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 | were notified of the occurrences and provided copies of Ouch Reports that explained what happened. In addition, per interviews conducted with Licensee and parents, the incident involving C1, where child bumped lip on table, was observed by the licensee who stated she was unable to prevent it from happening as it was an accident. Licensee applied ice to C1’s lip and sent pictures to the mother immediately after the incident occurred. LPA observed a copy of the picture showing the lip injury of C1 on 02/17/23, which shows a small bump on lip. Per interview with mother of C1, it was a bump on C1’s lip, not a busted lip.
A review of the court order between parents of C1 dated 04/13/2022, revealed there was a stipulation addressing Holidays, which did not include Valentine's Day, as it is not a state recognized holiday. There was an agreement between both parents on 02/14/23, where the co-parent with physical custody, (the mother of C1) extended the day as a courtesy to allow the co-parent (father) to spend time with the child on this day. During drop off that morning around 6:30AM, the mother of C1 informed Licensee that the father would be picking C1 up at 1:30PM. However, due to a disagreement, the courtesy was terminated by the mother of C1. Consequently, during the course of the morning, mother verbally communicated with Licensee that there may be a change to the plan. Then at 11:25AM, Licensee received a text by mother that she was terminating the arrangement. When the father arrived to pick up C1 at 1:00PM, the Licensee honored what she was advised of by mother to not allow father to pick C1 up from the day-care. Based on the evidence included in the court order and interview with mother of C1 confirming the directions given to the licensee, LPA determined that there was no violation of the parent’s rights.
Based on interviews conducted and records review, the allegations that an unexplained injury to child and Parents Rights were violated, may have happened or is valid, but there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation did or did not occur. Therefore, the allegations are UNSUBSTANTIATED at this time.
Exit interview conducted. A copy of this report and appeal rights were discussed and provided to the Licensee Carmen Figueroa on this date.
A NOTICE OF SITE VISIT WAS ISSUED AND LPA VERIFIED THAT IT WAS POSTED IN A PROMINENT LOCATION AT THE FACILITY BEFORE LEAVING. THE LICENSEE UNDERSTANDS THAT IT MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR THE NEXT 30 DAYS. |