|
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: 1113881-CCC (Child Care Center) Investigator(s): Tessa Ripka Minnesota Department of Children, Youth, and Families 651-431-6612 Suspected Maltreatment Reported: Report #202501061: It was reported that a staff person (SP1) rough handled and yelled at an alleged victim (AV1). Report #202501177: It was reported that a staff person (SP2) rough handled two alleged victims (AV2, AV3) and put them in a time out. During the course of the investigation there were concerns that a staff person (SP3) threw a cup and hit an unidentified child in the face, and that SP1 hit another unidentified child. Date of Incident(s): February 6, 2025 Nature of Alleged Maltreatment Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 260E.03, subdivision 18, paragraph (a), and subdivision 23, paragraph (a): "Physical abuse" means any physical injury, mental injury, or threatened injury, inflicted by a person responsible for the child's care on a child other than by accidental means. "Threatened injury" means a statement, overt act, condition, or status that represents a substantial risk of physical or sexual abuse or mental injury. Summary of Findings: Pertinent information was obtained during a site visit conducted on February 18, 2025; from documentation at the facility; and through eleven interviews conducted with eight facility staff persons (SP2, P1, P2, P3, P4, P5, P6, P7), AV1’s family member (FM1), AV2’s family member (FM2), and AV3’s family member (FM3). This investigator made attempts to speak with SP1 through phone calls, letters, and email but SP1 did not respond. The facility was a two-story building with classrooms on both levels. The early preschool classroom was located on the second floor. The Behavior Guidance Policies and Procedures stated that staff persons were prohibited from the following: corporal punishment including rough handling, shoving, hair pulling, ear pulling, shaking, slapping, kicking, biting, pinching, hitting, and spanking; yelling at, shaming, name calling, ostracizing, making derogatory remarks, and using language that threated, frightened, or humiliated a child; and separating a child with the group except within group requirements. During the course of this investigation, it was reported that on February 5, 2025, at approximately 10 a.m. SP3 in a toddler classroom threw a cup at a child and the cup hit the child in the face, but the child was not injured. P2 and this investigator reviewed video footage of the date and time which showed the children during an activity that appeared to involve plastic cups. Both this investigator and P2 did not see any time where a staff person threw anything at a child. The Department of Children, Youth, and Families did not investigate this allegation further. Report #202501061: It was reported that SP1 rough handled and yelled at AV1. AV1 was three years old at the time of the incident and enrolled in the early preschool classroom.
SP2 provided the following information: · On an unspecified date, SP2 worked with SP1 in the early preschool classroom. SP1 seemed more upset and “on edge” that day. Between 9:00-11:30 a.m., SP1 got irritated and upset so SP2 started recording videos with his/her phone. SP1 was screaming, picking up AV1, and “slamming” him/her down. · At approximately 12 p.m., P1 (a supervisory staff person) pulled SP1 from the classroom and at 12:45 p.m., SP2 was pulled into the office where P1 said that s/he heard SP1 screaming and saw the situation on the facility video cameras. P1 had SP2 write a statement about what had happened. · SP2 showed and sent the video that s/he had recorded on his/her phone to FM1. Later SP2 posted the video on social media. · SP2 felt SP1 was “always a little too aggressive” with the children. When asked for examples, SP2 said SP1 would “snap off too quick” and scream, then break down and cry. In the past SP2 would “step in” when SP1 was screaming but since the facility was not taking action, SP2 decided to “take a step back” and bring the issue to someone “higher up.” · SP2 had talked with P1 two to three times prior about his/her concerns with SP1 and told P1 that SP1 should not be working with other people’s children. P1 asked if SP2 wanted to switch classrooms but did not give any confirmation that the issues were going to be looked into further. · SP2 had not seen SP1 be physically aggressive with children on any occasion other than the day of the incident. P1 provided the following information: · On February 6, 2025, at approximately 11:45-12:00 p.m., P1 was in a conference call in his/her office with P2, when P1 heard yelling from upstairs. P1’s office was right below the early preschool classroom. P1 could hear SP1’s voice and it was “loud.” P1 pulled up the camera footage from the classroom and told P2 that s/he had to leave the conference call. · P1 had another staff person go to the classroom so SP1 could come down to the office. At that time SP2 was not in the classroom. SP1 and P1 met in the office and SP1 said that s/he was frustrated