|
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.” On June 18, 2025, most of the children and family work, including investigations of maltreatment at childcare centers, at the MN Department of Human Services (DHS) Office of Inspector General transferred to the new Minnesota Department of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF), as directed by state law. While this investigation began under DHS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 15.039, subdivision 2, this Investigation Memorandum is being issued by DCYF pursuant to that transfer.
License Number and Program Type: 1111450-CCC (Child Care Center) Investigator(s): Van Mulheron Minnesota Department of Children, Youth, and Families thu-van.mulheron@state.mn.us Suspected Maltreatment Reported: Allegation One: It was reported that three alleged victims (AV1-AV3) were in the facility parking lot without three staff persons’ (SP1-SP3) knowledge or supervision for an unknown amount of time and were found by other staff persons and a community person. Allegation Two: It was reported an alleged victim (AV4) was left on the facility’s “rear playground” without two staff persons’ (SP4 and SP6) knowledge or supervision for approximately three to four minutes. Allegation Three: It was reported an alleged victim (AV5) was left on the facility’s “front playground” without SP4’s knowledge or supervision for an unknown amount of time. Allegation Four: It was reported that two children were outside the front playground’s fence without a staff person’s (SP5) knowledge or supervision for an unknown amount of time. Date of Incident(s): Allegation One: September 26, 2024 Allegation Two: March 19, 2024 Allegation Three: October 2, 2024 Allegation Four: November 7, 2024 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 November 15, 2024; from documentation at the facility and through 18 interviews conducted with two supervisory staff persons (P1 and P2), ten staff persons (P3-P6 and SP1-SP6), a maintenance worker (MW), two community persons (CP1 and CP2), AV2’s family member (FM1), AV3’s family member (FM2), AV5’s family member (FM3). P2 and the MW were also AV1’s family members and P4 was also AV4’s family member. Attempts were made via telephone and mail to contact P6, but those attempts were unsuccessful. At the time of the incidents AV1 was 21 months old, AV2 was 2 years old, and both were enrolled in the toddler classroom. AV3 was three years old, AV4 and AV5 were four years old, and AV3 – AV5 were enrolled in the preschool classrooms. The facility used BrightWheel [a mobile application (app) platform used to communicate with families and streamline administrative functions]. The DCYF investigator observed the following during the site visit: · The facility shared a building with a senior assisted living program and was located on the west side of the building. Along the north side of the facility grounds there was a two-lane road that had a speed limit of 30 miles per hour and a driveway the led to the facility’s parking lot. · The facility had a “front playground” along its west side. To the west of the front playground there was a pond and a grassy field. A snow fence separated the field from the playground. There was a wire fence that partially separated the front playground from the parking lot that had a 10-foot gap between the facility building and the fence on one side and a 25–30-foot gap between the fence and the grassy field on the other side. In the front playground, there was a sandbox that had a slide and a dome climbing structure. Behind the sandbox there were play kitchens. (Note: The snow fence was installed in October 2024.) · Behind the facility was a “rear playground” that that was fully enclosed by a chain link fence on three sides and the facility on the fourth side, with a clear glass door that led into the facility. · Inside the rear playground door was a hallway that led into a large motor room with cubbies on the outer walls. There were preschool cubbies to the right of the hallway and then the preschool classroom. The preschool classroom had a bathroom that was located next to an exit door that to the front playground. A hallway from the large motor room led to the senior living program. The facility’s Supervision Policy stated: Staff will position themselves so they can actively observe the children. This includes, but is not limited to watching, counting, and listening.… Staff will continuously scan the entire environment, knowing exactly where each child is and what they are doing, and staff will listen closely to the children to quickly identify signs of danger.… Staff will ensure children are always within sight and sound to ensure the safety of the children.… Staff will count the children frequently.… During transitions, staff will account for all children with name to face recognition by visually identifying each child. The facility’s Playground and Sandbox Safety Policy stated: When staff are present at the sandbox area, they will adhere to the supervision policy. Staff will actively supervise the children.