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 | Parent of C1 is alleging C1 had a severe rash and had multiple bite marks that was not mentioned to them by facility staff. There was inconsistency in interviews with Licensee and S1 regarding if rash was observed on C1; Licensee stated S1 stated to them there was redness observed and during interview S1 told LPA Calderon no rash observed on C1 and no children recently had diapering issue. In addition, Licensee, S1 and S2 denied C1 getting bit at the facility therefore incident could not be reportable if no confirmation to state biting occurred on C1 at the facility. Therefore, there is no evidence to support allegation (1) staff initially informed the Licensee of redness and same staff S1 denied observing any rash. Additionally, there is no corroborating evidence to confirm that a biting incident occurred at the facility. Staff did not report witnessing any unusual incidents or injuries requiring notification to authorized representative of C1. 1 out of 5 parent interviewed stated staff did not let them know of multiple incidents. Due to inconsistent statements and no evidence of incidents occurring to the infant children in care, allegation is unsubstantiated.
Based on allegation: Staff did not provide adequate supervision, resulting in one infant biting another multiple times. Based on interviews conducted with parent #2 (P2) of the alleged infant who bit another child #1 (C1) P2 stated witnessing the bite marks on C1 but C1 was brought by parents to the facility after leaving the day care and P2 states bite marks looked big and like an adult bite marks and red as if incident just had happened not as if it happened hours ago. P2 during interview with LPA Calderon also stated their child, Child #2 cannot climb out the crib to go into another child’s crib and back to their crib to commit incident. Per P2 interview, they stated Licensee had mentioned to them during Licensee’s investigation of what could of occurred to C1, as C1 parent alleged C1 getting bite at the facility. Ttherefore Licensee stated maybe it was their child C2 as they were sleeping next to C1. Based on Licensee, Staff #1 (S1) and Staff #2 (S2) interviews with LPA Calderon none mentioned an infant had a biting injury from lack of supervision. Licensee and S1 stated check infants every 15 mins or more often than that and S2 stated checks every 15 mins, therefore denied lack of supervision for incident to occur. Based on parent interviews of those who have infants in care; 1 parents interviewed denied any incidents occurring to their child due to lack of supervision and reported no issues with supervision as they often see adequate staff assisting children. Based on video provided by Licensee to LPA Calderon, LPA observed C1 leaving facility on alleged day of the biting 2/13/26 which is the date that C1 parent stated biting incident occurred at the facility; based on footage C1 was observed leaving facility, C1 was observed resting on S1 shoulder and is being handed over to C1 parent and C1 was not observed crying. Based on LPA's observation during visit dates 2/19/26, 2/20/26 and 4/20/26, facility was observed staffed and no observation observed of lack of supervision. Therefore, the alleged allegation is determined to be unsubstantiated.
|