complaint·October 24, 2024

The licensee\342\200\231s husband stated the allegation was retaliation for a dispute the licensee had with the parent over pick up times. During interview, C1 did not make a credible disclosure regarding the alleged incident. It was also alleged, that C1 disclosed that on July 31, 2024, C1 was inappropriately touched by daycare child #2 (C2). Licensee and licensee\342\200\231s husband denied the allegation, stating that children are always supervised when they are at the facility. They denied witnessing any children inappropriately touching each other. During interview, C1 made inconsistent statements regarding the alleged incident. C2 denied the allegation. Daycare children and parents interviewed did not disclose any concerns or issues with the facility or licensees. Due to conflicting information obtained throughout the course of the investigation and no other witnesses to the alleged incidents, LPA was unable to determine whether or not the allegations occurred. 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. Exit interview conducted and report was reviewed with the licensee Adriana Parga. A notice of site visit was given to licensee and must remain posted on, or immediately adjacent to, the interior side of the main door 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. This is an amended version of original report created on 10/24/2024.