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 | During the investigation, LPA reviewed facility's roster, facility Registration Packet, facility Parent Handbook, emails between facility staff and parent, interviewed 5 staff members and 5 parents.
During interviews, four (4) of five (5) interviewed staff stated that they observed Child #1 (C1) and Child #2 (C2) having normal interactions while being on the playground on the day of the incident, and they didn’t observe C2 touched C1. Staff #5 (S5) stated, on the day of the incident, S5 didn’t observe C2 touched C1 inappropriately, but S5 noticed that C1 was upset at C2 and S5 recalled giving redirections to C1 to leave C2 and go to play to another space because C1 was bothering C2. Staff #1 (S1) stated S1 conducted an internal investigation when the concern regarding C2 inappropriately touching C1 was brought up. S1 stated, when interviewed, C2 confirmed that C2 touched C1 private area over the pants. S1 provided a Incident Report with documentation of meeting with staff and reviewed with staff the importance of dual supervision. During LPA’s children’s interviews, C1 also confirmed that C2 touched C1 on the private area over pants. During the parent’s interview, 5 out of 5 parents did not make any disclosure regarding the above allegation.
During record reviews, LPA Sun reviewed Irvine Police Report and spoke to Irvine Youth Services Officer who stated no crime was committed and due to children’s young age the case was closed.
Page 2 of 3
|