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 | It was alleged that a facility staff had pinched a daycare child. A witness alleged that they saw markings on the child’s body later in the evening after getting picked up from the facility. During this investigation, the department received conflicting information whether the facility staff had intentionally mishandled the daycare child. The department received information alluding to the child being mishandled by staff, but it wasn’t enough for the department to conclude it had in fact occurred.
It was also alleged staff restrained a daycare child. Several witnesses stated they had seen a pertinent individual restraining a child in an unharmful manner from destroying a classroom and facility office. A daycare child was removed from a classroom because they had become physically aggressive toward other staff and children. To keep everyone safe, the child was removed from the classroom where they were allegedly throwing toys and chairs. As the child threw their legs and arms in the air, they sustained scratches in the underarm area while being reframed.
A witness alleged staff yelled at the daycare child. It was disclosed that while a child waited to be picked up from the facility, staff yelled at the child. It was disclosed a pertinent individual stood close to the child’s face while they yelled at the daycare child. The investigation could not determine whether the child was yelled at or not and received conflicting information over the situation.
It was alleged staff threw daycare child’s shoes in the trash. During an investigation, it was disclosed that the shoes were removed to prevent anyone from getting hurt. Prior to the shoes being removed, statements disclosed the child was punching and kicking their way out of being reframed and to prevent injury to themselves and others. No other witnesses could corroborate that the child’s shoes were thrown in the trash.
Based on the information obtained during the investigation, it was concluded that there is not enough evidence to corroborate that a violation of CCL regulations occurred. Although the allegations 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 allegations are UNSUBSTANTIATED. |