… A staff member will be stationed at the northeast corner of the sandbox (closest to the parking lot). A staff member will be stationed by the northwest corner of the sandbox (by the dome climber). Lastly, a staff member will be stationed at the south edge of the sandbox to oversee the kitchen play area as well as the center of the sandbox. Facility records showed that prior to the incidents SP1-SP6 and P1-P6 were trained on the facility’s Supervision Policy, Playground and Sandbox Safety Policy, and the Reporting of Maltreatment of Minors Act. Relevant Rules and Statutes: Minnesota Statutes, section 142B.01, subdivision 27, and Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0045, subpart 1, item A, states 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. Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0155, subpart 7, item C, states that an outdoor activity area must be enclosed if it is adjacent to hazards, including traffic or water. Allegation One: It was reported that AV1-AV3 were in the facility parking lot without SP1-SP3’s knowledge or supervision for an unknown amount of time and were found by other staff persons and a community person. Information obtained showed that on the day of the incident during afternoon outside time SP1-SP3 and P5 were on the front playground. SP1 typically worked in the preschool classroom. SP2 and P5 typically worked in the toddler classroom. Information was consistent that SP3 was training in the toddler classroom and was not considered to be a staff person in ratio with the children. FM1 and FM2 each said that on an unspecified date in November 2024, P1 called and told them about the incident. P1 said that AV2, AV3, and another child had “wandered” to the trees by the parking lot and were brought back to the front playground by staff persons. FM2 said that the facility put a fence in the front playground after the incident. FM1 and FM2 each had prior supervision concerns about the facility. P2 and the MW provided the following information: · On September 26, 2025, P2 and the MW arrived at the facility between 4:30 and 5 p.m. to pick up AV1. SP1, SP2, and SP3 were on the front playground with the toddler and preschool classrooms and eight children, including AV1-AV3. · As P2 and the MW approached the building CP1 was exiting the front doors. P2 said that s/he looked over to the right and saw “a child (later identified as AV2) run behind a car” in the parking lot. P2 then walked toward the playground and saw SP1 and SP2 facing the back of the playground and talking with each other. P2 “yelled” to SP1 and SP2, “Hey, there is a child outside of the playground.” P2, the MW, and CP1 then walked over toward AV2 when P2 saw AV1 run out from behind a car “five cars down” from AV2. The MW ran to AV1 as s/he stepped onto the parking lot and AV3 was behind AV1. P2 said that CP1 grabbed AV3 at the same time and AV2 walked back to the front playground. · The MW then took AV1 inside the facility and CP1 walked AV3 to SP2. SP2 said that s/he “did not notice” the children were out of the playground. CP1 then left the facility. P2 then pulled up BrightWheel to make sure all the children were accounted for before s/he went into the facility to call P1. · P2 and the MW said that at the time of the incident CP2 was leaving the facility in his/her vehicle. The MW said that CP2 “slammed” on his/her brakes so hard that the front of his/her vehicle “dipped down” to avoid hitting AV1 and AV3. · The MW said that after the incident s/he was told to put up a fence in the front playground. The MW said that the new fence did not fully enclose the front playground and that there were still gaps near the building and near the pond. · P2 said the next day s/he and P1 spoke with SP1, SP2, and P5 about the incident. SP1 said that at the time of the incident s/he was “focusing on [his/her] children.” SP2 said that “this happens all the time.” P2 said that s/he spoke with additional staff and was told that children did not “wander away” while on the front playground. P5 said that s/he was inside changing diapers and was unaware of the incident until s/he returned to the playground. P2 said that SP3 was not spoken to as s/he was not considered in ratio at the time of the incident.
CP1 said that at the time of the incident s/he was in front of the facility as P2 and the MW arrived near the front door. P2 or the MW then said, “There’s a child.” CP1 looked to the front of the playground and saw a child on the grass by a car parked in a spot of front of the playground. CP1 followed P2 and the MW to the child and then saw AV1 and the unknown child (later identified as AV3). CP1 picked up AV1 and handed AV1 to either P2 or the MW when SP2 walked over to get AV3. CP1 then left the facility. CP1 said that s/he did not see a third child, that SP1 remained on the playground during the incident, and that there was another staff person coming out of the facility onto the playground when s/he drove away. CP2 said on the day of the incident s/he was in his/her vehicle in front of the facility after picking up his/her child. CP2 was driving “pretty slow” in the parking lot and “well before” s/he turned into the driveway s/he saw “some” children run from the front play ground to the parking lot and stopped. CP2 said that the children had reached the back of the cars near the trees when s/he saw staff persons reach the children and take them back to the playground. CP2 had no prior concerns about the facility. SP1 provided the following information: · On the day of the incident between 4 to 5 p.m., SP1 was on the playground with SP2, SP3, and the preschool and toddler children, including AV1-AV3. P5 was previously on the playground but had gone inside prior to the incident. SP1 said that prior to the incident, AV1 and AV3 