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 | Reporting Party (RP) reported that on 08/13/2025, when dismissing children to wash their hands, the staff #1 (S1) pushed the child #1 (C1) down. RP also stated that the staff #2 (S2) is often on the Ipad, and not supervising the children.
During the investigation, LPA toured the facility, interviewed 5 staff, 5 parents, 4 children, the reporting party, reviewed Staff #1 (S1)’s statement, and reviewed pertinent documents. LPA attempted to interview Child 1 (C1); however, C1 was no longer enrolled at the facility and could not be interviewed.
Regarding the allegation of “Staff pushed child in care.”
During the inspection on 6/30/2026, LPA reviewed the coach and counsel memorandum. The facility determined that the staff #1 (S1)'s actions were intended to protect the safety of the children and prevent injury. There was no evidence that the staff #1 (1) intentionally harmed the child #1 (C1).
During the staff interview, 5 out of 5 staff denied the allegation of “Staff pushed child in care.” All 5 staff stated that they have never seen any staff push or retrain any child at the facility. The staff #1 (S1) stated that during transition, closing out from choice time, when children were dismissed a few at a time to go wash their hands getting ready for lunch, suddenly the child #1 (C1) was running at full speed toward S1 and other children. S1 was concerned that C1 could injure C1 and other children. Therefore, S1 raised their hand in a stop gesture in an attempt to slow C1 down. C1 was running too fast to stop, made contact with S1’s outstretched hand, and fell onto C1’s bottom. S1’s intention was to protect C1 and other children from harm.
Regarding the allegation of “Staff do not provide adequate supervision.”
During the staff interview, 5 out of 5 staff denied the allegation of “Staff do not provide adequate supervision.” All 5 staff stated that they always provide 100 percent visual supervision to all the children in care; they have never seen any staff use the Ipad for personal purposes. The staff #2 (S2) stated that S2 only uses the Ipad for work related, such as child’s observation, record meals, and parents sign in and out.
During the children interview, all 4 interviewed children did not provide any information related to the allegations.
Page 2 of 3 |