1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32 | S1 denied the allegation on 9/22/21 & 12/13/21 stating that she and staff did not knot C1’s hair but would attempt to remove food from her hair often. S1 further stated that staff would readjust and replace child's rubber band on occasion but did not allow inappropriate interactions between staff and day care child. There was no intention to handle C1’s hair inappropriately but instead to assist C1.
The investigation consisted of interviews of staff (S1- S3) 9/22/21 & 12/3/21, parents (P1- P7) from 12/9/21 through 12/13/21, and children (C2- C3) 12/3/21, documentation review, and observations. Some children were not verbal enough or too young to interview and could not be qualified to interview. S1(Director), S2, and S3 confirmed that staff do manage some children’s hair but only to assist with children’s hair when needed. P1- P7 did not observe any staff handle children inappropriately. P3 and P6 stated that staff placed child’s hair in a braid on a few occasions but parents and children were okay with it.
Although there is evidence to show staff do manage children’s hair, the intent was only to assist the children, and there was no corroborating evidence to show any inappropriate interactions or negative impact on children when staff managed children’s hair. Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of the evidence to prove that the alleged violation occurred, therefore the allegation is unsubstantiated.
This report was discussed and reviewed with the Director, S1. Appeal Rights were provided.
Notice of Site Visit must be posted for 30 days from today's inspection. No violations of Title 22 were cited. |