|
August 5, 2026 Jessica Sylvester, Authorized Agent Little Newtons Operating, LLC 9249 Osborn Ave. NW South Haven, MN 55382 License Number: 1111725 (Child Care Center) Report No: 202505551 NOTICE: This amended reconsideration decision supersedes the original reconsideration decision issued on July 22, 2026. While the outcome remains unchanged, the reconsideration determination for Citations 1 and 2 have been modified. Specifically, the issuance of the Order for Conditional License at issue was May 25, 2026, and your previous Order for Conditional License issued January 24, 2024 has expired. Dear Jessica Sylvester: This matter arises from an Order of Conditional License issued by the Minnesota Department of Children, Youth, and Families (“DCYF”), on May 29, 2026. On June 2, 2026, DCYF received your request for reconsideration of the two citations issued in the Order of Conditional License. A. Reconsideration of the Citations Identified in the Order of Conditional License Citation 1: False and Misleading Information As a result of an investigation conducted on July 14, 2025, DCYF determined that an administrative staff person knowingly withheld relevant information or provided false or misleading information to the commissioner in relation to a maltreatment investigation. It was reported that on June 23, 2025, an alleged victim (AV) was on a facility playground without staff persons’ knowledge or supervision for approximately 23 minutes. The AV was found by a family member, unharmed. DCYF investigated the report as suspected neglect. During a site visit on July 14, 2025, a facility administrator (P1) told the DCYF investigator that the AV was within sight and sound of other staff persons throughout the June 23, 2025, incident and was unsupervised for “less than a minute.” However, other information obtained during the investigation showed that on a date prior to the site visit, P1 informed staff persons that the AV was unsupervised for 23 minutes during the incident. In addition, video footage of the incident showed that the AV was unsupervised for 23 minutes, and P1 acknowledged in his/her interview that s/he reviewed video footage of the incident. During a follow up interview, when P1 was presented with information that the AV was unsupervised for 23 minutes, P1 said s/he “rewatched” the video footage and “would have to recant” his/her original statement. Statute Violated: The commissioner may suspend or revoke a license, or impose a fine if a license holder knowingly withholds relevant information from or gives false or misleading information to the commissioner in connection with an application for a license, in connection with the background study status of an individual, during an investigation, or regarding compliance with applicable laws or rules. Minnesota Statutes, section 142B.18, subdivision 4, paragraph (a), subparagraph (3). Request for reconsideration: P1 stated that P1 disagrees with the conclusion that P1 “intentionally provided false or misleading information during the investigation.” P1 stated that during P1’s initial interview with the investigator that P1 was “recounting both P1’s initial understanding of the incident as it had been communicated to P1 and P1’s recollection of the footage at that time.” P1 also stated that P1’s “initial understanding, based on the first communication P1 received regarding the incident was that the child had been within sight and sound and that the lapse in supervision had been brief.” P1 acknowledged that P1’s “recollection was inaccurate.” P1 stated that P1 “took steps to correct and clarify that information.” P1 stated that “memory and recollection are not always perfect.” P1 cited psychological research, and investigative best practices recognize that individuals attempting to reconstruct events after the fact... can unintentionally confuse details or inaccurately recall aspects of an incident while attempting to piece together information from multiple sources, conversations, and video review.” P1 stated, “At the time of my interview, I was attempting to piece together information from numerous sources while also managing the emotional and operational impact of a serious incident involving a child in our care. My statements reflected my understanding and recollection at that time.” P1 stated, “the information you provided to the investigator was based upon multiple factors, including initial communications from leadership staff that were present at the time of the incident, interviews with teachers involved, and review of available video footage.” P1 requested that DCYF consider P1’s history and working relationship with your licensor. P1 requested “that DCYF carefully consider whether the evidence supports a conclusion that I knowingly or intentionally provided false information.” P1 requested “reconsideration of the one-year conditional license imposed as a result of this investigation.” P1 requested that if the order for conditional license is not rescinded “that the facility be required to serve only the remaining five months of