tried to walk to the trees near the parking lot but s/he managed to “herd” them back from the trees. · SP1-SP3 were standing in the sandbox talking with each other with SP1 facing the main parking lot and the road, SP2 facing the back of the playground, and SP3 facing the pond, when SP1 heard CP1 or P2 yell, “You have kids over here.” SP2 then “ran” to the parking spots near the trees, got AV1 and AV3 and returned them to the playground. SP1 said that AV1 was in one of the parking spots and AV3 was about to step into the parking spot. SP2 said that it was approximately “two to three seconds” from the time they heard the yell to when SP2 reached AV1 and AV3. SP1 was not aware that AV2 had left the playground. · SP1 said s/he was trained to work with other staff persons to supervise the children, keep a conscious watch of everyone, and to walk around the play area. · SP1 had no concerns about SP2 and said that SP3 was training the day of the incident and was not considered in ratio. SP2 provided the following information: · On the day of the incident SP2 was in the sandbox with SP1, SP3, and seven to eleven children, including AV1-AV3. SP2 was facing the back of the playground while SP1 and SP3 faced the road and parking lot. · SP2 saw P2, the MW, and CP1 in front of the building when CP1 said, “Hey, guys!” SP2 turned toward the parking lot and saw P2 and CP1 walking toward the parking spots by the trees. SP2 ran toward them and saw AV1 at the edge of the parking lot and AV2 and AV3 were still in the grass by the cars. CP1 picked up AV3 and P2 picked up AV1. AV2 then ran back to the sandbox on his/her own. SP2 saw CP2 “slowly” turn into the parking lot at the same time the children were at parking spots. CP1, P2, and the MW then left the facility. · SP2 said AV1-AV3 did not cry and neither of them “showed any fear.” SP2 said s/he was “unsure” of how AV1-AV3 got near the parking lot as s/he was facing the back of the playground at the time of the incident. In addition, SP2 said that it was “common” for the children to walk up to the sidewalk and sit near the curb as they waited for the families to arrive at pick up time. · SP2 said that AV1-AV3 were away from the front playground for no more than two minutes. · SP2 said that s/he was trained to supervise the children by “actively counting” the children, playing with the children, not standing in one place, and actively watching the children. SP3 said that on the day of the incident s/he was working with two other staff persons on the sandbox playground, but SP3 could not remember their names. It was SP3’s second day working at the facility, s/he was still training, and s/he was not considered in ratio. SP3 had taken a child inside to change his/her diaper. When SP3 brought the child back outside to the sandbox s/he noticed that the child’s shoe was not completely on and bent down to fix the child’s shoe. When SP3 stood up s/he saw CP1, P2, and another staff person on the grass bringing two children back to the sandbox. SP3 could not recall the children’s names but said they seemed “confused” because they were being “yelled at.” SP3 said that the s/he and the other two staff persons then took the children inside. P5 said that at the time of the incident s/he was inside the facility changing the children’s diapers and did not see what happened. P1 had no prior concerns about SP1-SP3’s supervision of children. On June 11, 2025, the facility was issued a Correction Order as the result of a separate licensing investigation. The facility was cited because the outdoor activity area was next to a hazardous area and was not enclosed, a violation of Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0155, subpart 7, item C. Conclusion for Allegation One: A. Maltreatment: The facility’s front playground was adjacent to hazards including a pond and traffic but was not enclosed, which was a violation of Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0155, subpart 7, item C. Information was consistent that on September 26, 2024, AV1-AV3 left the front playground and made their way to the parking lot without the knowledge or supervision of SP1-SP3 for an unknown amount of time, which was a violation of Minnesota Statutes, section 142B.01, subdivision 27, and Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0045, subpart 1, item A. CP1, P2, and the MW saw AV2 running behind a parked car near the parking lot and went to AV2. When they arrived at the parked cars AV1 stepped onto the parking lot and AV3 was behind AV1. AV2 then walked back to the playground on his or her own while CP1 walked AV3 to SP2 and AV1 was taken home with P2 and the MW. When AV1-AV3 were unsupervised, they were 21 months to three years old. Given that AV1-AV3 reached the parking lot; that AV1-AV3 were exposed to potential community dangers including access to street traffic, a pond and/or community persons; that AV1-AV3 would not be able to provide for themselves in an emergency; and that staff persons were not aware that AV1-AV3 had left the playground and therefore would not be able to intervene in the event of an emergency; there was a preponderance of the evidence there was a failure to supply AV1-AV3 with necessary care and a failure to protect AV1-AV3 from conditions or actions that seriously endangered the AVs’ physical or mental health when reasonably able to do so. 