because SP2 had not been assisting in the classroom all morning. SP1 wrote up a statement and was sent home. Then P1 found SP2 and had SP2 write a statement as well. P1 reviewed footage and saw that SP2 went into other classrooms after the incident and did not report the incident to P1 or know that P1 had pulled SP1 from the classroom. · At approximately 2 p.m., a parent picked up a child and said that s/he had seen a video and were coming to pick up their child because of the video. At that time, P1 suspected that SP2 had recorded the incident and was sending it to parents. When it was time for SP2 to clock out at the end of his/her shift, SP2 said that s/he was quitting. · P1 reviewed other video footage from the classroom for that date and other prior dates and did not have any other concerns with SP1 based on the footage. SP2 appeared to be on his/her phone or not in view of the camera often during the day. · P1 had “some” previous conversations with SP1 regarding his/her “tone of voice” but nothing to the extent of what P1 heard on the date of the incident. For example, on January 8, 2025, there was an incident where SP1 was in the hallway and was trying to get a child to walk down the hallway. SP1 was holding hands with the child and the child let go. The child went down to the floor and did not get hurt but there was “frustration” in SP1’s tone. P1 addressed the incident and SP1 left the facility for the rest of that day because s/he was feeling sick. P2 provided the following information: · P2 was an administrative staff person at the facility. At approximately 11:45-12:00 p.m., on an unspecified date, P2 was on a conference call with several people including P1. P1 said s/he had to step out of the call to handle something at the facility. · At approximately 12:30-12:45 p.m., P1 called P2 back and said that P1 had heard SP1 yelling. P1 looked at the camera footage and then went to the classroom to address the situation. P1 took statements about what had happened from both SP1 and SP2. SP1 was put on suspension and left the facility. · P2 reviewed the footage and saw SP1 trying to get the children to clean up the classroom and transition to nap time. Although the footage did not have sound, it appeared SP1 was getting “frustrated” by his/her facial expressions. SP2 was in the classroom and appeared to be avoiding SP1 and not giving much direction to the children. SP1 “not appropriately” sat AV1 in a chair. P2 did not provide further detail on what was “not appropriate.” · P2 reviewed other footage from the day of the incindent and some prior days but saw no other concerns with SP1. P2 had not heard concerns from any staff persons about SP1. During the course of the facility’s internal review, multiple staff persons said that P1 did not follow through on staff person concerns about SP1 that were reported to him/her. P3-P7 provided the following information: · P3 filled in on some occasions in the early preschool classroom and had concerns about SP1’s “excessive yelling.” SP1’s yelling could be heard in a nearby classroom as well. If P3 was in the classroom with SP1 and SP1 started yelling at a child, P3 would try to take the child aside, make sure the child was alright, and give SP1 “time to breath.” P3 had not observed SP1 being physically aggressive with any children. · P3 talked with another staff person about his/her concerns and that staff person said that s/he talked with P1 about SP1’s yelling and P1 “brushed it off.” · P4 was a supervisory staff person at the facility. On the day and time of the incident, P4 was filling in in a classroom. P1 called P4 down to P1’s office. SP1 was in the office writing a statement about what had just happened. P1 asked P4 to go upstairs and work in the early preschool classroom so SP2 could come down to the office to write up a statement. · Later, P4 went to P1’s office and P1 told P4 what had happened and showed P4 the camera footage of the incident. P4 had no previous concerns with SP1 and had not heard any concerns about SP1 from other staff persons. P4 had worked with SP1 in the classroom a “handful” of times and did not have any concerns with SP1’s interactions with children. · P5 worked in a preschool classroom but did not typically work with SP1. When SP1 started s/he was in a toddler classroom, but P1 moved SP1 to an older classroom because s/he thought SP1’s “stress level” would get better. On one occasion (likely the January 8, 2025, incident), P5 heard the early preschool classroom going to the gym which was near P5’s classroom. P5 looked out the door and saw a child that was not walking with the group or staying in line. SP1 got down on the child’s “level” and talked very loudly in the child’s face. P5 saw SP1 “step away” to go calm down. P3 and P7 also observed the incident and reported it to P1. P7 was closer to the incident and said that s/he saw SP1 push the child to the wall. · P5 at times saw SP1 “yanking” on children’s arms but it was not “super hard.” P5 at times heard SP1 yell in the hallway and generally the other staff person