So, this is some speculation while in the shower…
The child was found on a sleeping pad. This means he was not on a sleeping bag or a bivy. He had to have been moved.
I don’t believe the deputy saw the bivy set up, because if he did, he’d use “end” instead of “side”. I believe he saw the poles folded into a bundle (this leaves room for
@Dotta ‘s two-pole bivy), and he saw the material of the bivy, enough to notice that the zippers were taped off, and a child would not be able to exit. Staff said the child was in a sleeping bag, but the deputy doesn’t say anything about seeing it. I believe it’s debatable whether staff gave the child a sleeping bag at all, or he soiled it, so they chucked it.
Recall upthread I gave a safety tip to parents who have sleeping bags their kids will “grow into”, and I said to tie the end off, so the child can’t scooch down into the end and suffocate. Sleeping bags sleep cold if they’re too long, too. I’m guessing staff used some kind of restraint system on that bivy. Otherwise, how are the child’s arms going to end up folded on his chest? But what if they also tied off the end of the bivy, and that’s why his knees were bent? It would be like short-sheeting it. It would prevent him from kicking. He might be able to stamp on the floor, but he wouldn’t be able to unbend his legs. From this situation, IMO you could easily get into positional asphixia.
Or, if his arms were restrained (e.g. by wrapping cord around the bivy), He could have scooched down into the bag, bending his legs, and got suffocated, or, in thrashing around, his neck got hung up on restraints designed to bind his arms. That would strangle him.
I hope LE searched that property inside and out, so they know exactly what was going on.
I can’t visualize how the child ended up the way he was found unless there was binding wrapped around that bivy.