|
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: 801870-CCC (Child Care Center) Investigator(s): Van Mulheron Minnesota Department of Children, Youth, and Families 651-539-8253 Suspected Maltreatment Reported: It was reported that an alleged victim (AV) was left at a community park without two staff persons’ (SP1 and SP2) knowledge or supervision for approximately three to five minutes. The AV was found unharmed by a community person. Date of Incident(s): September 25, 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 9, 2025; from documentation at the facility; and through four interviews conducted with a supervisory staff person (P2) and three staff persons (P1, SP1, and SP2). P1 was also the AV’s family member. At the time of the incident the AV was 28 months old and was enrolled in the older toddler classroom. Due to the AV’s age the AV was not interviewed. The facility provided care for infants through preschool children. The facility provided field trips to the children. Children were transported by a vehicle, strollers, or walked to their destination. The facility had two strollers that were used for walks. One stroller had six seats (three rows with two seats each) and the other had two seats. Each seat had five-point harnesses that were used to secure the children onto the seats. The six-seat stroller had three canopies that could be detached in the middle of each row. Northwest of the facility were two parks along the Fishhook River: Skoe Park was on the east side of the river, Red Bridge Park was on the west side of the river, and the two parks were connected by a pedestrian bridge over the river. Both parks had access to open water, community persons, and vehicle traffic. There was a grassy area along a walking path in Red Bridge Park that had a red footbridge that went over a planting bed. There was a public bathroom at Skoe Park that was approximately 1,000 feet away from the grassy area with the red footbridge at Red Bridge Park. To get to the Skoe Park bathroom from the Red Bridge Park grassy area, it was necessary to travel approximately 200 feet along a walking path with open water alongside it, then across the pedestrian bridge that went over the river (about 200 feet), and an additional approximate 600 feet into Skoe Park. P1 said that on an unspecified date, SP1 and SP2 took the toddler class, including the AV, to the park and that the class “regularly” walked to the park depending on the weather. P1 was told a “couple of hours” after the incident happened that the AV had “left the stroller” and “wandered” away from SP1 and SP2 as they pushed the other children in the strollers to the bathroom. The AV was found by a community person unharmed, and SP1 and SP2 were not aware that the AV was missing for three to five minutes. P1 then checked on the AV said that the AV was “fine.” When they arrived home P1 asked the AV, “What happened?” The AV responded, “They lost me.” P1 had no prior concerns about SP1 or SP2. SP1 and SP2 provided the following consistent information: · On an unspecified date, SP1 and SP2 took seven children, including the AV, on a field trip to Red Bridge Park. They took two strollers with canopies attached and walked to the park with additional toys for the children to play with. SP1 and SP2 each said that they tried to take the class to the park daily when the weather was nice. On the day of the incident, the children played at Red Bridge Park in the grassy area near the red footbridge with the toys and sticks that they had found. · When it was time to leave, SP1 and SP2 called all the children to bring their sticks to the strollers. SP1 and SP2 counted the children, including the AV, at the strollers and each began to help the children sit in the strollers and buckled the children into their seats. SP2 helped four or five children, including the AV, onto the six-seat stroller. SP2 said that s/he began to buckle the children in the six-seat stroller but could not remember if s/he had buckled the AV. SP1 and SP2 each said that the AV was sitting near the back of the six-seat stroller. SP1 said that they were “struggling” with the children because some of children were “playing a game” of unbuckling themselves. Once the children were all in the strollers SP1 and SP2 did not recount the children, and then they walked to the Skoe Park bathroom. SP1 pushed the two-seat stroller and SP2 pushed the six-seat stroller. · SP1 and SP2 arrived at the bathroom as a community person was leaving the bathroom. SP1 and SP2 began to unbuckle the children. SP1 and SP2 counted the children, and they saw that they had six children instead of seven. SP1 went into the bathroom to make sure that none of the children had entered the bathroom ahead of them. When SP1 exited the bathroom SP1 and SP2 confirmed that the AV was missing. SP2 said that s/he would supervise the children at the bathroom while SP1 looked for the AV. · SP1 found the AV with the community person that had left the bathroom, near a parking lot at the intersection of a driveway and pedestrian path near the park exit. SP1 said that the AV was not crying and was just walking near the community person and just “being [him/herself].” SP1 walked the AV to the bathroom and then SP1 and SP2 walked the children back to the facility and notified P2 of the incident. · SP1 said that the AV must have “slipped” out of the stroller and then got “distracted” by something and then must have followed behind them as they walked to the bathroom. SP2 said that the AV must have “slipped” out of the stroller and “hid” behind