in the classroom tried to get SP1 to “calm down” and s/he stepped away from the situation. · P6 worked in the Toddler 2 classroom which was next to the gym. At times, P6 would encounter SP1 coming or going from the gym. On one occasion in December 2024 or January 2025, (likely the January 8, 2025, incident) P6 heard SP1 yelling in the hallway as s/he brought his/her classroom down the stairs to the gym. A child was yelling, “Stop pulling me down.” At times this child could be “difficult” and SP1 often yelled at that child. · P6 said s/he heard SP1 yell almost every day and had seen SP1 put children down “roughly” on their cots when they did not want to lay down for nap and set children down “roughly” in their chairs. SP1 and SP2 “always” seemed to be yelling at one child in particular and P6 had seen both SP1 and SP2 “yanking” on children’s hands. · P6 did not remember the date, but on one occasion, told P1 about his/her concerns with SP1 yelling. P1 thanked P6 for letting P1 know and said that s/he would talk to SP1. · P7 was at the facility on the day of the incident but was not aware of what had happened until the end of the day. P7 had seen SP1 grab children, pull on their arms, and make them sit down. SP1 also yelled in childrens’ faces and walked away from children while they were crying. · On one occasion (likely the January 8, 2025, incident), P7 was leaving the gym with his/her classroom and SP1 was arriving at the gym with his/her classroom. SP1 physically grabbed a child and said the child had pushed SP1. SP1 “put” the child “on the wall” and made him/her sit out. SP1 yelled in the child’s face. The child did not have any marks from the incident but cried “a lot.” P7 and another staff person informed P1 of the incident and P1 sent SP1 home for the day. SP1 said s/he was having a “bad day.” · During the week of February 6, 2025, a child said that SP1 had hit the child but P7 had no further information. This investigator made attempts to speak with SP1 through phone calls, letters, and email but SP1 did not respond. SP1 did provide a written statement to the facility which stated that on the day of the incident, SP2 was on his/her phone most of the morning while SP1 was handling all the children and clean-up. SP1 became “frustrated” and s/he was out of ratio when SP2 left the classroom for 5-10 minutes. SP1 moved AV1 to a table and gave him/her a toy. Video footage showed that on February 6, 2025: · At 11:55 a.m., SP1 grabbed a child by the upper arm aggressively and directed the child to another area. · At 11:57 a.m., SP1 grabbed AV1 by the arm and aggressively yanked AV1 up off the ground, sat AV1 in a chair at the table, and aggressively pushed the chair in toward the table. SP1 then slammed a toy on the table next to AV1. AV1 sat at the table and played with the toy while SP1 walked to the other side of the room and checked his/her phone. SP1 went to a small rug area and picked a child up off the ground and pushed them out of the area, then that child laid down on the floor and began to cry. SP1 picked up a couple toys on the small rug and then went to the large rug and grabbed a child by the hand and pushed his/her back to guide the child off the big rug area. · At 11:58 a.m., SP1 went back to the child that was crying and brought that child to the big rug out of camera view. SP1 sat on the large rug and appeared to be picking up toys going on and off camera view. · At 11:59 a.m., SP1 went to the small rug area and grabbed a child roughly by the wrist and made the child sit down. · At 12:01 p.m., it appeared that SP1 yelled at someone and got up and went slightly off camera view. SP1 picked up AV1 and carried him/her with SP1’s arm around AV1’s waist. When SP1 got to the table area, s/he put AV1 down roughly on a chair, aggressively pushed the chair in to the table, and walked away. SP1 grabbed a toy and set it down with force on the table in front of AV1, and yanked two other toys out of AV1’s hands. SP1 walked away and back to the small rug area but appeared to continue to talk/yell in AV1’s direction. · At 12:02 p.m., AV1 got up from the table and started to play with other children. SP1 continued to pick up toys and started to set out cots. SP2 left the camera’s view. SP1 put out cots and had the children lay down and covered them with blankets. · At 12:11 p.m. SP2 came into camera view again. · At 12:13 p.m., another staff person came into camera view, likely stepping in for SP1. · At 1:00 p.m., another staff persons stepped in for SP2 and s/he left the camera view, likely the classroom. During the course of this investigation, it was also reported that SP1 hit a child over a year prior to the investigation. The initial reporter of this allegation was not able to provide any further information and no other staff persons had knowledge of this incident. Law enforcement also investigated this report and SP1 was charged with gross misdemeanor malicious punishment of a child. Relevant Rule and/or Statute: Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0055, subpart 3, item