conditional status necessary to equal a total of one year from the date of the incident.” DCYF’s response: Facts: · On June 23, 2025, AV (child) was left unsupervised on the playground for 23 minutes. · There were four video segments of the incident that were time stamped. The video segments showed that AV was left on the climber on the playground for 23 minutes from 4:54:16pm to 5:19:35pm. · AV’s parent reported the maltreatment of neglect for lack of necessary supervision to DCYF. · Not one mandated reporter from Red Balloon Childcare made a report of suspected maltreatment or maltreatment for neglect for lack of necessary supervision of AV to DCYF. · On July 14, 2025, DCYF Investigator (Investigator) investigated the report of maltreatment of AV for neglect for lack of necessary supervision. · On July 14, 2025, the Investigator interviewed four staff persons including the Executive Director and Regional Manager (P1), assistant director (P2), and two other staff people (OSPs). · P1 is the Executive Director and Regional Manager. P1’s Morning Investigation Interview with Investigator · P1’s initial investigation interview started at 9:12am. · P1 told the Investigator that AV was left unsupervised on the playground on June 23, 2025. · P1 stated that P2 informed him/her of AV being left unsupervised on the playground. · P1 stated that AV was left on the playground for less than one minute (emphasis added) and was within sight and sound (emphasis added) from when Staff Person (SP) left AV on the playground and when P2 went to get AV. · P1 stated that s/he reviewed the video footage of AV being left unsupervised on the playground. · P1 stated that after consulting and obtaining permission from the CEO, s/he terminated SP for leaving AV unsupervised on the playground. · On June 24, 2025, P1 terminated SP for inadequate supervision of AV related to the incident on June 23, 2025. · P1 stated that on June 25, 2025, s/he held an emergency staff meeting to discuss AV being left unsupervised on the playground and to review supervision requirements. P1’s Afternoon Investigation Interview with Investigator · P1’s second investigation interview started at 12:55pm. · P1 stated that s/he had rewatched the video footage. · P1 stated that s/he would have to recant his/her previous statement that AV was left unsupervised for less than one minute, and that AV was not within sight and sound the entire time. · P1 stated that she was uncertain about whether s/he told staff at the emergency meeting that AV was left unsupervised for 23 minutes. · P1 stated that s/he would have to look at the video footage to determine the time AV was left unsupervised on the playground, “at one point s/he had written it down.” · P1 terminated SP on June 24, 2025, for four incidents of inadequate supervision occurring on July 15, 2024, February 18, 2025, June 18, 2025, and June 23, 2025. Investigator’s Investigation Interviews with two Other Staff Persons (OSPs) · OSP’s investigation interview started at 10:51am. OSP stated that P1 told staff at the emergency staff meeting on June 25, 2025, that AV had been left unsupervised for 23 minutes. · Another OSP’s investigation interview started at 11:26am. This OSP stated that P1 told staff at the emergency staff meeting on June 25, 2025, that AV had been left unsupervised for 20 minutes. P2’s Investigation Interview with Investigator · P2’s investigation interview started at 9:55am. · P2 stated that another OSP called him/her at 5:19pm and informed P2 that AV was left unsupervised on the playground. · P2 stated that s/he saw AV on the playground with AV’s grandmother and sister who both reached AV before P2. · P2 stated that s/he informed P1 that AV was left unsupervised on the playground. · P2 stated that s/he reviewed the video footage of AV being left unsupervised on the playground. · P2 stated that s/he did not watch the video footage of the classroom because s/he was not conducting the investigation and instead left it to P1 to conduct the investigation. Analysis: DCYF determined that P1 knowingly withheld relevant information or provided false or misleading information to the commissioner in relation to a maltreatment investigation. The commissioner may suspend or revoke a license, or impose a fine if a license holder knowingly withholds relevant information from or gives false or misleading information to the commissioner in connection with an investigation, or regarding compliance with applicable laws or rules. During a maltreatment investigation for neglect for AV being left unsupervised on the playground the Investigator received different and conflicting investigative statements regarding how long AV was left unsupervised. First, during the first investigation interview starting at 9:21am, P1 told the Investigator that AV was left on the playground for “less than one minute” (emphasis added) and was “within sight and sound” (emphasis added) from when SP left AV on the playground and when P2 went to get AV. P1 knowingly withheld relevant information or provided false or misleading