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 | The investigation revealed that approximately 7:30am on January 5, 2026, the representative of Client #1 (C1) entered the facility without disclosing their identity or acknowledging staff when they attempted to communicate with the individual and proceeded to inspect the kitchen and take photographs. Based on the interviews of two present staff working on January 5th, it was their first time meeting the individual and was not aware they were C1's representative. After this incident, C1 expressed not having this individual come inside the facility. Based on the review of the IPP dated January 6, 2026, IPP documents that C1 had been informed of their rights in allowing guests to the facility and their room with permission. Prior to this incident, C1's representative had visited in the past based on the sign in/out logs. It is determined that C1's representative had freely visited C1 until C1 expressed discomfort with continuing visits from their representative.
Therefore, although based interviews which were conducted and the records that were reviewed, although the allegation 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 following allegation: Staff is denying visitation rights is deemed UNSUBSTANTIATED.
An exit interview was conducted with Administrator Laura Palomino, and a copy of this report was provided at exit. |