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 facility staff interviewed stated that Child#1 was very active and had a hard time staying still. The facility staff members interviewed also stated that Child#1 had a habit of biting or scratching themselves. When asked if these observations were brought up to the parent of Child#1, the facility staff member stated that the parent was aware of these type of habits for Child#1.
After interviews with several different sources, LPA Lee observed that Child#1 is not verbal. The mark that was observed on the Child#1 was bruise according to the parent of the child. When asked about the mark on Child#1, the facility informed the parent that it did not know how the injury was sustained. During interviews, the facility staff members and Director stated that they do not know what injury the child sustained at the facility to leave that kind of mark. While it is possible that a lack of supervision from the facility caused the child to sustain an injury at the facility, an injury sustained at a facility does not guarantee that it was caused by the facility staff's lack of supervision.
It is possible that the bruise observed on Child#1 did come from a injury at the facility. However, it is also possible that the events that led to the injury was not preventable despite staff members providing adequate supervision in the classroom. For example, a staff member could have seen a child in the classroom sustaining an injury, but was not able to physically prevent the injury due to being too far away. It is also possible that the child fell or bumped into something, but did not communicate this to the teacher in the classroom.
Based on the evidence collected during the investigation, the allegation that Staff did not provide adequate supervision resulting in day care child sustaining an unexplained injury while in care may be valid. However, there is not enough preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation(s) did or did not occur, therefore at this time the above allegations are found to be unsubstantiated.
The notice of site inspection must be posted for a period of 30 days during hours of operation. Failure to maintain this posting requirement may result in a civil penalty of $100.00 dollars.
Exit interview conducted with Director Bobby Lee. Appeal rights discussed and explained. |