information to the commissioner during P1’s first investigation interview. However, during a separate investigation interview starting at 10:51am, one OSP told the Investigator that AV was left unsupervised for 23 minutes. Furthermore, during another separate investigation interview at 11:26am, another OSP told the Investigator that AV was left unsupervised for 20 minutes. P1 stated that on June 25, 2025, s/he held an emergency staff meeting to discuss AV being left unsupervised on the playground and to review supervision requirements. Both OSPs confirmed that they learned that AV was left unsupervised on the playground for 20 minutes and 23 minutes during the emergency staff meeting on June 25, 2025. Both OSPs stated that the administration held and led the emergency staff meeting. Neither OSPs had independent knowledge of how long AV was left unsupervised on the playground except for what P1 had told OSPs at the emergency staff meeting. Second, during P1’s morning investigation interview, P1 stated that s/he reviewed the video footage of AV being left unsupervised on the playground. There were four video segments of the incident that were time stamped. The video segments showed that AV was left on the climber on the playground for 23 minutes from 4:54:16pm to 5:19:35pm. P1 knowingly withheld relevant information or provided false or misleading information to the commissioner during P1’s second investigation interview, too. The Investigator interviewed P1 again after the Investigator conducted additional investigative interviews with P2 and OSPs. P1’s afternoon interview started at 12:55pm. P1 stated that s/he had rewatched the video footage. P1 stated that s/he would have to recant his/her previous statement that AV was left unsupervised for less than one minute, and that AV was not within sight and sound the entire time. P1 stated that she was uncertain about whether s/he told staff at the emergency meeting that AV was left unsupervised for 23 minutes. P1 stated that s/he would have to look at the video footage to determine the time AV was left unsupervised on the playground, “at one point s/he had written it down.” P1 acknowledged that P1’s “recollection was inaccurate.” P1 stated that P1 “took steps to correct and clarify that information.” The commissioner does not find P1’s explanation sufficient or correct because P1 would not concede nor correct the investigative record that AV had been left unsupervised for 23 minutes during P1’s second interview even though P1 stated that P1 had rewatched the video footage between P1’s first and second interviews and that “at one pointP1 had written the time down.” In other words, P1 had an opportunity to correct P1’s statements during P1’s second interview, but P1 denied knowing that AV had been left unsupervised for 23 minutes on the playground despite “at one point P1 had written the time down.” P1 stated that “memory and recollection are not always perfect.” P1 stated psychological research, and investigative best practices recognize that individuals attempting to reconstruct events after the fact... can unintentionally confuse details or inaccurately recall aspects of an incident while attempting to piece together information from multiple sources, conversations, and video review.” The duration of time of “less than one minute” vs. 23 minutes is significantly different and does not lead to confusion or mistake. The commissioner finds that your explanation is not supported by the evidence. Instead, the evidence supports the fact that P1 conducted the investigation into SP leaving AV unsupervised on the playground, watched all the four video segments showing that AV was left on the playground for 23 minutes, notated and wrote the time that AV was left outside down on paper, consulted with the CEO for approval to terminate SP, terminated SP and held an emergency team meeting where P1 told all staff present that AV was left outside for 23 minutes. Despite that, P1, the Executive Director and Regional Manager of the program, told the DCYF investigator that the AV was left outside for less than a minute and was within sight and sound of the staff person that left the AV on the playground. Citation 1 is affirmed because P1, Executive Director of your program, who is also the Regional Manager, knowingly withheld relevant information or provided false or misleading information to the commissioner when P1 stated that AV was left on the playground for “less than one minute” (emphasis added) and was “within sight and sound.” Citation 2: Failure to Report Maltreatment Based on the maltreatment investigation, DCYF determined that two administrative staff persons (P1 and P2) had knowledge of the incident of maltreatment but did not make a report as required. Specifically, on June 23, 2025, a staff person at the facility notified P2 of the incident, and on the same date, P2 notified P1 of the incident. However, no mandated reporter at the facility reported the incident as required. When asked why s/he did not report the incident, P1 said that “based on guidance