch mark. The SP stated that his/her classroom had some children with behavior issues. The SP had asked facility management for assistance and sometimes they were able to help and at other times they were not. The SP stated that s/he talked “sternly” with the children. The SP had taken AV1 by the wrist at times because AV1 tried to run away. The SP denied pinching or scratching AV1 or other children. Although the SP denied pinching or scratching AV1 and other children, both AV1 and AV2 provided consistent information to FM1 and FM2 that the SP pinched their hands, AV2 demonstrated to the DCYF investigator that the SP pinched AV2 and other children’s palms when they did not listen, and there were marks FM1 described as “scratch marks” on AV1’s hands after incidents in September 2005 and at the end of October 2025. Although AV2 said s/he had scratch marks after the SP pinched him/her, there was no additional information about any marks left on AV2, so it was unknown whether they were transient marks or injuries. Therefore, there was not a preponderance of the evidence that the SP inflicted injuries on AV2. However, there was a preponderance of the evidence that the SP pinched AV1’s and AV2’s hands. The SP’s actions represented a failure to protect AV1 and AV2 from conditions and actions that seriously endangered their physical or mental health when reasonably able to do so, and inflicted physical injuries on AV1. It was determined that neglect of AV1 and AV2 occurred, and physical abuse of AV1 occurred (“neglect” means a 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). 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. The SP was responsible for AV1 and AV2’s care and received training on the facility’s Behavior Guidance Policy, and the Reporting of Maltreatment of Minors Act. The SP was responsible for the maltreatment of AV1 and AV2. 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 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 Department of Children, Youth, and Families informed the Department of Human Services, Office of Inspector General, Background Studies Division that the SP was determined responsible for maltreatment. The determination that the SP is responsible for maltreatment is subject to appeal. On August 5, 2026, the facility was issued a Correction Order for a background study violation. 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.
|
