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 | A1 denied living or working at the facility and only ever being in home during holidays. A1 was able to provide new home address in Minnesota. Facility staff interviewed stated never meeting or seeing A1 at the facility during working hours.
One (1) out of three (3) children interviewed had observed A1 present in the home during daycare hours; however, they had not observed A1 interact with daycare children. LPA also interviewed five (5) daycare parents, all of whom stated they had never seen or heard of A1, but did not express any concerns about facility staff’s interaction with daycare children.
It was also alleged that the licensees did not prevent children from engaging in inappropriate behaviors towards other children. L1 denied the allegation; however, admitted that daycare child #4 (C4) has exhibited some challenging behaviors resulting in increased supervision. L1 disclosed that on an unspecified date, C4 attempted to kiss another daycare child. According to L1, she observed the interaction and was able to intervene. L1 stated the parents of both children were notified of the incident. Daycare parents interviewed did not express any concerns about the supervision provided by the licensees.
Due to conflicting information obtained throughout the course of the investigation and no other witnesses to the alleged incidents, LPA was unable to determine whether or not the allegations occurred. Although the allegation(s) may have happened or are valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violations did or did not occur, therefore the allegations are UNSUBSTANTIATED.
Exit interview was conducted and the report was reviewed with Licensee, Safiyo Jama. A notice of Site Visit was given and must remain posted for 30 days.
|