A, states that the license holder must have and enforce a policy that prohibits the following actions by or at the direction of a staff persons: Subjection of a child to corporal punishment, which includes, but is not limited to, rough handling, shoving, hair pulling, ear pulling, shaking, slapping, kicking, biting, pinching, hitting, and spanking Conclusion for Report #202501061: A. Maltreatment: Video footage and SP2’s account were consistent that on February 6, 2025, SP1 handled AV1 and several other children in a rough manner by grabbing AV1 aggressively by the arm and yanking AV1 up off the ground, roughly sitting AV1 down at a table twice, yanking toys out of AV1’s hands, aggressively grabbing a child’s arm, grabbing a child by the hand and pushing them out of the area, and grabbing a child roughly by the wrist, which was inconsistent with the facility’s policies and a violation of Minnesota Rules 9503.0055, subpart 3, item A. SP2, P3, P5, P6, and P7 each said that they had previously heard SP1 yell at children. P3, P5, and P7 also witnessed an incident on January 8, 2025, when SP1 yelled while taking the class to the gym, and P7 said SP1 “put” a child “on the wall” during that incident. P5 and P7 had also seen SP1 grab children by the arms on other occasions. Information was consistent that SP1 handled children including AV1 roughly by grabbing them by the wrist/arm and/or sitting them down roughly. Regarding children other than AV1, there was no information obtained that any child sustained an injury as a result of SP1’s actions, and there was insufficient information to determine whether other children were subject to repeated incidents of rough handling by SP1. Regarding AV1, camera footage and SP2’s account showed that SP1 subjected AV1 to multiple incidents of rough handling over the course of five minutes on February 6, 2025. Although AV1 was not injured, SP1’s actions represented a substantial risk of injury to AV1. Therefore, there was a preponderance of the evidence that SP1 inflicted threatened injury to AV1, other than by accidental means. It was determined that abuse occurred (any physical injury, mental injury, or threatened injury, inflicted by a person responsible for the child's care on a child other than by accidental means. "Threatened injury" means a statement, overt act, condition, or status that represents a substantial risk of physical or sexual abuse or mental injury.
B. Responsibility pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 260E.30, subdivision 4, paragraph (a): When determining whether the facility or individual is the responsible party, or whether both the facility and the individual are responsible for determined maltreatment in a facility, the investigating agency shall consider at least the following mitigating factors: (1) whether the actions of the facility or the individual caregivers were according to, and followed the terms of, an erroneous physician order, prescription, individual care plan, or directive; however, this is not a mitigating factor when the facility or caregiver was responsible for the issuance of the erroneous order, prescription, individual care plan, or directive or knew or should have known of the errors and took no reasonable measures to correct the defect before administering care; (2) comparative responsibility between the facility, other caregivers, and requirements placed upon an employee, including the facility’s compliance with related regulatory standards and the adequacy of facility policies and procedures, facility training, an individual’s participation in the training, the caregiver’s supervision, and facility staffing levels and the scope of the individual employee’s authority and discretion; and (3) whether the facility or individual followed professional standards in exercising professional judgment. SP1 worked in the classroom with AV1 and was respondsible for AV1’s safety. SP1 was trained on the facility’s policies and the Reporting of Maltreatment of Minors Act. SP1 was responsible for maltreatment of AV1. Report #202501177: It was reported that SP2 rough handled AV2 and AV3 and put them in a time out. AV2 was three years old at the time of the incident and enrolled in the early preschool classroom. AV3 was three years old at the time of the incident and enrolled in the early preschool classroom. P1 said when reviewing video footage following the incident on February 6, 2025, P1 noticed an incident on February 4, 2025, in which AV2 and AV3 were at a table. SP2 said something to them and then went over to them. SP2 pulled AV2 and AV3 aggressively by their arms at the same time and sat them both down in separate chairs on time out. SP2 walked away and left AV2 and AV3 in their chairs. P1 had no previous concerns with SP2. P2 provided the following information: · When reviewing video footage, P2 noticed an incident that occurred on February 4, 2025. In the video SP2 was sitting on a rug with a child in his/her lap. SP2 was giving verbal direction to two other children and then got up and brought each