complaint·November 20, 2023

The most recent ouch report in Child#1 file was dated 10/23/2023 and the oldest one observed was 07/26/2022. LPA Lee observed that the facility was not able to verify who the other child was in at least 6 out of the 8 incidents from Child#1's file. LPA Lee was able to confirm who the other child was in 2 out of the 8 incidents. LPA observed that a majority of the 8 ouch reports were documented by a staff member who no longer works at this facility. LPA Lee advised the facility to make changes in its policy so that staff members document this type of information in a separate and confidential form. By doing this the facility will be able to recall the information while not relying on staff members being able to recall by memory. LPA Lee observed that out of the 8 ouch reports in Child#1's file, at least 4 of them were almost identical in the description. The 4 incidents were all described as Child#1 and another child fighting over a toy and Child#1 sustaining an injury during the interaction. In these 4 incidents, LPA observed that Child#1 and other child were both playing together before an argument over a toy escalated the situation and caused 1 or both children to sustain injuries. In situations like this it is difficult to determine if injuries could have been prevented because the initial interaction was not concerning for the facility staff providing care for the children. During an interview, the reporting party did state that Child#1's parent did request that the facility keep Child#2 away from Child#1 to prevent further injuries from incidents. Child#1 and Child#2 were observed to be in the same age group. The facility stated that Child#1 and Child#2 were in different classrooms during the last and present school year. However, during outside play time or at a time of the day when there is a consolidation of the two classrooms, the two children would end up interacting with one another naturally. While it is possible that facility neglected to separate Child#1 and Child#2 which caused an injury, it is also possible that the two children wanted to play together despite, the facility's attempts to keep the two children separate. Even if it is requested by a parent, the facility cannot keep two children from interacting with one another if both children mutually agree to interact since doing so could be considered a violation of personal rights of children in care. During various interviews, the facility staff stated that at times it was difficult to keep Child#1 and Child#2 apart because both children would often choose to interact or play with one another. The complaint also alleged that the facility does not inform parents of incident reports. The facility denied this allegation and made no disclosure. During an interview, the reporting party stated that there were times where they found about an incident that occurred at the facility despite not receiving any documentation from the facility. When asked how they were able to find out about the incidents, the reporting party did not wish to disclose the identity of the source. While LPA Lee did observe that the facility did not keep track of certain information (The identify of the other child when 2 children are involved) with ouch reports. While it is ideal that facility keep this information, the fact that the facility did not have this information available does not mean that the facility was not providing or notifying parents of children with ouch/incident reports. Child care centers are not required to provide the identity of the other child involved when providing a ouch report to a parent. Based on the evidence collected during the investigation, the allegations that the facility does not provide incident reports to parents and allowed a daycare child to hurt another children in care may be valid. However, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation(s) did or did not occur, therefore at this time the above allegations are found to be unsubstantiated. Exit interview conducted with Director Sandra Wong. Appeal rights discussed and explained. The notice of site inspection must remain posted for period of 30 days during hours of operation. Failure to maintain posting will result in a civil penalty of $100.00 dollars.