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 reasonably able to do so; and/or 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), clauses (1) and (2): 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-SP3 were each responsible for the care and supervision of the children in the preschool and toddler classes at the time of the incident, including AV1-AV3. Facility documentation showed that SP1-SP3 each received training on the Reporting of Maltreatment of Minors Act, the facility’s Supervision Policy, and the Playground and Sandbox Safety Policy. At the time of the incident, SP1, SP2, and SP3 were in the sandbox with the children, and looking in different directions. It was not until P2 yelled, “Hey, there is a child outside of the playground,” that they realized AV1-AV3 were not on the playground. However, there was insufficient information to determine whether SP1, SP2, and/or SP3 were positioned in the locations specified in the facility’s Sandbox Safety Policy. In addition, information was consistent from all staff persons that SP3 was in training and was not considered to be in staff-to-child ratio on the day of the incident. Meanwhile, the facility’s front playground was not fully enclosed, which was a violation of Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0155, subpart 7, item C. Given that the incident was unlikely to have occurred if the playground had been fully enclosed, that SP1 – SP3 were plausibly supervising the children on the sandbox playground at the time of the incident, and that SP3 was not considered in ratio at the time of the incident, SP1 – SP3’s responsibility was mitigated and the facility was determined responsible for the maltreatment of AV1-AV3. C. Recurring and/or Serious Maltreatment: The Office of Inspector General is required to evaluate whether substantiated maltreatment by a facility meets the statutory criteria to be determined as “recurring or serious.” Minnesota Statutes, section 245C.02, subdivision 16, states: “Recurring maltreatment” means more than one incident of maltreatment for which there is a preponderance of evidence that maltreatment occurred and that the subject was responsible for the maltreatment. Minnesota Statutes, section 245C.02, subdivision 18, states: "Serious maltreatment" means sexual abuse, maltreatment resulting in death, neglect resulting in serious Injury which reasonably requires the care of a physician whether or not the care of a physician was sought, or abuse resulting in serious injury. For purposes of this definition, "care of a physician" is treatment received or ordered by a physician, physician assistant, or nurse practitioner, but does not include diagnostic testing, assessment, or observation; the application of, recommendation to use, or prescription solely for a remedy that is available over the counter without a prescription; or a prescription solely for a topical antibiotic to treat burns when there is no follow-up appointment. For purposes of this definition, "abuse resulting in serious injury" means: bruises, bites, skin laceration, or tissue damage; fractures; dislocations; evidence of internal injuries; head injuries with loss of consciousness; extensive second-degree or third-degree burns and other burns for which complications are present; extensive second-degree or third-degree frostbite and other frostbite for which complications are present; irreversible mobility or avulsion of teeth; injuries to the eyes; ingestion of foreign substances and objects that are harmful; near drowning; and heat exhaustion or sunstroke. Serious maltreatment includes neglect when it results in criminal sexual conduct against a child or vulnerable adult. It was determined that the substantiated neglect for which the facility was responsible did not meet statutory criteria to be determined as recurring or serious because it was a single incident, and AV1-AV3 did not sustain an injury that required the care of a physician. Allegation Two: It was reported that AV4 was left on a playground without SP4’s and SP6’s knowledge or supervision for approximately three to four minutes. Information obtained showed that on the day of the incident during outside time SP5 and SP6 were working in the preschool classroom. P4 said that on an unknown date near the end of winter 2024, P1 told P4 that AV4 was left on the rear playground when the preschool classroom transitioned inside. P4 said that P1 and “possibly” SP4 were working in the preschool classroom that day. P1 told P4 that s/he and SP4 counted the children, including AV4, before the class came inside. Once inside the building P1 completed another count and “realized” that AV4 was “missing” before they reached the preschool classroom and “immediately” went outside and found AV4. P4 said that AV4 may have been “hiding” under the play equipment when P1 found him/her and that AV4 was “mischievous” and liked to keep staff persons “on their toes.” P4 said that s/he did not see any video footage of the incident. P4 had no prior concerns about the staff persons and said that AV4 was “extremely safe” at the facility. SP5 said that on the day of the incident the facility’s licensor was completing a licensing review (this date was determined to be March 19, 2024) and SP5 and an unknown staff person were on the rear playground with the preschool class, including AV4. SP5 and the other staff person completed a count of the children before walking inside. Once in the building and at the cubbies SP5 completed another count of the