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 & S2 reported they were present on the day C1 allegedly sustained the injury, but staff stated they did not witness any incident involving injury to C1. Staff noticed C1’s eye was swollen after nap during a diaper changing session, no other child(ren) injured C1; and the swelling was not a result of staff conduct and/or inadequate supervision. During nap time, children were physically checked 3-7 minutes; and the facility’s discipline policy consisted of staff talking with child(ren) to resolve conflicts.
C3 & C4 did not report any concerns, and the children confirmed they did not see any child(ren) fall or hurt themselves, they never saw any staff/adult(s) hit, pinch or cause injury to any child(ren); children were never left unattended; staff talked to and utilized time out as tools to address children’s challenging behavior(s); and the children felt safe at the facility. P1-P5 did not have any knowledge or information relevant to the allegation. Parents divulged they never witnessed staff cause harm to any child(ren) and described staff’s character as kind and expressed that their child enjoyed going to the facility. A1 reported LS notified her that C1 had a knot on the eye, but prior to C1 arriving at the facility, C1 did not have a knot on the left eye, and when asked how C1 sustained the injury; LS allegedly kept changing her story and did not explain how C1 sustained the swollen eye. Another adult (A2) whose child was no longer enrolled at the facility, reported her child allegedly disclosed a staff pinched him multiple times for not taking a nap, but that statement was not corroborated.
On 04/15/24, the Department obtained a police report (PD) which did not provide evidence to support the claims about LS causing injury to C1, and the report suggested that the swelling was caused by a bug or allergic reaction. Based on the investigation, it could not be determined how and where C1 sustained the swollen eye, and there were no conclusive evidence to confirm C1’s swollen left eye occurred as a result of staff conduct and/or inadequate supervision. Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation did or did not occur, therefore the allegation is unsubstantiated. A notice of site visit was given and must remain posted for 30 days. Failure to comply with posting requirements shall result in an immediate civil penalty of $100. There were no violation(s) of California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 12 cited at this time. Appeal Rights were provided. |