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 denies placing C6 on time out for “peeing” on their clothes on 11/01/23. S1 disclosed that prior to the incident of 11/01/23, C6 was placed on time out for peeing on their clothes due to the request of the RP. Per S1, RP made the request verbally. S1 stated that C6 has been placed on time out only when C6 became physically aggressive with other children. According to the RP, C6 was placed on time out for peeing twice on their clothes on 11/01/23. RP denies asking S1 to place C6 on time out if there ever was a potty accident. LPA interviewed C1 thru C6, who made no disclosures. C1 thru 2 were not qualified. LPA also interviewed C3 thru 5, who made no disclosures. Per C3 and 5, they have observed children on time out; however, they do not know the reason why they were placed on time out. Per C4, they have observed children on time out due to misbehaving. C3 thru 5, did not identify C6 as being placed on time out. C3 thru 5, stated that children are placed on time out between 1 – 5 minutes. LPA interviewed P1 thru P2, who made no disclosures. According to P2, they do not have any concerns on how S1 interacts with children.
This agency has investigated the complaint alleging Licensee practiced “Inappropriate discipline.” Based on interviews conducted, LPA found conflicting statements regarding the allegation and therefore found the complaint to be deemed UNSUBSTANTIATED. Meaning that, although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of the evidence to prove that the alleged violation occurred.
A notice of site visit was given and must remain posted for 30 days.
Exit interview conducted and report was reviewed with Licensee Hermelinda Garcia. Appeal rights provided.
Page 2 of 2 |