|
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: 1115223-CCC (Child Care Center) Investigator(s): Danielle Morrison Minnesota Department of Children, Youth, and Families 651-539-8252 Suspected Maltreatment Reported: An alleged victim (AV) wandered away from the group without staff person knowledge and was without staff person supervision for approximately five minutes. Date of Incident(s): September 18, 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 1, 2025; from documentation at the facility and through four interviews conducted with a supervisory staff person (SP1), a facility staff person (SP2), a facility volunteer (V), and the AV’s family member (FM). The AV was 35 months old and enrolled in a preschool class at the time of the incident. The AV was not at the facility when the DCYF investigator was on site, and due to his/her age, the AV was not interviewed for this investigation. The facility was in the farm area of the Minnesota Zoo. The zoo, including the farm area, was also open to the public at the time of the incident. The zoo environment included various animals and bodies of water. There was a separate street entrance to a pickup area with a gate. Facility staff persons were able to open the gate from the inside, but it could not be opened from the outside by family members. Family members waited in their cars near the gate and when it was opened, they drove to a pickup shelter inside the gate, dropped off or picked up their child, and then circled around to exit back through the gate. The goat barn was in the middle of several farm buildings (the dairy barn, the farmhouse, and the family farm). There were two entrances, one on each side of the goat barn. One entrance led to the facility and an outdoor classroom space, and the other entrance led to the road that led toward the pickup shelter. The pickup shelter was approximately 282 feet away from that entrance to the goat barn. The FM provided the following information: · On September 18, 2025, around 11:10 a.m., the FM arrived at the car line to pick up the AV. The gate was still closed, so the cars could not approach the designated pickup shelter for the facility. The FM saw the AV walk to the bench in the designated pickup shelter. The FM said the AV was “fine,” but looked “hot” as his/her skin was red. · The FM called for the AV to come to the gate, but the AV did not want to get off the bench. The FM said the AV knows s/he is not supposed to get off the bench. The FM said another child’s family member texted SP1 that the AV was sitting on the bench. · About five to ten minutes later, SP2 arrived and apologized that the staff persons took their eyes off the AV “for a minute.” The FM had no prior concerns about the facility staff persons. Prior to the incident, the FM told the facility staff persons that the AV was “kind of a runner,” and the facility staff persons said they could “handle” that. SP1 and SP2 provided the following consistent information: · On September 18, 2025, between 11 and 11:30 a.m., SP1 and SP2 were with a group of 16 children, including the AV. The V was also assisting the group. The group left the outdoor classroom and went to the goat barn. The group lined up outside of the outside classroom and everyone was accounted for, including the AV (SP1 stated a headcount was performed). · The group used a walking rope for the children to hold onto. The AV was at the front of the line holding SP2’s hand. Once the group arrived at the goat barn, and all children were still accounted for, SP2 told the children it was okay to let go of the rope. · There was a child who did not like the sound of the goats, so SP2 took him/her right outside of the entrance the group entered through to find his/her noise canceling headphones. SP1 was inside the goat barn with the V handing out goat food to the children. SP1 stated that about one to two minutes after entering the goat barn, while handing out goat food, s/he performed another headcount and did not see the AV. · SP1 asked SP2 if s/he could see the AV. SP2 could not so s/he started to search for the AV. SP2 used a radio to call nearby zoo staff persons to assist in looking for the AV. SP2 then walked along the road the class took to the pickup shelter. · SP2 found the AV sitting on the bench and brought the AV back to the group. SP1 and SP2 then brought the whole group to the pickup shelter. SP2 apologized to the FM and SP1 explained what had happened. SP2 thought it was a couple of minutes that the AV was unaccounted for, and SP1 was not sure of the exact time they arrived at goat barn, but at 11:21 a.m., SP2 used the radio to let SP1 know that s/he found the AV, so SP1 thought between three to five minutes. SP1 said staff were trained to do name to face attendance and perform “frequent” headcounts. SP2 