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 | Continued from LIC9099.
Additionally, LS stated that a behavioral specialist has reviewed C2's behavior and C2 is taken on walks when they become upset to help de-escalate thir behavior.
Interviews with Staff (S1 – S4) indicated that C2 does use vulgar language in the presence of staff and other children. Staff (S1, S2, & S4) stated that staff would attempt to redirect or stop C2's behavior. Specifically, S2 stated that staff would speak to C2 and provide space away from others when the behavior occurs. S4 also stated that if the behavior continues, C2's parents are contacted and come to speak to C2. Staff (S1 & S3) did state that staff had been informed to ignore C2 when they use vulgar language and that C2 is allowed to behave in that behavior.
According to Adult 1(A1)'s statement, A1 stated that they are a specialist who has worked with C2 and has provided the facility with guidance on appropriate strategies for managing C2's behavior when C2 uses vulgar language.
Based on the information gathered during this investigation, although the allegations may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove that the allegations occurred and therefore are determined to be unsubstantiated. There were no Title 22 deficiencies cited. This report was reviewed and discussed with Licensee, Zoe Teeter. Appeal rights were provided. Notice of Site Visit shall be posted for 30 days from today's visit. |