Complaint·October 30, 2023

According to the Director, S1 has never been observed hitting any of the children in care. According to S1, parents are notified when children in care are injured by notifying parents or providing an ouch report. S1 further stated that they were unaware of C1 being injured while in care and that they did not physically hit C1 while in care. According to Staff 2 (S2), Staff 3 (S3), Staff 4 (S4) and Staff 5 (S5), they have never observed S1 injuring children but did acknowledge that children do obtain accidental injuries while in care. According to Parent 3 (P3), Parent 4 (P4) and Parent 2 (P2) they do not have any concerns regarding S1 injuring children but did acknowledge that their children do obtain normal play injuries while in care. -Pertaining to the allegation that - Staff yelled at children in care According to the RP- Staff 1 (S1) was observed raising their voice at the children in care. RP further stated that it's a way that you can talk to an older child maybe 5 or 6 but not a 2 year old. According to the Director, S1 has never been observed yelling at children in care.S1 stated that there are times that it is necessary to raise their voice to get the children’s attention or prevent an injury. According to Staff 2 (S2), Staff 3 (S3), Staff 4 (S4) and Staff 5 (S5), they have never observed S1 yelling at the children. According to Parent 3 (P3), Parent 4 (P4) and Parent 2 (P2) they do not have any concerns regarding S1 yelling at the children care. The following complaint allegation was conducted by Investigations Branch (IB) Investigator Christine Ferris along with Special Investigator Assistant Rocio Flores (translation). Throughout the course of the investigation, the IB investigator conducted an interview with one child and two adults. -Pertaining to the allegation that - Staff inappropriately touched child in care Investigator asked C1 what their name was, but C1 did not answer. Rocio spoke to C1 in Spanish and asked how old C1 is, and C1 stated, “Two.” Rocio attempted to conduct the Ten Step Investigative Interview process, but C1 was unable to answer the questions correctly. C1 was asked several questions regarding friends, what they like to play with, who they play with, and what tbeir dog’s names were, and C1 was unable to answer the questions. The interview was paused, and advised that it would be difficult to elicit any information without asking C1 about school including friends, activities, and grown ups there. RP decided they did not want the interview to continue, therefore, the interview was concluded with no disclosure. Based on the evidence as documented above, the allegations have been determined to be Unsubstantiated. A finding that the complaint is unsubstantiated means that although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of the evidence to prove that the allegation occurred. A notice of site visit was given and must remain posted for 30 days. Exit interview conducted and report was reviewed with Director, Kimberly Ogas.