complaint·October 28, 2025

Pertaining to the allegation: Staff did not provide adequate supervision to children in care. Reporting Party (RP) alleged an incident report received for Child 1 (C1) did not have the correct person listed in the witness section. RP alleged Staff 4 (S4) was listed as witness when the correct person was Staff 1 (S1). During interview, S4 stated S1 was the witness for the incident in question. S1 stated they remember witnessing the incident. Staff 1-3 stated they write the correct names in the witness section of the incident report. Staff 3 (S3) stated protocol for writing witnesses is to write whoever saw the incident happen. For example, it could be one staff if it happened in the classroom or multiple staff if the incident occurred outside. S1 stated a copy of the incident report is made and the Director signs the copy as acknowledgement that the incident occurred. The copy with Director signature is kept in the child's file at the facility. Pertaining to the allegation: Staff did not ensure the facility was kept free of mosquitos . RP alleged S1 informed them mosquitos at the facility was typical. LPA observed mosquitos at the facility, particularly inside the office. LPA did not observe any standing water. Based on observation, children in care rarely go into the office or play in the office area of the playground. The office is in a corner of the large playground. On 9/24/25, S4 informed LPA they are getting quotes to get pest control for mosquitos, stating that this was a particularly bad season. Completion tag dated 9/11/25 by CatsUSA Pest Control (vendor) does not show mosquitos as one of the pests currently being targeted. LPA called the vendor to confirm the chemical used does not deter mosquitos. On 10/2/25, LPA observed plug-in light mosquito traps inside the classrooms where children cannot reach them. During parent interviews, LPA learned that the number of mosquitos at the facility is typical for the area. Children interviewed stated they know what mosquitos are, and that they bite. Some families apply mosquito repellant to their children before drop off time. S1 and S4 stated if a child has a doctor's note to apply insect repellant, they can re-apply during the day. Pertaining to the allegation: Staff did not follow proper reporting requirements : RP alleged staff did not report a confirmed case of Hand, Foot, Mouth (HFM) to parents in a timely manner. S2, S4, and Staff 5 (S5) stated the facility was verbally notified one child in care had a confirmed case of HFM on 9/15/25. A doctor's note was not received by the facility. An exposure notice was sent to families on 9/17/25 via email and Remind app. A second case was reported to the facility on 9/18/25. Parents interviewed recall an email, Remind app notification, and verbal reminders regarding HFM. The facility did not receive additional notification of confirmed cases. 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 allegation is unsubstantiated. Notice of site visit was given and must remain posted for 30 days. Appeal rights provided. Exit interview conducted and report was reviewed with Licensee Svetlana (Lana) Costache via telephone and in-person with Facility Representative Jeanne Burley.