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 | (Page 2 of Report)
During a confidential interview, Reporting Party (RP) reported that RP heard from Adult #1 (A1) that there was an incident occurred at facility when Child #1 (C1) got injured while using the paper towel dispenser and that C1 wasn't being supervised when the incident occurred. According to RP, A1 was not present during the incident. LPA contacted A1 and left a message to inquire information about how A1 knew that C1 wasn't being supervised during the incident, A1 did not respond.
LPA contacted former LPA Gutierrez, who conducted a case management (CM) on 11/10/2022 regarding the incident, former LPA Gutierrez confirmed that during the CM at the facility, it was confirmed that staff were present and supervised child when the incident occurred.
During investigation, LPA interviewed 6 staff including one former staff who witnessed the incident and 4 children; reviewed the UIR of the incident and Case Management notes from former LPA.
All interviewed staff denied that they have witnessed or heard of any staff allowing children to go to the bathroom by themselves. Staff who were present in the classroom on the day of the incident confirmed that they were in the bathroom and provided supervision when the incident occurred. All interviewed children denied that they were allowed to go to the bathroom by themselves, and staff always positioned nearby the door to supervise child in the bathroom.
During record reviewed, LPA Tran learned that former LPA Gutierrez had conducted a case management on 11/10/2022 and had interviewed the staff who were present on the day of the incident. The responses from interviewed staff on 11/10/2022 were consistent with the responses provided by interviewed staff during the investigation.
Based on the information gathered from LPA interviews conducted with 6 staffs and 4 children, and record reviews of case management on 11/10/2022, there is insufficient evidence to corroborate the allegations that (1) facility staff left child unsupervised and (2) lack of supervision resulted in child sustaining injury. Although the allegations may have happened or are valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove (1) facility staff left child unsupervised and (2) lack of supervision resulted in child sustaining injury did or did not occur, therefore the allegations are UNSUBSTANTIATED. (Continue next page) |