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 | anyone at the day care. No other children were involved or witnessed the alleged incident.
The Reporting Party (RP) alleged that, “Minor took inappropriate photos on another child’s device while in care”. Investigator Miles conducted interviews with Staff #1, Child #1 (C1), Child #2 (C2) and other relevant complaint parties. C1 stated that C2 had taken pictures of his private area on C1’s IPad. Per C2, S1 was not present during the time C2 took the pictures of himself. According to C2, S1 was outside supervising the other children while C2 was inside the facility. Per C2, he thought he had deleted the pictures from C1’s IPad. When asked by Investigator Miles why, C2 stated, “I don’t know why I did it, I wasn’t thinking”. Per C2, he was alone when he took the pictures on C1’s IPad. Per S1, she was unaware of the incident (C2 taking pictures of his private area). Per S1, she was somewhere tending to other day care children. Per S1 and C2, there were other day care children present when the incident occurred, however none witnessed C2 taking pictures of himself. Parent of C2 informed S1 of the pictures. S1 had her older son permanently deleted the pictures from the IPad.
Based on interviews, record review and observation, the above allegations are deemed UNSUBSTANITATED. Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of the evidence to prove that the alleged violation occurred.
An exit interview was conducted, and a copy of this report was provided to licensee, Silvia Cervantes along with Notice of Site Visit and Appeal Rights. |