stated staff persons were trained to perform a count and confirm the correct number of children before leaving an area, and then do that again when the group arrived at the destination. The V stated that on September 18, 2025, s/he was with SP1 and SP2 and a group of children in the outdoor classroom preparing to go to the goat barn. The kids lined up on a rope with rings on it, SP1 and SP2 counted that all the children were there, and they walked to the goat barn. Once inside the goat barn, the V helped the children with feeding the goats and then it was time to line the children up and bring them to where the parents picked up. The V heard a parent asking about a child, but did not hear all of what the parent was asking. Afterwards, the V asked SP2 what the parent was asking about and that was when the V heard that the AV had walked away from the group. The facility’s Risk Reduction Plan stated, “Children will be supervised at all times. Children will not walk from one area to another without direct supervision. Children are supervised by sight and sound.” Facility documentation showed that SP1 and SP2 were each trained on the facility’s Risk Reduction Plan and the Reporting of Maltreatment of Minors Act. 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: On September 18, 2025, around 11 a.m., SP1, SP2, and the V moved a group of children from the outdoor classroom to the goat barn using a ring rope. The AV was at the front of the line holding SP2’s hand and SP1 was at the back of the line. Upon arrival at the goat barn, all children were accounted for so they were told they could release the rope and SP2 let go of the AV’s hand. SP1 passed out goat food while SP2 assisted a child who did not like the noise of the goat barn. While SP1 passed out goat food, s/he performed another headcount and did not see the AV. SP1 asked SP2 if s/he saw the AV, and when SP2 said s/he did not, they began a search for the AV. At 11:10 a.m., the FM waited in the parent pick up car line when s/he saw the AV walk to the pickup shelter and sit on the bench. The FM tried to get the AV’s attention while another parent texted SP1 that the AV was at the pickup shelter. About five to ten minutes later, SP2 arrived at the pickup shelter and brought the AV back to the group. Once the whole group arrived at the pickup shelter, SP2 apologized to the FM. The AV, who was 35 months old, was without staff person supervision for approximately five to ten minutes, which was a violation of 142B.01, subdivision 27 and Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0045, subpart 1, item A. While the AV was without staff person supervision s/he was exposed to hazards such as unknown community persons, animals, and the physical terrain of the MN Zoo which included bodies of water. There was a preponderance of the evidence that there was a failure to protect the AV 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 the AV with 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 the AV was unsupervised by SP1 and SP2 when the AV left the goat barn, SP1’s and SP’s actions were determined to be a nonmaltreatment mistake for the following reasons: 1) SP1 and SP2 had not been determined responsible for a similar incident that resulted in a finding of maltreatment; 2) SP1 and SP2 had not been determined to have committed a similar nonmaltreatment mistake under this paragraph; 3) there were no injuries to the AV as a result of this incident; 4) except for the period when the incident occurred, the facility, SP1, and SP2 were in compliance with all licensing and certification requirements relevant to the incident; and 5) at the time of the incident, SP1 and SP2 were performing duties as required. The nonmaltreatment mistake to the AV by SP1 and SP2 was not maltreatment. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 260E.35, subdivision 6, paragraph (b), the 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 and followed by SP1 and SP2. To reduce the risk of a similar incident in the future, the facility made changes to animal barn activity logistics and supervision practices. Action Taken by Department of Children, Youth, and Families, Office of Inspector General: SP1 and SP2 were each not determined as a perpetrator of maltreatment of the AV because the Department of Children, Youth, and Families found that the incident for which SP1 and SP2 were responsible met the criteria to be determined a nonmaltreatment mistake. SP1 and SP2 were notified by the Office of Inspector General that any future incident of possible neglect of an alleged victim for which SP1 or SP2 is responsible might not be considered a nonmaltreatment mistake. On October 28, 2026, the facility was issued a Correction Order for the violation 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.
|