children. At that time, SP5 realized that they were missing one child and SP5 did not see AV4. SP5 said that either s/he or P1 went out onto the playground and saw AV4. AV4 was “hiding” and was laughing when s/he entered the building. SP5 said that AV4 was alone on the playground for approximately “a minute.” P1 provided the following information: · On the day of the incident AV4 was left on the rear playground for “a minute or two” by SP5 and SP6. P2 was in the large motor room when the preschool class entered the hallway from the playground, hung up their coats, and was about to enter the preschool when P1 saw AV4 standing outside the playground door. P1 walked to the door and brought AV4 inside. P1 said that AV4 was laughing, said s/he was “hiding” from his/her teachers because s/he “did not want to go inside,” and said s/he wanted to “hide again.” P1 brought AV4 to his/her classroom and told SP5 and SP6 what happened. P1 said that SP5 was “upset” and “apologetic” and SP6 “did not seem too bothered” by the incident. · P1 then asked if SP5 and SP6 counted the children before walking inside. SP5 and SP6 each said that a count was completed but that several children were “jumping in and out of line” and they may have counted incorrectly. P1 said that SP5 and SP6 had just come into the classroom and had not completed another count of the children when s/he returned AV4 to the class. · P1 then told P4 about the incident and both went to the office and watched the playground video of the incident. P1 said s/he saw SP5 and SP6 complete a sweep of the playground as the children lined up and that AV4 “sneakily” hid underneath a climber. P1 saw SP5 and SP6 count the children before walking inside and that some of the children were jumping around while in line. · P1 had no prior supervision concerns about SP5 and SP6. P2 said that in March or April of 2024, when the facility was having their licensing review (determined to be March 19, 2024), AV4 was left outside on the rear playground for approximately three to four minutes. After the licensor left the facility P1 told P4 about the incident. P1, P2, and P4 then watched the video footage. In the video, P2 saw the children, SP4 and SP6 line up against the facility. AV4 hid underneath a climber, then SP4 and SP6 walked the class inside to the preschool classroom. P1 told P4 that s/he was in the large motor room when s/he saw AV4 “banging” on the playground door. P2 said that P1 “snuck” AV4 into the classroom. P2 said that P4 laughed and was not “upset” about the incident. (Note: according to the facility’s staff schedule and SP4’s payroll time card, SP4 did not work the day of the incident.) SP4 said on an unknown date in 2023, s/he, SP5, and an unknown staff person were on the rear playground with the preschool class, including AV4. SP4, SP5, and the other staff person lined the children up along the building and completed a count of the children. The class came inside the hallway near the cubbies and P1 (who was in the large motor room) saw AV4 standing outside the playground door. P1 walked to the door and brought AV4 inside to SP4. SP4 said that AV4 was “confused” because s/he thought the class left without him/her. SP4 thought that while counting the children outside s/he may have counted a child “twice.” (Note: According to the facility’s staff schedule and SP4’s payroll time card, SP4 did not work the day of the incident.) SP6 said that s/he was not aware of anytime a child was left unsupervised inside or outside the facility. Conclusion for Allegation Two: On March 19, 2024, AV4 was left on the rear playground for approximately one to four minutes, which was a violation of Minnesota Statutes, section 142B.01, subdivision 27, and Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0045. subpart 1, item A. P1 and P2 each said they watched video of the incident, which showed two staff persons preparing to go inside with the class when AV4 “hid” underneath a climber. After the preschool class entered the building, before they had returned to the classroom, P1 saw AV4 “banging” on the door and brought him/her back to the staff persons working with AV4’s class. AV4 was unharmed and laughing when s/he returned. Although facility documentation showed that SP5 and SP6 were working with AV4’s class on March 19, 2024, information from various sources was inconsistent as to whether SP4, SP5, and/or SP6 was working with AV4’s class when the incident occurred. Furthermore, there was consistent information that the staff persons completed a headcount of the class before leaving the playground, and information showed that the class had most likely not completed the transition back into the classroom before P1 saw AV4 at the door and brought him/her inside to rejoin the class. Given the above, there was not a preponderance of the evidence that there was a failure to supply AV4 with necessary care or a failure to protect AV4 from conditions or actions that seriously endangered his/her physical or mental health. It was not 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 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.) Allegation Three: It was reported AV5 was left on a playground without SP4’s knowledge or supervision for approximately three minutes. FM3 said that on October 2, 2024, s/he received phone calls and a BrightWheel message from P1 and SP4. P1 and SP4 said that AV5’s preschool class had returned to the classroom after