child by the hand to a chair. SP2 pulled the children, and it was not “gentle guiding.” Then SP2 put each child in a chair and separated them but did not provide any alternative activities. · SP2 went back to the rug, sat down, and “plopped” the child back in SP2’s lap. It did not appear as though s/he had any intention to go back and talk with the children. SP1 then came over to the children and talked with them together. P2 had no previous concerns with SP2. P4 had no prior concerns with SP2. P5 said s/he had seen SP2 “yank” children by the hands on occasion but had no other concerns. SP2 said s/he did not remember any incident where s/he pulled children apart aggressively and sat them in chairs. Video footage showed that on February 4, 2025: · At 9:04 a.m., SP2 stood up from the rug area and grabbed two children each by the upper arm and walked the children to the other side of the classroom near the sink area. SP2 put two chairs out several feet apart and had a child sit in each chair. SP2 went back to the rug area and sat down and looked at his/her phone. · At 9:05 a.m., SP1 went over to one child, bent down and appeared to talk with the child. SP1 pulled the other child’s chair near the first child and then SP1 pulled up a chair to sit down as well. It appeared SP1 talked with both children as SP2 continued to look at his/her phone. · At 9:07 a.m., SP1 and the children stood up. The children went to play while SP1 put the chairs back at the table. · At 11:45 a.m., SP2 brought a chair over to a small rug located between shelves and put the chair down. SP2 appeared to be talking to a child that stood in the middle of the classroom wearing some dress up clothing. SP2 started walking toward the child and the child turned and appeared to start to walk the other way. SP2 picked up the child by the back of the shirt and/or a cape that was fastened around the child’s neck with one hand and by the child’s upper arm with SP2’s other hand, with the child facing away from SP2; carried the child to the chair, and sat him/her down roughly. The child appeared to be crying. SP2 took off the child’s play clothing and appeared to put the child back on the chair when the child attempted to get up on a couple occasions. SP2 appeared to talk with the child for a while and then at 11:46 a.m., got up and left the child on the chair. SP2 said something to the child and pointed to his/her watch. SP2 sat down on the shelves near the child. · At 11:48 a.m., it appeared that SP2 let the child leave the chair and return to play in the classroom. Conclusion for Report #202501177: SP2 said s/he did not remember any incident where s/he pulled children apart aggressively and sat them in chairs. However, video footage showed that on February 4, 2025, at 9:04 a.m., SP2 grabbed AV2 and AV3 by the upper arm and walked them to two chairs situated several feet apart; and at 11:45 a.m., SP2 picked up another child by the back of his/her shirt and/or a cape fastened around his/her neck and by his/her upper arm, carried the child to a chair, and sat him/her down roughly. P1 said video footage showed that SP2 grabbed AV2 and AV3 “aggressively” by their arms and put them down in chairs. P2 said video footage showed that when SP2 separated the children it was not “gentle guiding.” There was a preponderance of the evidence that SP2 sat a child down roughly on a chair, grabbed AV2 and AV3 by the upper arm to separate them, and grabbed another child by the back of his/her shirt/cape and upper arm and sat them down roughly in a chair, which was inconsistent with the facility’s policies and a violation of Minnesota Rules 9503.0055, subpart 3, item A. However, given that there was no information obtained that any child sustained an injury as a result, and that there was no information obtained that demonstrated a pattern of rough handling directed at any specific child, there was not a preponderance of the evidence that SP2’s actions caused injury to a child or represented a substantial risk of injury. It was not determined that abuse occurred (any physical injury, mental injury, or threatened injury, inflicted by a person responsible for the child's care on a child other than by accidental means. "Threatened injury" means a statement, overt act, condition, or status that represents a substantial risk of physical or sexual abuse or mental injury. 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 determined that policies and procedures were adequate. All staff persons were retrained on the mandated reporting policy and behavior guidance policies. SP1, SP2 and P1 no longer worked at the facility. Action Taken by Department of Children, Youth, and Families, Office of Inspector General: The Department of Children, Youth, and Families informed the Department of Human Services, Office of Inspector General, Background Studies Division that SP1 was determined responsible for maltreatment. The determination that SP1 is responsible for maltreatment is subject to appeal. On August 7, 2025, 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.
|
