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 | LPA contacted the reporting party (RP) to obtain more information in regard to the allegations. RP states that the child (C1) attended this facility for about a month. Prior to starting care, RP toured the facility inside and outside. RP states thereafter she did not step foot past the drop off gate. LPA asked RP if she had asked licensee if she could come in or if the licensee had specifically said she couldn’t step into the home, RP states no she never asked licensee if she could go inside. RP also admits that on one occasion, the licensee did communicate to her via text message about an incident that occurred with C1. RP states the licensee also included a picture of C1 which showed a mark that was caused due to the incident.
Staff interviews were conducted and LPA determined all staff present have observed parents step into the areas of daycare. Staff also mentioned that parents are invited over on special occasions.
Eight parent interviews were conducted, and it was determined by LPA, all parents are allowed access into the day-care home and have never been denied entry by the licensee. All parents felt the care and supervision was either good or great and did not have any concerns. LPA determined that all parents communicate with the licensee via text, in person, or by phone.
LPA interviewed licensee and it was determined the parents are welcome to come into the day care area when dropping off and picking up children in care. LPA also observed licensee had 2 separate phones, one is used for the day care to communicate with the children’s parents and the other is her personal cell phone. Based on record review it was determined that licensee and RP did have communication. Licensee stated that on many occasions she observed C1 scratching its face after eating certain foods. Licensee shared pictures of C1’s face, LPA observed the pictures and determined the red marks appeared to be contact dermatitis.
Based on LPA observations and interviews which were conducted and record reviews, Although 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. |