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 | The LPA interviewed 3 out of 3 staff on 7/21/22. S1 acknowledged C1 was acting emotional so staff placed their hand on C1’s upper arm which resulted in the child expressing pain, however, the staff denied using any pressure and that it was just an emotional response from the child. The other 2 staff denied witnessing the incident. S2 denied waking C2 up from a nap but acknowledged the child was sitting on the edge of the bed and the child rose up the same time staff was lifting the bed, so it may have looked like S2 was rolling the child. The LPA interviewed 5 out of 5 children on 7/21/22. C1 stated that a staff grabbed the child’s upper arm and the child claimed it kind of hurt on more then one occasion, however, the child could not identify any staff as being involved. All other children interviews denied witnessing staff grabbing children by the arms but 2 children interviews indicated that staff do roll them off their mats and it’s considered fun, but none confirmed that they are forced to wake up, including C2 who was alleged to have been woken up and rolled. The LPA interviewed 4 out of 4 witnesses. W1 confirmed that C1 is dramatic and often says, “ouch” even with a light touch to the shoulder. No witnesses had any concerns about staff grabbing and pulling children. W2 denied that C2 had ever been forced to wake up and then rolled off the bed. No other witnesses expressed any concerns.
The LPA has determined that C1 acknowledged saying “ouch” when an unidentified staff placed their hand on the child’s upper arm and S1 acknowledged touching the child’s arm but in a light manner as touch calms the child. Per W1, the child has a history of saying “ouch” even when it’s not warranted therefore, the LPA was unable to determine if pain was actually caused or if the response was truly emotional. Also, S2 acknowledged rolling C2’s bed when the child was standing up but denied it was used to wake the child up. Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of the evidence to prove that the alleged violation occurred, and the findings are unsubstantiated.
Notice of Site Visit shall be posted for 30 days from today's visit. |