by upper management,” s/he did not believe the incident needed to be reported. Statute Violated: Mandatory reporters include a person who knows or has reason to believe a child is being maltreated, as defined in section 260E.03, or has been maltreated within the preceding three years shall immediately report the information to the local welfare agency, agency responsible for assessing or investigating the report, police department, county sheriff, tribal social services agency, or tribal police department if the person is: (1) a professional or professional's delegate who is engaged in the practice of the healing arts, social services, hospital administration, psychological or psychiatric treatment, child care, education, correctional supervision, probation and correctional services, or law enforcement. Minnesota Statutes, section 260E.06, subdivision 1. Request for reconsideration: Regarding failing to report the maltreatment of lack of supervision, P1 explained that “immediately after learning of the incident, P1 escalated the matter to upper management…when P1 referenced guidance from upper management, P1 did not mean that anyone instructed P1 to ignore, conceal, or avoid reporting maltreatment.” P1 stated that P1 was instructed to “evaluate the situation appropriately and do what was right.” P1 stated that P1 “did not minimize this incident internally, and P1 took corrective action immediately and seriously, and neither teacher involved in this lack of supervision is employed with you any longer.” DCYF’s response: Facts: No Mandatory Reporter Made a Report of Suspected Maltreatment · No mandatory reporter from Red Balloon Child Care Center made a report of suspected maltreatment to DCYF. · AV’s parent made the report of suspected maltreatment to DCYF. P1’s Morning Investigation Interview with Investigator · When asked whether P1 reported the incident, P1 stated, “No, based on guidance by upper management something we had to report.” · P1 stated that after consulting and obtaining permission from the CEO, s/he terminated SP for leaving AV unsupervised on the playground. · P1 terminated SP on June 24, 2025, for four incidents of inadequate supervision occurring on July 15, 2024, February 18, 2025, June 18, 2025, and June 23, 2025. · P1 stated that on June 25, 2025, s/he held an emergency staff meeting to discuss AV being left unsupervised on the playground and to review supervision requirements. P1’s Afternoon Investigation Interview with Investigator · Regarding SP’s four previous inadequate supervision incidents, P1 stated s/he was not sure if the incidents of maltreatment were reported to DCYF. · P1 stated that at the time of SP’s three previous inadequate supervision incidents that P1 was the director but s/he was on paid time off and out of state for SP’s three inadequate supervision incidents. P2’s Investigation Interview with Investigator · P2 stated that another OSP called him/her at 5:19pm and informed P2 that AV was left unsupervised on the playground. · P2 stated that s/he saw AV on the playground with AV’s grandmother and sister who both reached AV before P2. · P2 stated that s/he informed P1 that AV was left unsupervised on the playground. · P2 stated that s/he reviewed the video footage of AV being left unsupervised on the playground but did not review the classroom video footage. · P2 stated that s/he did not report AV being left on the playground to DCYF because s/he assumed P1 would report the incident. Analysis: DCYF determined that two administrative staff persons (P1 and P2) had knowledge of the incident of maltreatment but did not make a report as required. No mandatory reporter from Red Balloon Child Care Center made a report of suspected maltreatment or maltreatment to DCYF. Instead, AV’s parent reported AV being left unsupervised on the playground to DCYF. In P1’s interview, P1 stated that P1 did not report the incident of maltreatment because “based on guidance by upper management something we had to report.” Furthermore, P2 stated that s/he did not report AV being left on the playground to DCYF because s/he assumed P1, would report the incident. P1 and P2 are mandatory reporters and must report any known or suspected incidents of maltreatment of a child. P1 and P2 both knew that AV had been left unsupervised on the playground. The record supports that P1 knew that AV being left unsupervised on the playground for 23 minutes was an incident or suspected incident of maltreatment. The record supports that P1 understood the gravity and seriousness of AV being left unsupervised on the playground for 23 minutes because P1 investigated the incident of AV being left unsupervised on the playground. P1 wrote SP up for the incident. P1 consulted the CEO seeking approval to terminate SP, and P1 terminated SP for the four incidents of lack of providing necessary supervision. In your request for reconsideration, P1 stated that P1 was instructed to “evaluate the situation appropriately and do what was right.” P1, P2 and all mandatory Red Balloon Child Care staff were required