having snack with the senior residents. The class was preparing to go outside to the front playground and a headcount was completed of the children before they left the senior residents. As the class was walking out the preschool door AV5 went to the bathroom to wash his/her hands, but SP4 and the other staff persons did not see AV5 leave the line. SP4 was the last staff person outside and was counting the children outside when s/he realized there was a child missing. SP4 ran into the preschool classroom and found AV5 there. SP4 said that AV5 was alone for approximately “45 seconds” and that AV5 was a “little upset” because s/he “was all alone.” FM3 had no prior concerns about the facility or SP4 and said AV5 “loved” SP4. P2 stated that on an unknown date in July or August 2024, s/he entered the preschool classroom and saw SP4 alone in the classroom. P2 said that SP4 looked “upset” and SP4 said that s/he needed to talk with P1 and then left the classroom. P2 then went to the rear playground to check on the preschool class and when s/he returned inside SP4 was walking to the playground. P2 asked if SP4 was “okay” and SP4 said that s/he had left AV5 on the front playground. SP4 said that AV5 was “sad” and “scared” and that P1 would be sending a message to AV5’s family members. P2 said on the day of the incident the preschool class was on the front playground, then went inside for snack, and then went to the rear playground. P2 later “heard” that an unknown staff person in the toddler classroom “heard crying” and went outside to the front playground to investigate when s/he “found” AV5 and returned AV5 to the preschool classroom and SP4 and P6. SP4 said that on the day of the incident s/he was on the front playground with another staff person (SP4 could not recall who that staff person was, but thought it was P6). SP4 took five children, including AV5, inside the classroom to use the bathroom. Four of the children were lined up to go back outside while AV5 was still washing his/her hands. SP4 opened the door to the front playground and walked out the door with the four children. As SP4 shut the door the other staff person was walking up to meet the four children. SP5 said that as soon as s/he closed the door s/he realized AV5 was still inside and then reopened the door and saw that AV5 was still in the bathroom washing his/her hands. SP4 said that AV5 was “upset” because s/he thought the class was “leaving without [him/her].” SP4 then told P1 about the incident. P1 and AV5’s BrightWheel message provided the following information: · On October 2, 2025, P1 said that SP4 told him/her that s/he had left AV5 in the preschool bathroom when the rest of the class went outside to the front playground. P1 said that SP4 P6, and P2 were scheduled in the preschool classroom and the preschool classroom had finished an activity with the senior residents. SP4, P6, and P2 lined the children up and completed a count of the children, including AV5, before the class left the senior center and walked to the preschool classroom and out the door onto the front playground. · SP4 was the last staff person out the door and SP4 said that s/he did not complete another count of the children at the door but when s/he reached the front playground SP4 began to count the children and “realized” that AV5 was “missing.” SP4 went back into the classroom and saw AV5 in the classroom standing near the door. SP4 said that AV5 was “sad” and SP4 “apologized” to AV5. · P1 said that AV5 said that s/he told the teachers that s/he was going to wash his/her hands because they were “sticky.” The message on BrightWheel said that AV5 “snuck” into the bathroom and had not told SP4 that s/he was going to wash his/her hands. · P1 later said that although P2 was scheduled to help the preschool class with the transition from the senior facility to the front playground P1 was not sure if P2 was there during the transition. P1 did not speak with P2, SP5, or P6 about the incident. SP5 said that s/he did not remember any incidents where a child was left inside the facility unsupervised. P1 said that s/he had no supervision concerns with SP4-SP6. Facility schedules showed that on October 2, 2024, SP4, SP5, P6 were scheduled in the preschool classroom and P2 was scheduled “as needed.” Conclusion for Allegation Three: On October 2, 2024, AV5 was left in the preschool bathroom for approximately 1 to 45 seconds, which was a violation of Minnesota Statutes, section 142B.01, subdivision 27, and Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0045. subpart 1, item A. SP4 said that s/he had taken five children, including AV5, to the bathroom and when the other four children were done toileting s/he opened the door and walked outside with the four children. As the door shut SP4 realized that AV5 was still inside and then reopened the door to find AV5 in the classroom. P1 said that SP4, SP5, P6 and possibly P2 were walking the preschool class from the senior center through the preschool classroom and out onto the front playground when AV5 walked into the bathroom and SP4 did not notice. Once outside SP4 completed another head count and realized that AV5 was missing. SP4 went inside and found AV5 in the classroom. P1 said that AV5 was left unsupervised for approximately 45 seconds. P2 said that in July or August 2024, P2 heard that AV5 was found by toddler staff person on the front playground and returned AV5 to the preschool class