Skip to main content

Inspection visit

complaint

Clean visit · 0 citations

Inspector’s narrative

What the inspector wrote

(1) Another child ripped out a chunk of C1\342\200\231s hair; (2) another child pushed C1 to the ground; (3) C1 fell and hit face on a wooden bookshelf after tripping; (4) On 02/02/23 during pickup, RP notified teachers of unknown cut under C1\342\200\231s eye; and (5) On 02/03/23, RP alerted both the school, the director, and C1\342\200\231s teachers of unknown bruising and welt on right thigh. The RP did not provide Incident Reports, Photographs, or Dates for injuries 1, 2, and 3. RP did not provide medical records for injuries 1 \342\200\223 5. The RP did provide Incident reports and photographs for Injuries 4 & 5. The RP provided photographs of a bruise on C1\342\200\231s right thigh (incident date 02/02/23) and small red blemish under C1\342\200\231s right eye (incident date 02/02/23). The RP did not provide medical records for the bruise on the right thigh or the cut under the right eye. The RP disclosed that on 02/02/23 during pick-up and on 02/03/23 during drop-off, RP notified facility staff of the cut under right eye of C1. RP was unable to identify what staff were notified of the cut under C1\342\200\231s eye during pick-up on 02/02/23 and during drop-off on 02/03/23. On 02/03/23 during pick up, RP notified Staff 5 (S5) of the injury to C1\342\200\231s right thigh and cut underneath right eye. Facility Staff 1-8 are reporting that they are not aware of C1 having a chunk of hair pulled out of their head; another child pushing C1 to the ground; C1 falling and hitting face on a wooden bookshelf after tripping; or cut under C1\342\200\231s eye. Staff 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8 are reporting that on 02/02/23 during pick-up and on 02/03/23 during drop-off they were not notified that C1 had a cut underneath the eye. Staff are also reporting that they did not observe a cut underneath C1\342\200\231s eye on 02/02/23 or on 02/03/23. Staff 5 (S5) disclosed that on 02/03/23, during pick up, RP notified Staff 5 of the cut underneath C1\342\200\231s eye and bruise on C1\342\200\231s right thigh. S5 disclosed that S5 did not observe a cut underneath C1\342\200\231s eye on 02/03/23, and only observed a mark under the C1\342\200\231s eye in a photograph. Staff 5 is reporting that on 02/02/23, while children were playing in the playground, C1 was running with another child when C1 tripped and hit her upper thigh on the balancing beam. The other child pulled C1 to get up and C1 got up and continued to run without crying or complaining about any injuries. LPA received photographs from the RP for the bruise on the right thigh and the cut underneath the right eye of C1. LPA is able to observe a bruise on the upper right thigh, that facility staff would not have been able to see unless C1 would have made them aware of. LPA observed the photograph with cut underneath right eye and LPA can observe a small red blemish under the right eye of C1; LPA is not able to see a cut underneath C1\342\200\231s eye. Page 2. RP provided medical records from West Hills Medical Center, for Child 1, date of visit 02/13/23, with Emergency Department. Medical records show that C1 was seen for Urinary Tract Infection, Viral Syndrome (Vomiting), and Head Contusion (Scalp Bruise). Medical record provides medical explanation for what causes a Pediatric Urinary Tract Infection, Vomiting child, and Scalp Bruise but does not explain how or when C1 got a Urinary Tract Infection, Viral Syndrome (Vomiting), or Head Contusion (Scalp Bruise). RP notified LPA that on 02/13/23, during pick up, C1 told RP that that C1 \342\200\234bunked\342\200\235 C1\342\200\231s head. LPA did not receive any incident reports for 02/13/23 and C1 was notified by director on 02/13/23 that C1 was not feeling well and did not have a fever. LPA is unable to verify that C1 sustained an injury while in care at the child care center. After considering available information LPA is unable to corroborate allegation that child sustained multiple unexplained injuries while in care or that staff did not properly report an incident involving a daycare child. Allegation 3 - Insufficient staffing for daycare children while in care. The RP disclosed that C1\342\200\231s teacher, S5 verbally reiterated over the phone that they were understaffed on 02/02/23 when C1 sustained injuries and that the teacher cannot properly watch 10-12 toddlers all alone. C1 is a preschool child in the licensed preschool. According to Title 22 Regulations, Division 12, Chapter 1, section 101216.3, Teacher-Child Ratio, (a) There shall be a