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 | During interviews, the director indicated that on or about the above dates the child’s representative (representative #1) arrived at the facility prior to 3:00 pm to pick up the child however, “the child’s other representative (representative #2) enrolled the child and provided the facility with a Custody and Visitation Order” previously dated. That order states Representative #1 can have the child after 3:30 pm, Wednesdays and Fridays”. It is facility’s policy to accommodate the representative who enrolled the child, meet the child’s needs and follow the court orders on file provided by the client representative during enrollment.
During interviews with other pertinent parties, it was disclosed that on or about June 3, 2020 and June 8, 2020 representative #2 asked the facility not to release the child to representative #1 as it was not their court ordered time to pick up the child.
LPA Robinson observed two different orders, dated May 20, 2019 and February 19, 2020 it is unclear which order is in effect and which order takes precedence.
Additionally, LPA learned on two separate occasions representative #1 notified the Riverside County Sheriff’s department, contending the facility denied them access to the child. LPA Robinson requested a copy of police report(s) but during the course of the investigation discovered the notifications to police were taken as incidents, no written report(s) were generated, as the calls were considered a “civil matter”.
The evidence gathered during the investigation revealed that the director acknowledged that they followed the custody/visitation order that representative #2 provided the facility when they enrolled the child at the facility. There is conflicting documentation (orders) regarding representative #1 and #2’s visitation rights. Although, the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is no preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation did or did not occur, therefore the allegation regarding a violation of parent’s rights is deemed unsubstantiated at this time.
LPA Robinson provided the director with a copy of this report and notice of site visit via email with an electronic “read receipt”. LPA Asked the Licensee to acknowledge receipt of the email. The electronic read receipt of the emailed report acknowledges receipt of this report and notice of site visit. A copy of this report and notice of site visit was emailed to director during this Tele-inspection on August 6, 2020.
No deficiencies cited at this time. Director advised the notice of site visit must be posted in a prominent location for the next 30 days. A copy of this report must be made available to the public upon request for the next 3 years. |