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 | LS denied claims about leaving children unattended and not meeting a child’s diapering needs, and stated she never left children unattended, she changed children’s diapers every two hours; and LS never sent a child home with soiled diaper containing feces. According to LS, she brought her toothbrush and essentials downstairs to avoid going upstairs, and the children were never left alone. LS reported staff always supervised the children and if LS needed to go inside while the children were in the backyard, LS turned on video cameras installed in the backyard. During nap time LS sat on the couch to relax, was alert and attentive; but not unconscious.
Two statements reported they never saw LS leave the children unattended or asleep on the couch. Statements provided by S1-S3 did not report concerns or any current or prior incident(s) related to children being left unattended/unsupervised and/or LS not meeting children’s diapering needs. According to staff, there were cameras installed throughout the facility which staff utilized to further supervise the children, and they never saw LS take a nap on the couch or remain on the second floor while the children were on the first floor, in the front or backyard. Staff conveyed most of the children were potty trained and verbal, and asked staff for help when they needed to go to the bathroom. To staff’s knowledge, no staff ever intentionally left any child(ren) in a soiled diaper and staff claimed they changed the children’s diapers approximately every hour and throughout the day depending on the child’s diapering needs, and to prevent fall risk; the children were changed on a changing mat that was placed on the floor.
A1-A3 and P2-P3 did not report concerns related to the allegations and stated there were cameras mounted at the front of the facility, and during drop off and/or pick up time, they never saw LS sleeping on the couch or the children left unattended or without staff supervision; as well as they did not experienced diapering issues at the facility. Although multiple statements did not report concerns, P1 and A2 did however report on at least one occasion, they picked their child up with either a wet or soiled diaper containing feces.
Based on the investigation, there was no conclusive evidence to support the allegations. Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violations did or did not occur, therefore the allegations are unsubstantiated. There were no violation(s) of California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 12 cited at this time. Appeal Rights were provided. |