932 N.W.2d 12
Minn.2019Background
- Amanda Restorff ran a licensed home daycare caring for 12 children on Aug. 1, 2016; four were under five. Her 13‑year‑old niece, Emma, assisted that morning.
- The backyard was unfenced (license did not require a fence). Restorff stayed briefly inside preparing breakfast with a kitchen window and sliding door open; Emma supervised outside.
- Three‑year‑old G.B. wandered from the yard and was found ~2½ blocks away by a neighbor; he was returned unharmed. Restorff reported the incident and DHS temporarily suspended her license, later imposing conditions and a $1,000 fine.
- Wright County and DHS determined Restorff committed maltreatment by neglect under Minn. Stat. § 626.556, subd. 2(g)(3) (failure to "provide for necessary supervision ... appropriate for a child"). ALJ, Commissioner, and court of appeals relied on daycare licensing rule definition of "supervision" (sight or hearing at all times).
- The Minnesota Supreme Court granted review to determine the proper statutory interpretation and whether substantial evidence supported the maltreatment finding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Restorff) | Defendant's Argument (Commissioner) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meaning of "provide for" supervision under Clause 3 | Means create and execute a supervision plan (advance preparation), not strict guaranty of no wandering | Agrees caregiver must provide a plan but argues the plan here was insufficient given circumstances | "Provide for" means make and execute a plan for a child's supervision (court adopts Restorff's view) |
| Definition of "necessary supervision" | Should use plain meaning (watchful oversight); not import licensing rule literal "sight or hearing at all times" | Adopted daycare licensing rule definition (caregiver within sight or hearing at all times) | Court rejects importing licensing rule; defines supervision as watchful oversight (manage, direct, be in charge) |
| What "appropriate for a child" requires | Requires fact‑specific assessment of plan and execution considering listed factors (age, mental ability, length of absence, environment) | Applied factors but effectively treated any elopement as proof supervision was inadequate | Court holds Clause 3 mandates a fact‑specific appropriateness analysis considering enumerated factors |
| Whether substantial evidence supports maltreatment finding | Argues record lacks required findings (notably duration Restorff was inside) and agency applied incorrect strict‑liability standard; remand for fact‑finding | Argues the plan was insufficient because G.B. wandered and the supervisor was a 13‑year‑old helper; agency applied factors and substantial evidence supports result | Court reverses and remands: Commissioner misinterpreted statute and failed to make material findings (especially length of absence); remand for additional fact‑finding and revised decision |
Key Cases Cited
- Emerson v. Sch. Bd. of Indep. Sch. Dist. 199, 809 N.W.2d 679 (Minn. 2012) (statutory interpretation starts with plain meaning)
- In re A.D., 883 N.W.2d 251 (Minn. 2016) (remand appropriate when agency findings insufficient)
- Webster v. Hennepin County, 910 N.W.2d 420 (Minn. 2018) (substantial evidence standard and scope of review)
- Wayzata Nissan, LLC v. Nissan N. Am., Inc., 875 N.W.2d 279 (Minn. 2016) (consult dictionaries when no applicable statutory definition)
- Jaeger v. Palladium Holdings, LLC, 884 N.W.2d 601 (Minn. 2016) (use dictionary meanings when statute or rule lacks definition)
- In re Appeal by Kind Heart Daycare, Inc. v. Comm'r of Human Servs., 905 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. 2017) (agency decisions entitled to deference)
- Dokmo v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 11, Anoka‑Hennepin, 459 N.W.2d 671 (Minn. 1990) (remand for additional findings when needed)
- Gibson v. Civil Serv. Bd., 171 N.W.2d 712 (Minn. 1969) (fact‑finding is administrative function)