complaint·August 31, 2022

Page 2/4 and in T5, there were 2 staff with 2 infants. Staff-child ratio was met. All staff are cleared and associated. Staff-child ratio was met. All staff have Criminal Background Clearance and are associated. Throughout the course of the investigation, interviews were conducted with the Reporting Party (RP) and eight staff; and documentation in the form of eight email chains including eight photos, as well as screen shots from “Life Cubby,” (the app used by the Center), the Child Care Facility Roster (form LIC 9040), and the Summer Newsletter were obtained. -Pertaining to the allegation that “Day care child’s hygienic care needs are not being met”: RP alleges that Child #1 (C1) was sent home on multiple occasions with boogers on their face and hands, that their hands were sticky, and that there was a dry, crusty substance on their face which could not be removed by saliva alone, only by soap and water (which RP presumed to be dried up boogers). Two emails, dated June 7 and July 25, were provided which document RP’s concerns regarding boogers in the nose of C1 as well as “crusted residue” on C1’s face which was observed when C1 was picked up. The emails were from RP to Center staff. One photo was obtained which shows what appears to be either something dry and crusty or a scab on the left side of the face of C1 and is brownish or skin colored (it is difficult to determine, as C1 is facing the camera and only a part of the left side of C1’s face is visible); this photo was posted on LifeCubby on 07/25/22. The other two photos are undated, were taken by RP, and show something red on the left side of C1’s face (it appears to be a rash or possible redness caused by too much wiping) Page 3/4 No disclosures were made by five of the staff interviewed. Of the remaining three staff, one disclosed that the nose of C1 would run a lot, causing the face of C1 to be constantly dirty, but that staff would wipe their face with a wet wipie. In addition, that when RP’s concerns were relayed to them, staff became more diligent in cleaning the face of C1 throughout the day. In an email dated 06/07, RP stated that C1 had seasonal allergies for a bit and was experiencing “mild congestion.” One staff stated that it is possible that staff did not immediately observe that the face of C1 would be dirty because C1 would wear a face covering (mask). Another staff corroborated that because C1 was dropped off wearing a mask, staff would keep the mask on any children who were dropped off wearing a mask because it was figured that is what parents preferred, but that after RP complained about C1 wearing a mask all day, the mask was removed when C1 arrived and then put on again when C1 departed. As it is unknown what the crusted substance was on the left side of the face of C1 which was observed in the photo dated 07/25/22, nor why C1’s face appeared to be red (i.e. what caused the redness) in the undated photo taken by RP; and as Center staff appeared responsive to RP’s concerns, the allegation that “ Day care child’s hygienic care needs are not being met” has been determined to be Unsubstantiated. This agency has investigated the complaint alleging that “ Day care child’s hygienic care needs are not being met " and that there was a violation of Title 22, Division 12, Chapter 1, Article 6, Section 101223 Personal Rights. Based upon the evidence as presented above, the allegation has been determined to be Unsubstantiated. A finding of Unsubstantiated means that although Page 4/4 the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation did or did not occur. No deficiencies are being cited for the allegation listed above. A notice of site visit was given and must remain posted for 30 days. Failure to comply with posting requirements shall result in an immediate civil penalty of $100. Exit interview conducted and report was reviewed with the Assistant Director Ruby Escamilla.