ratio of one teacher visually observing and supervising no more than 12 children in attendance\342\200\246 LPA reviewed S5 file and was able to verify that S5 has the minimum requirements to be a teacher in a licensed childcare center and is able to supervise 12 preschool children. Allegation 4 - Staff did not seek timely medical attention for a daycare child. According to the RP, C1 sustained 5 injuries while in care. (1) Another child ripped out a chunk of C1\342\200\231s hair; (2) another child pushed C1 to the ground; (3) C1 fell and hit face on a wooden bookshelf after tripping; (4) On 02/02/23 during pickup, RP notified teachers of unknown cut under C1\342\200\231s eye; and (5) On 02/03/23, RP alerted both the school, the director, and C1\342\200\231s teachers of unknown bruising and welt on right thigh. LPA is unable to verify that incidents 1, 2, 3, and 4 happened to the child while in care at the child care center. LPA is able to verify that incident 5 happened but since the child did not complain about any injuries when falling, resulted in facility staff not being aware that C1 may have been hurt. Page 3. Based on the information provided LPA is unable to corroborate the allegation, staff did not seek timely medical attention for a daycare child. Allegation 5 - Staff falsified an incident report regarding a daycare child. The RP disclosed that on 02/03/23, the Director instructed S5 to falsify incident reports and that S5 confirmed with RP that the Director did in fact request that S5 fabricate the incident report for 02/02/23, and to coach C1 into telling RP that C1 fell which may or may not be true because S5 can only speculate as to what caused C1\342\200\231s injuries. S5 is reporting that she was told by the Director to cross out \342\200\234believe\342\200\235 because she cannot believe to see something. S5 agrees that she cannot believe to see something and that she should have not written the word believe because she did see C1 fall down on 02/02/23. S5 disclosed that when the report was written on 02/03/23, RP wrote the action taken portion of the incident report. LPA received a copy of the incident report and S5 wrote that S5 "believes saw" C1 running outside with another child, holding hands, and they both accidentally fell down on the stand outside, C1 kept playing and running around. Based on the information provided LPA is unable to corroborate the allegation, Staff falsified an incident report regarding a daycare child. Allegation 6 - Staff did not provide adequate supervision to daycare children while in care. The Reporting Party (RP) reported that Child 1 (C1) sustained 5 unexplained injuries wile in care at the child care center. LPA received incident reports for 2 of 5 incidents. LPA is unable to verify 4 of the 5 incidents reported by the RP. Based on the incidents and incident reports provided LPA is unable to corroborate allegation, Staff did not provide adequate supervision to daycare children while in care. Facility staff was present when child fell and received a bruise on thigh. Although the allegations may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violations did or did not occur, therefore the allegation is unsubstantiated. A copy of this report, Notice of Site Visit, and Appeal Rights were explained and provided to Peggy Nairn, Director/Owner. Page 4.

Citations

No citations recorded on this visit

The inspector found no violations of California child care regulations during this visit.

FAQ · About this visit

Common questions about this visit

What happened during the May 3, 2023 inspection of PENNY & PEGGY NAIRN 24 HOUR CHILDCARE, INC?

This was a complaint inspection of PENNY & PEGGY NAIRN 24 HOUR CHILDCARE, INC on May 3, 2023. The inspection found no deficiencies and no citations were issued.

Were any citations issued to PENNY & PEGGY NAIRN 24 HOUR CHILDCARE, INC on May 3, 2023?

No citations were issued during this inspection. The facility was found to be in compliance with all applicable regulations.

What type of inspection was this?

This was a complaint inspection. Complaint inspections are triggered when someone reports a concern about the facility to CCLD.

SourceView on CCLDView original report

Share this reportEmail

Next steps

If this is your facility,claim this pageand add your response to the public record. Free.

Spotted an inaccuracy on this visit?Request a reviewand we will check it against the public record.

Researching this visit professionally?Book a 20-minute calland we will walk through what we have on file.

Data from CCLD public records. Last updated . If you believe any information is inaccurate, report it here.