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 | Allegation regarding-Licensee pulled child’s hair out while inspecting for lice. According to the RP, the parent of C1 was handed a plastic bag with the child’s hair inside. Per RP, the child’s hair was pulled out by S1 when they were inspecting C1s hair for lice. RP also stated that S1 notified the parent that C1 had lice and couldn’t return to the facility until the child received a clearance from the doctor; however, RP was informed that the child’s doctor did not observe any lice on the child’s hair. On 06/24, S1 contacted the Monterey Park Regional Office to report that C1 had nits and live lice on their hair. S1 also reported that the parent of C1 was notified, placed lice and nits in a bag to show the parent upon arrival. S1 then contacted LPA Martinez Garza to provide additional information.
According to the S1, approximately two weeks ago (prior to 06/23) C1 was seen scratching their head and asked the parent to check C1s head for any lice. Parent stated that due to being African-American, it was impossible for C1 to have lice. On 06/23 S2 noticed C1 was scratching their head while washing their hands in the bathroom. As S2 approached C1, S2 observed 1 lice but couldn’t remove the lice due to C1s hairstyle. S2 then immediately notified S1 who separated C1 from other children. S1 waited for C1 to finish eating their snack and took C1 to the backyard to inspect the child’s hair. S1 stated that the children present were not aware of what was going on and when C1 was taken to the backyard, the rest of the children remained indoors with S2. S1 sat with C1 on a child sized bench and removed C1s scrunchies. S1 began to inspect the child’s hair and noticed nits on the hair. S1 then removed a strand of C1s hair to provide proof to the child’s parent that C1 had lice/nits and placed them in a bag. S1 also took a picture of the zip loc bag that contained the live nits on C1s hair. Upon arrival, parent of C1 was notified that the child had lice/nits and provided the zip loc bag to the parent. Per S1, parent stated that it wasn’t C1s hair and that it could be S1s hair instead. Parent also stated that it wasn’t lice but rather dandruff on C1s hair. S1 recalled seeing parent of C1 pull the child’s hair to proof that it wasn’t nits but instead it was dandruff. Parent of C1 gave S1 a hair strand to proof that it wasn't nits. S1 grabbed the hair strand and popped the nit in front of the parent. Per S1, once the nit was popped a liquid was observed. Parent replied that it wasn't lice since it wasn't moving. S1 acknowledges that C1 also had dandruff; however, they also had nits. S1 then informed the parent that the child couldn’t return to the facility until they obtained a clearance letter from the doctor. S1 also revealed that the parent was not called after inspecting and removing the child’s hair since it was closer to pick up; however, an ouch report was provided to the parent who declined signature.
On 06/24, C1 returned to the facility and parent stated that the doctor did not provide a note because it was a family doctor. S1 explained that the child couldn’t stay at the facility until the doctor’s note was provided. Parent left with C1 and when S1 replied see you tomorrow, parent replied “I think never more.”
Page 2 of 3 |