to report the incident or suspected incident of maltreatment to DCYF. Neither P1 nor P2 reported the incident of maltreatment to DCYF. No mandatory reporter from Red Balloon Child Care Center made a report of suspected maltreatment related to AV being left unsupervised on the playground for 23 minutes. P1 did not do what was “right” or legally compliant. P1’s failure to report the suspected incident of maltreatment was wrong. P1’s intentional failure to report was not compliant with the necessary rules and laws. P1 and P2 failing to report was wrong. Citation 2 is affirmed because P1 and P2 failed to report the incident of AV being left on the playground for 23 minutes to DCYF. B. Reconsideration of the Conditional License Under Minnesota Statutes, section 142B.16, subdivision 1(a), when issuing a conditional license, the Commissioner must consider the nature, chronicity, or severity of the violation of the law or rule and the effect of the violation on the health, safety, or rights of persons served by the program. The Commissioner has considered the nature, chronicity, and severity of the licensing violation and determined that a conditional license is warranted. · Nature and Severity: o You provided false or misleading information in a child maltreatment investigation. o Failed to report suspected maltreatment o Failed to comply with applicable laws Childcare license holders must comply with all applicable rules and laws to ensure the necessary care, health, and safety of all children in the license holders’ care. Knowingly withholding relevant information from or giving false or misleading information to the commissioner during a maltreatment investigation threatens the health, welfare, and safety of children because it undermines the foundation of the system used to protect children. The system to intervene and prevent maltreatment to children. DCYF relies on license holders and their staff, who are mandatory reporters, to comply with all applicable rules and law including cooperating with any maltreatment investigation related to child care licensing and compliance. Cooperation during a maltreatment investigation includes providing relevant and truthful information to the commissioner to ensure health, welfare, and child safety. DCYF and the commissioner rely on mandatory reporters to provide relevant and truthful information in maltreatment investigations to intervene and prevent maltreatment to children and protect the health, welfare, and safety for all children in licensed child care settings. P1’s intentional withholding and providing false and misleading information in the underlying maltreatment investigation undermined the maltreatment reporting system and threatened the health, welfare, and safety of AV and all children in your child care center. The public policy of this state is to protect children whose health or welfare may be jeopardized through maltreatment… Intervention and prevention efforts must address immediate concerns for child safety and the ongoing risk of maltreatment and should engage the protective capacities of families… it is the intent …to protect children and promote child safety; Make the home, school, and community safe for children by promoting responsible child care in all settings, including through the reporting of child maltreatment. Minnesota Statutes, section 260E.01, subsections 1 and 3. License holders must provide safe and responsible child care including reporting of incidents of suspected child maltreatment and incidents of child maltreatment. P1, P2 and all Red Balloon Child Care Center staff are a mandatory reporter and must report all suspected incidents of maltreatment. The commissioner notes that during the investigation P1 provided documentation that P1 had issued two warning and coaching for the staff person involved in this maltreatment determination on three prior instances, including two which involved a child left unattended. These three prior incidents involving the SP occurred on July 15, 2024, February 18, 2025, and June 18, 2025, according to the documentation P1 provided, yet they were never reported to DCYF. P1 failed to report any of these suspected incidents of maltreatment even though P1 took personnel actions to discipline SP. This repeated non-compliance is unacceptable. DCYF and the commissioner rely on mandatory reporters to protect the health, welfare and safety for all children in licensed child care settings. There is sufficient evidence to prove that you have a history of non-compliance with rules and statutes, specifically, but not limited to failing to report suspected incidents of maltreatment. The nature and severity of providing false or misleading information in a child maltreatment investigation, failing to report suspected maltreatment and failing to comply with applicable laws justifies the order of conditional license issued on May 29, 2026, alone. Furthermore, providing false or misleading information in a child maltreatment investigation, failing to report suspected maltreatment and failing to comply with