and SP5. P2 did not know how long AV5 was left unsupervised. Given that there was inconsistent formation about which staff persons were working at the time of the incident, how long AV5 was unsupervised, and where AV5 was when the incident occurred, there was not a preponderance of the evidence that there was a failure to supply the AV with necessary care or a failure to protect the AV from conditions or actions that seriously endangered his/her physical or mental health. It was not 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 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.) Allegation Four: It was reported that two children were outside the front playground’s fence without SP5’s knowledge or supervision for an unknown amount of time. On November 7, 2024, the MW arrived at the facility between 3:35 to 3:55 p.m. to pick up some personal supplies. While still in his/her car, the MW saw two children in the area in between the playground and the pond. As the MW got out of his/her car, SP5 and an unknown staff person, who were at the side of the sandbox closest to the building, both turned to look at him/her. The MW then pointed to the two children at the end of the fence. The MW said that s/he saw SP5 and the other staff person turn to walk in the direction of the children and then the MW walked into the facility. The MW left the building a “few minutes later” and saw that the children were back in the playground. The MW said that there were approximately 11 to 12 children in the front playground, but did not know what ages the children were. In addition, the MW said that s/he did not report the incident to any supervisors and did not have any direct conversations with SP5 and the other staff person. SP5 said that on no date, including November 7, 2024, were there children in the area between the play area and the pond. In addition, SP5 said that s/he worked with several staff persons, including P3 and P6, at that time of day. SP5 said that s/he was trained to watch the children in the sandbox by constantly scanning the area and paying close attention to areas near the parking lot and the edge of the grassy field. P3 said that at no time did a person tell him/her that there were children outside the fence and P3 was not aware of any other incidents where children left the front playground when s/he was working. P1 said that s/he was not aware of the incident and had not received any concerns regarding SP5. P1 had no prior concerns about SP5. Conclusion for Allegation Four: Information was provided that on November 7, 2024, the MW arrived at the facility and saw two unknown children in the area between the play area and the pond and that SP5 and an unknown staff person saw the MW point to the children and then walked toward the children. The MW did not speak to SP5 or report the incident to any other staff persons. SP5 said that while s/he was on the front playground at no time did a staff person come to him/her or point to any children by the gap and P1 had no prior concerns about SP5. Given that there no other staff persons corroboratedthe MW’s or SP5’s account of the incident, there was not a preponderance of the evidence that there was a failure to supply children with necessary care or a failure to protect the children from conditions or actions that seriously endangered their physical or mental health. It was not 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 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.) 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 Human Services for at least ten years after the date of the final entry in the report. 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 that their policies and procedures were adequate and followed by staff persons on March 19, 2024, and October 2, 2024. Staff persons did not follow procedures and policies on September 26, 2024. The facility retrained staff persons to count children at every doorway, took measures to strengthen the safety of the outdoor play spaces, and increased staff supervision in these areas. Additionally, a fence was installed parallel to the road. SP1, SP2 and SP6 no longer worked at the facility. Action Taken by Department of Children, Youth, and Families, Office of Inspector General: Minnesota Statutes, section 260E.06, subdivision 1, requires mandated reporters at a facility to immediately report suspected maltreatment. This investigation determined that an administrative staff person failed to report suspected maltreatment as required. In addition, it was determined that the facility failed to initiate a background study as required. Based on the determination of substantiated maltreatment and the additional licensing violations determined in this report, the Department of Children, Youth, and Families ordered the facility to pay a fine of $1,400 ($1,000 for the determination of maltreatment, $200 for failure to report suspected maltreatment, and $200 for one background study violation). The determination that the facility was responsible for maltreatment and the Order to Forfeit a Fine are each subject to appeal. On August 19, 2025, the facility was issued a Correction Order for additional violations outlined in this report. A letter from DCYF was sent to two individuals regarding their failure or delay in reporting suspected maltreatment, and potential consequences for future such failures. 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.
|
