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 daycare child interviews, no conclusive evidence regarding this allegation was obtained. It should be noted that that daycare parent P1 did not wish for their child, C1, to be interviewed. During review of outside agency reports, no corroborating evidence regarding this allegation was obtained.
Regarding the allegation that provider yells at day care children, interviews were conducted with daycare parents, daycare children, licensee and licensee’s spouse. During interviews with daycare parents, no evidence regarding this allegation was obtained. During interviews with the licensee and licensee’s spouse, the allegation was denied by both. During daycare child interviews, no conclusive evidence regarding this allegation was obtained. It should be noted that that daycare parent P1 did not wish for their child, C1, to be interviewed.
There is conflicting evidence obtained during the investigation. Though the allegations 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.
An exit interview was conducted and the report was reviewed with licensee, Carmen Rocha. No deficiencies cited. A copy of this report, along with Appeal Rights (LIC9058 03/22), were provided. A notice of site visit was given and must remain posted for 30 days. LPA observed that the notice of site visit was posted during the inspection. Failure to comply with posting requirements shall result in an immediate civil penalty of $100.
|