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 | Page 2 of 3
# 1 by the back of child's shirt collar and shook child on 11/8/19.
On the last investigation date of 1/3/2020 LPA interviewed three staff and gathered some documents. During the course of investigation, LPA interviewed the subject staff over the phone. Our office requested a copy of the video footage with the dates and estimated times the reporting party had mentioned. The video footage was viewed. The video footage shows the children during nap time from two different angels on 12/20/2019, and after nap towards the end from two different angels on 12/20/2019, and October 24, 2019.
LPA viewed on this video footage that on one incident, staff # 3 pulls two children's arms and drops children on the cot in a rough manner on 12/20/2019 during nap time. On another incident toward the late afternoon, LPA observed on the video footage that staff # 2 pushed child # 1 back two times in a rough manner sitting child in the circle time preventing child # 1 to get closer to staff # 2 on 12/20/2019. On another incident of 10/24/2019 LPA viewed on the video footage that staff # 2 lifted child # 1 from the chair while sitting by the child's back of shirt collar and lifted child's left arm up in the air in a rough manner. Then it was observed staff # 2 dropped the child on the floor, picked the child up, held the child very close to staff's face talking to the child.
Based on LPA's viewing details of these video footage and the interviews which were conducted with six staff including the subject staffs, and reviewing the documents, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met, therefore the above allegations are found to be SUBSTANTIATED. California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division & Chapter 12, is being cited on the attached LIC 9099 D for the deficiency section 101223(a)(1) for Personal Rights violation.
During the course of investigation and viewing the video footage of the above incidents, LPA observed a child went to the restroom without any staff supervising the child visually. It was estimated the child was in the bathroom for 4 minutes while staff # 2 and staff # 3 were away from the bathroom without having any visual observation on the child. (The two angels of the video footage were viewed for this purpose). Also it was observed few children were hitting each other and staff # 2 did not intervene. California Code of Regulations,
Continued on page 3 |