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 | Furthermore, LS denied staff yell at the children and stated, there was always a staff present that possessed current CPR/First Aid training, and to her knowledge, staff did not yell at or hit the children. According to LS, the facility’s discipline policy consisted of placing children in time out, and talking to the children, and LS did not report any prior or recent incident(s) related to staff misconduct. (Continue to LIC 9099-C)
Statements provided by children, S1, A2, and parents did not report any concerns related to LS leaving unqualified staff to care for children, witnessing staff yelling at children, and/or misconduct of staff. Although several statements did not report concerns, two statements claimed they heard staff yell loudly at or use inappropriate language to humiliate children, while another statement alleged, they witnessed S1 use her hand to hit a child on the right knee in the family room, however; those claims were not corroborated. A3 stated in the summer of 2023, A3 witnessed S1 smack a child in the back of the head because the child was not moving fast enough. S1 denied claims about violating children’s personal rights, and stated she did not yell or hit any child(ren) in care; and acknowledged it was her duty to report suspected child abuse to the proper authorities. Parents reported when they dropped their child(ren) off, they did not enter the home and parents could not confirm which staff were working or if they possessed current or valid CPR/First Aid training. Parents noted as they approached or walked away from the facility, they never heard staff yell, hit or be aggressive; and parents reported their child(ren) never disclosed anything concerning to them.
On 10/13/23, LPA observed LS and S1 providing care and supervision for 10 children, and at that time, LS furnished current copies of pediatric CPR/First Aid for herself and S1. Additionally, LPA did not observe any violations of children’s personal rights. Based on the investigation, there was no conclusive evidence to support the allegations. Although the allegations may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violations did or did not occur, therefore the allegations are unsubstantiated. Notice of site visit was given and must remain posted for 30 days. Failure to comply with posting requirements shall result in an immediate civil penalty of $100. There were no violation(s) of California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 12 cited at this time. Appeal Rights were provided. |