The Reporting Party (RP) reported observing that Child #1 (C1) was not being held frequently or included in classroom activities. RP further stated that on December 12, 2025, a verbal disagreement occurred between Parent #1 (P1) and Staff #1 (S1) after P1 observed that C1 had a bloody nose. According to RP, both Staff #1 (S1) and Staff #2 (S2) indicated they were unaware of how C1 sustained the injury. RP described S1’s tone during the interaction as inappropriate and aggressive, noting that the exchange occurred in the presence of children.

RP also reported observing Staff #3 (S3), who is the facility’s cook, holding and caring for an infant. RP expressed concern regarding whether S3 is qualified to provide care to infants and provided a photograph of S3 holding an infant. RP clarified that S3 was not alone caring for children in the classroom at the time and that another staff member was present. RP’s concern was specifically related to S3’s qualifications or background in providing infant care.

During staff interviews, employees made disclosures regarding S1’s attitude toward other staff members and parents; however, staff stated that S1 did not display this behavior toward the children. Staff denied the allegation that S1 failed to provide care to C1. Staff also denied that S3 was responsible for providing care to children, explaining that S3 would occasionally enter classrooms only to deliver food or retrieve dirty dishes.

LPA interviewed S2, who was present during the alleged verbal altercation between P1 and S1. S2 recalled that at the time of the incident, S2 was changing diapers while S1 was reading a book to the children during circle time. P1 entered the classroom for pick up and observed C1 sitting slightly away from the group. P1 questioned why C1 was not included in the group activity. S2 stated that S1 and P1 did not have a positive relationship. S1 did not respond to P1’s question and continued reading to the children. S2 then responded to P1, explaining that C1 had just had their diaper changed and had been placed in a support ring to sit.

According to S2, P1 continued to request a response from S1. After receiving no response, P1 picked up C1 and noticed a small cut inside the child’s nostril. P1 then asked S1 and S2 what had occurred and why C1 was bleeding. S2 responded that she was unsure how the injury occurred, explaining that she had just entered the classroom to cover another staff member’s break.

P1 then asked S1 what had occurred and whether an incident report had been completed. According to S2, S1 responded in a rude tone, stating, “I don’t know, I wasn’t here, I just got here.” P1 subsequently left the infant room with C1. S2 stated that no inappropriate language was used during the interaction; however, S2 felt that S1’s level of professionalism when addressing P1 was inappropriate. S2 further reiterated that although S1 and P1 did not have a positive relationship, S1 would still feed C1 and change C1’s diaper as needed.

During an interview with Staff #4 (S4), S4 stated that they had observed a small scratch beneath C1’s nose earlier in the day and reported that C1 was dropped off with the scratch already present. S4 stated that an incident report was not completed because the mark did not appear significant. S4 explained that C1 frequently had minor scratches that the child would inflict on themselves. According to S4, the area was not bleeding and appeared only as a red scratch. S4 further stated that by the time the alleged incident between P1 and S1 occurred, S4 had already left for the day and was therefore unable to provide P1 with information regarding the scratch.

LPA obtained a photograph of the alleged injury and observed a small scab at the entrance of C1’s nostril.

The LPA also obtained a photograph of S3 holding an infant while holding a bottle in the other hand. Due to the camera angle of the classroom, the LPA was unable to determine whether other staff members were present in the room, as the camera view did not capture the entire classroom.

Based on LPA's interviews and picture reviewed, it has been determined there was no preponderance of evidence supporting (1) unqualified staff was caring for children, (2) staff did not meeting needs of daycare children and (3) staff spoke inappropriately in front of day care children. Although the allegations may have happened or are valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violations did or did not occur, therefore the allegations are found to be Unsubstantiated.

Exit interview was conducted with Director Jennifer Gardea. The Notice of Site Visit was posted.

End of Report.