|
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: 2001672-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 a staff person (SP) dropped a table on an alleged victim’s (AV) arm which caused a fracture in the AV’s arm. Date of Incident(s): June 12, 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 July 17, 2025; from documentation at the facility and medical records; and through five interviews conducted with a supervisory staff person (P1), three staff persons (P2, P3, and the SP), and the AV’ s family member (FM). At the time of the incident the AV was 17 months old and enrolled in the toddler classroom. The facility shared a building with a church. Pass the entrance was a long hallway. On one side of the hallway was a kitchen, the preschool classroom, and then the toddler classroom. On the other side of the hallway across from the preschool and toddler classroom was the lunch room. The toddler classroom had a diaper changing area and in front of the diaper changing area were two tables that had non-scuff balls on the table legs. It was estimated that the top of the tables were 19 inches from the floor, the top of the table was approximately 36” wide x 60” long, and weighed approximately 80 pounds The AV’s medical records stated that on June 12, 2025, the AV was seen for an injury on his/her right wrist when two staff person “flipped” a table and the table slipped out of one staff person’s hand and landed on the AV’s wrist, resulting in pain. During the exam the AV was alert and showed no acute signs of distress. The AV used his/her right hand and demonstrated functional movement. An x-ray was completed and the AV was diagnosed with a subtle distal buckle fracture. The AV was placed in a long cast. On July 25, 2025, the AV had a follow up visit and the cast was removed. Another x-ray was completed and it showed that the buckle fractured had healed.
FM1 said that June 12, 2025, FM2 arrived at the facility to pick up the AV and was told by the SP that approximately 15 minutes before FM2 arrived at the center a table fell on the AV’s arm. FM1 and FM2 took the AV to the emergency room that evening because the AV was in pain and was favoring his/her right arm. While at the emergency room the AV seemed “fine” and was using his/her arm. The next day FM1 took the AV to his/her doctor and the AV received x-rays on his/her arm. The x-ray showed a small buckle fracture on the AV’s arm and the AV was placed in a cast for ten days. On the tenth day when it was removed the AV had made a full recovery. FM1 said that they had no concerns about the facility. The SP and P3 provided the following consistent information: · On June 12, 2025, the SP and P3 worked with the toddler children, including the AV. After naptime the SP completed diaper changes while P3 monitored the children. The SP and P3 said that the children were getting “impatient” for snack and then some of the children, including the AV, crawled underneath a table. The SP and P3 tried to call the children out from underneath the table but the children kept going back under as if it were a “game.” · Due to the height of the table, the SP and P3 said that it was not safe to hold onto the children’s torso to move them nor was it safe to pull the children out by their arms or feet. The SP said that “at that moment” s/he decided to lift the table by holding onto the long side of the table and lifted the table to approximately mid-thigh (6-8 inches off the floor) so the P3 could safely grab the children from underneath. The SP said to P3, “Hey, I am going to lift this table and you get them out.” The SP said that P3 must not had heard because P3 stood still when s/he lifted the table. P3 said that s/he did not hear the SP say anything prior to the SP lifting the table. The SP said that there were at least three children, including the AV under the table. · When the SP lifted the table, some children crawled forward toward the SP but the AV and another child started going backwards away from the SP when the table “slipped” from the SP’s hands and the edge of the table landed on the AV’s arm. The SP said that the AV “scooted “ back because only the AV’s arm was underneath the table and the AV’s body was outside the table. · The SP immediately lifted and moved the table and then looked at the AV. The SP saw a “red mark” on the AV’s arm. The SP said that the AV was crying but the AV lifted his/her arm and s/he saw the AV move his/her wrist. The SP picked up the AV, and then “rushed” out the room to get an ice pack. P3 said that s/he did not see the AV’s arm after the table fell but thought s/he saw the AV “flex” his/her wrist. · The SP took the AV to the lunch room for P2 to further assess the AV’s injury. The SP then went back to the toddler room. · The SP said that after the incident s/he could have thought of “a 1000 different things I could have done but I made that choice, and it was not the best one.” P2 said that s/he was in the lunch room when the SP came in and said that the AV was hurt. P2 walked to the toddler room, picked up the AV and got the AV an ice pack from the kitchen, and then brought the AV to the lunchroom. The SP then went back to the toddler classroom. P2 saw “swelling” and a “circle mark” on the AV’s arm and placed on ice pack on the area. P2 observed the AV and saw that s/he could wiggle his/her hands and fingers, move his/her arms, and was able to hold onto other items. The SP then came back to the lunchroom to be with the AV and P2 went into the toddler classroom. P2 said that s/he did not call FM1 or FM2 right away because FM2 was scheduled to pick up the AV within five minutes for an appointment. The SP told P2 information that was consistent with this investigation. P2 had no prior concerns about the SP. P1 provided information that was consistent with P2, P3, and the SP. P1 had no prior concerns about the SP. The facility’s Risk Reduction Plan stated that “children are to be picked up by staff under the arms on the torso.” Facility records showed that prior to the incident P1-P3 and the SP were trained on the facility’s Risk Reduction Plan and the Reporting of Maltreatment of Minors Act. According to Minnesota Statutes, section 260E.03, subdivision 2, “accidental” means a sudden, not reasonably foreseeable, and unexpected occurrence or event that is not likely to occur and could not have been prevented by exercise of due care; and if occurring while a child is receiving services from a facility, happens when the facility and the employee or person providing services in the facility are in compliance with the laws and rules relevant to the occurrence or event. Conclusion: A. Maltreatment: Information was consistent that on June 12, 2025, the AV who was 17 months old was underneath a table in the toddler room. The SP and P3 attempted to get the children out from underneath but the children kept going back underneath the table like it was a “game.” The SP decided to “lift” the table so that P3 could safely remove the children. As the SP lifted the table the children then “scooted” from underneath. Some children moved toward the SP and the AV “scooted” away from the SP. The SP said that the table “slipped” from his/her hands and fell on the AV’s right arm. The SP saw a “red mark” on the AV’s arm and saw that the AV was able to move his/her arm. The SP then took the AV to P2 to be further assess for any injuries. FM1 and FM2 took the AV his/her doctors and the AV received x-rays on his/her arm. The x-ray showed a small buckle fracture on the AV’s arm and then was placed in a cast for ten days. On the tenth day when it was removed the AV had made a full recovery. The incident did not meet statutory criteria to be determined an “accident” because the possibility of dropping the table was reasonably foreseeable and the incident could have been prevented by the exercise of due care. The AV was safely playing underneath the table so there was no urgent need for the SP to lift the table, and the SP had different options of how to remove the children from under the table such as sliding the table over the children or letting the children move on their own. Further, the SP lifted the table, which was approximately 36” wide x 60” long, and weighed approximately 80 pounds , by the long side which was harder for the SP to hold and balance. The SP’s action of lifting the table was unnecessary, was not an accident, and created the conditions that caused harm to 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 health. 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; 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): 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. The SP received training on the Reporting Maltreatment of Minors Act and the facility’s Risk Reduction Plan. The SP was responsible for the AV at the time of the incident. The SP said that s/he made the decision, without P3’s input, to lift the table so that P3 could remove the children, including the AV, then the table slipped from his/her hands. After the incident the SP said that there were “1000 different things I could have done but I made that choice, and it was not the best one.” The SP was responsible for maltreatment of the AV. 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 their policies and procedures were adequate and followed. The facility created a new policy regarding the moving of furniture with children present and all staff were retrained on their policies. 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 the SP was determined responsible for maltreatment. The determination that the SP is responsible for maltreatment is subject to appeal. 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.
|
