| Reporting Party (RP) stated they were not notified that Child 2 (C2) was also assessed by staff privately.
5 Staff stated they assess children for illness, and they notify the child’s authorized representative after assessing the children. Staff 1 (S1) stated they notify parents of any examination conducted. Staff 2 (S2) and Staff 3 (S3) stated the office notifies parents of illness. Staff 4 (S4) stated if there are injuries, they take a photo and send it to parents through Procare. If it is a health concern, S4 stated the office notifies the parents. Staff 5 (S5) stated they notify parents of health examination.
Director stated they called C1 and C2 representative and notified them through a phone call of their observation and then sent a Procare notification after.
LPA reviewed Procare notifications dated 2/11/26 to the authorized representatives notifying of C1 and C2 observations.
LPA interviewed 3 parents, none of the parents interviewed disclosed any information that could support the allegation.
7 children interview conducted none of the children interviewed disclosed any information that could support the allegation.
Authorized representatives of C1 and C2 did not allow LPA to conduct an interview.
Based on the interviews conducted and records reviewed, the preponderance of evidence standard has not been met. Although the allegation of Staff did not properly report incidents involving daycare children may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation did or did not occur, therefore the allegation is UNSUBSTANTIATED.
An exit interview was conducted and report was reviewed and discussed with Director, Celeste Cisna. The Notice of Site Visit was posted during the visit and must remain posted for 30 consecutive days. Appeal Rights provided.
Page 2 of 2
|