applicable laws combined with your previous licensing actions justify the order of conditional license issued on May 29, 2026. · Chronicity: You were on a conditional license issued on January 24, 2024, which is now expired. That Order of Conditional License related to 26 violations, 12 which were repeat violations. Your program received its license on October 3, 2022. Since that time, your program has demonstrated a history of noncompliance with licensing rules and statutes. You have been issued two conditional licenses, 15 correction orders and one fine order. The information below summarizes this history: o May 29, 2026 - Conditional License (this order): 2 violations o December 17, 2025 - Correction Order: 1 violation o December 8, 2025 - Correction Order: 3 violations (2 repeat) o November 7, 2025 - Correction Order: 1 violation (1 repeat) o September 30, 2025 - Correction Order: 6 violations (6 repeat) o June 12, 2025 - Correction Order: 13 violations (12 repeat) o March 24, 2025 - Correction Order: 9 violations (8 repeat) o December 12, 2024 - Correction Order: 9 violations (6 repeat) o August 30, 2024 - Correction Order: 7 violations (7 repeat) o July 25, 2024 - Correction Order: 1 violation (1 repeat) o June 24, 2024 - Correction Order: 10 violations (8 repeat) o April 4, 2024 - Correction Order: 16 violations (6 repeat) o January 24, 2024 – Conditional License: 26 violations (12 repeat) o December 12, 2023 - Order to Pay a Fine: $200 [Background Study Fine] o November 2, 2023 - Correction Order: 11 violations (10 repeat) o July 26, 2023 - Correction Order: 25 violation (13 repeat) o May 10, 2023 - Correction Order: 25 violations o November 8, 2022 - Correction Order: 1 violation Due to the serious and chronic nature of these violations, and need to monitor the program for compliance with applicable licensing laws and rules, and to ensure the health and safety of children served by the program, the Commissioner hereby affirms the Order of Conditional License issued on May 29, 2026. The period of the conditional license is one year. The terms of the conditional license will take effect from the date of this reconsideration decision and run for a period of one year, because the terms have been stayed pending the administrative reconsideration process. C. Terms of the Conditional License In addition to the licensing rules and statutes for child care, you are required to comply with the following terms: 1. Within 15 days from receipt of this order, you must provide written notification of the conditional status of your license to all parents/legal guardians. Prior to providing the written notification to all parents/legal guardians, you must submit the written notice to your DCYF licensor for approval. The notification must specify the length of time of the conditional status of your license, the reasons your license was made conditional, and must include either a copy of the Order of Conditional License or an offer to provide a copy of the order upon request. 2. You must develop a detailed supervision plan to ensure that children will be supervised by program staff persons at all times, consistent with the definition of supervision under Minnesota Statutes, section 142B.01, subdivision 27, and in compliance with the risk reduction plan requirements under Minnesota Statutes, section 142B.54, subdivision 2, paragraph (f), (1) through (7). Within 30 days from receipt of this order, you must submit the supervision plan to your licensor for approval. Within 30 days after the supervision plan is approved by your licensor, you must provide training to all staff on the supervision plan and maintain documentation of the training in each staff person’s personnel record. You must also ensure new hires receive the same training and document the training in each new hire’s personnel record. 3. Within 45 days from receipt of this order, you must ensure that all staff persons have successfully completed training as required under Minnesota Statutes, section 142B.54, subparts 1 and 2, and Minnesota Statues, chapter 260E. You also must ensure that new hires successfully complete all applicable training. You must maintain documentation of the completed training in each staff person’s personnel record. Ongoing Monitoring: Your Licensor will monitor your compliance with these terms and with all the child care rules and laws. This will include unannounced visits. If you fail to demonstrate substantial compliance with child foster care requirements or with the terms of your conditional license that are provided above, DCYF may take an additional licensing sanction, including a revocation of your license. This is a final agency decision. The Commissioner commends you for your ongoing commitment to the family child care community and encourages you to continue to work cooperatively with your licensor. If you have any questions regarding the Order of Conditional License, please contact Marie Tierney, Supervisor, 651.539.8273. Sincerely,
Hlee Vang, Attorney Legal Counsel’s Office Office of Inspector General
|
