Complaint·January 13, 2023

Staff #2 (S2) also stated children are never left unsupervised, and the teachers are there to correct any behaviors. S2 stated the children were never alone, and that the allegation could not have happened because the staff or children would have seen it. Seven preschool children (including C1) were interviewed on 10/26/22 and 11/10/22. None of the children made any disclosures regarding the allegation. Four parents were interviewed on 10/26/22, 10/28/22 and 11/9/22. All of the parents were satisfied with the care provided and did not have any concerns about supervision. On 10/12/22 children’s records and staff records were received and reviewed. On 10/26/22 the facility was toured and photos were taken. Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of the evidence to prove that the alleged violation occurred, and the findings are unsubstantiated. LPA Mendez investigated the allegation of child sustained unexplained injury while in care. The licensee was interviewed on 10/12/22 at 10:25am and stated that there were no injuries, and all visible injuries are documented. A copy of the ouch report is provided to the child's authorized representative and a copy is placed in their file. Licensee stated that all children's records are maintained, and any documentation is in their file. LPA Mendez interviewed staff (S1-S2) on 10/12/22. LPA Mendez asked staff if they are documenting all injuries, two of two staff stated yes they were documenting injuries. LPA Mendez asked staff what their process for documenting incidents is, S1 stated that they will look at the child’s injury, write an ouch report and notify the licensee. S2 stated that if they witness an injury, they will look at it, clean it up if there is blood, write an ouch report and notify the licensee. LPA Mendez interviewed parent (P1) on 10/10/22. LPA Mendez asked P1 if they had received an incident report regarding child (C1) injury. P1 stated that C1 had a cut under their chin that appeared to be infected and needed to have a band aid on it. P1 stated that they had asked the teacher for an incident report and was informed that the incident did not happen at the facility. LPA Mendez reviewed C1’s file and reviewed statements from the staff that the C1’s unexplained injury did not occur at the facility. Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of the evidence to prove that the alleged violation occurred, and the findings are unsubstantiated. An exit interview was conducted. The Notice of Site Visit must be posted for 30 days. LPA Mendez had reviewed child’s file and observed that the C1 did not have physician’s report on file. Based on the evidence obtained, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met, therefore the above allegation is found to be substantiated. California Code of Regulations, (Title 22), is being cited on the attached LIC 9099D. Appeal rights were provided and exit interview conducted. The Notice of Site Visit must be posted for 30 days.