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 interviews, it was also disclosed that the subject child had been put on time out and sent home for lightly soiling their underpants. It was confirmed by licensee and children interviews that children do go to time out; however, a connection could not be determined between time out and potty-training accidents. Facilities policy manual states all soiled garments are to be sent home with authorized representative as they do not provide laundering. It was stated that on several occasions, the child got picked up and had lightly soiled their underpants, however not how the licensee described as “blow outs.” Pertinent individuals stated that the subject child was often being sent home in other daycare children’s clothing. Although, they had sent the required amount of back up clothing and underwear requested by licensee. Lastly, authorized representatives spoke of lightly soiled underwear, however, the report stated the child was sent home in dirty diapers which conflicted with the allegation in the report.
It was also reported that a child was being sent home in a dirty diaper. Conversely, the licensee disclosed the child had several “blow out” accidents a day which took the licensee away from the other children in care. Licensee denied allegation of time out due to potty accidents. In addition, it was noted that the authorized representatives were present at drop off. However, after speaking with pertinent individuals, it was disclosed that only one of the child’s authorized representatives was present during drop off. It was confirmed by licensee that the authorized representatives did bring subject child enough pairs of underwear and a change of clothes that were required and never sent the child home in soiled underwear. LPA obtained conflicting statements regarding if the child was sent home in a dirty diaper.
Based on the information obtained during the investigation, it was concluded that there is not enough evidence to collaborate that a violation of CCL regulations occurred. 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 allegation is UNSUBSTANTIATED.
An exit interview was conducted, and a copy of this report was provided to current, Licensee, Tonda Padgett.
A Notice of Site Visit was also provided and posted which must stay posted for 30 days.
THIS REPORT MUST BE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC, UPON THEIR REQUEST, FOR THREE YEARS. |