a tree or the play bridge because SP2 said that the AV was not in his/her view when they left the park. SP1 said that the AV was able to unbuckle him/herself from the stroller and that unbuckling was a game to the AV. SP1 and SP2 said that due to the canopies on the strollers they could not see the children clearly underneath them. · SP1 and SP2 said that the families had signed a “blanket” permission form for the children to go to the park. SP1 and SP2 did not take a list of children with them but each said that they were trained to count the children frequently and to count the children when they transitioned from one area to another. · SP1 and SP2 each said that the AV was exposed to the danger of open water and community persons who use the park and pathways. P2 provided information that was consistent with SP1 and SP2. P2 had no prior concerns about SP1 or SP2. The facility’s Active Supervision Policy and Risk Reduction Plan stated that, “All staff … are responsible for making sure no child is ever left unsupervised,” and “Staff always need to be able to account for the children in their care. They continuously scan the entire environment to know where everyone is and what they are doing. They also count the children frequently. This is especially important during transitions when children move from one location to another.” The facility’s Field Trip Policy stated that staff persons were to count the children prior to loading the vehicle or getting in line for a walk, complete a field trip attendance checklist to ensure all children are buckled into the vehicle or stroller or in the line to walk, and count children as they get off of the bus or get out of a stroller to ensure everyone is accounted for. Facility records showed that prior to the incident P1-P3, SP1, and SP2 were trained on the facility’s Active Supervision Policy, Field Trip Policy, Risk Reduction Plan, and the Reporting of Maltreatment of Minors Act. Relevant Rules and/or Statutes: Minnesota Statutes, section 142B.01, subdivision 27, and Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0045, subpart 1, item A, state that a child must have supervision at all times and that supervision is defined as occurring when 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.
Conclusion: A. Maltreatment: Information was consistent that on September 25, 2025, the AV, who was 28 months old, was left unsupervised at a community park, which was a violation of Minnesota Statutes, section 142B.01, subdivision 27, and Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0045, subpart 1, item A, when SP1 and SP2 took the rest of the class to the bathroom. SP1 and SP2 each acknowledged that although they counted the children when they placed them into their strollers before heading to the bathroom, the children were “playing a game” of unbuckling themselves, and neither SP1 nor SP2 counted the children after they finished buckling the children into their strollers. SP1 and SP2 then took the other children across a bridge over the river, and approximately 1,000 feet away, before they noticed the AV was not with the group. SP1 went to look for the AV and found him/her with a community person near a driveway and parking lot. The AV was unsupervised for approximately three to five minutes. Although the AV was not injured, the AV was 28 months old and alone at a community park, without staff knowledge. The AV was exposed to open water that surrounded the park and was underneath the walking bridge. In addition, the AV was on a pathway that was used by community persons and had access to areas with vehicle traffic. It was unlikely that the AV would be able to provide for him/herself in an emergency and no staff persons were aware that the AV was not in the strollers in the event of an emergency and would not have been able to intervene to protect the AV. Therefore, there was a preponderance of the evidence that there was a failure to supply the AV with necessary care and 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. 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. SP1’s and SP2’s actions were determined to be a nonmaltreatment mistake for the following reasons: 1) SP1 and SP2 had not been determined responsible for a previous incident that resulted in a finding of maltreatment; 2) SP1 and SP2 had not previously been determined to have committed a non-maltreatment 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 requirements relevant to the incident. 5) At the time of the incident, SP1 and SP2 were performing job related duties. The non-maltreatment 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 that their policies and procedures were adequate but not followed. The facility updated their Active Supervision Policy and Field Trip Policy and trained all staff persons on the updated policies. Action Taken by Department of Children, Youth, and Families, Office of Inspector General: SP1 and SP2 were 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 the SP is responsible might not be considered a nonmaltreatment mistake. On November 4, 2026, the facility was issued a Correction Order for the violations outlined in this report. Certification: The information collection procedures followed in this investigation were pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 260E.30, subdivision 6, paragraph (c). All individuals that are subjects of data in this investigation have the right to obtain private data on themselves which was collected, created, or maintained by the Department of Children, Youth, and Families.
|
