complaint·November 7, 2023

Per the reporting party, the parents of C1 reported that when the child was walking toward the restroom, the licensee's dog bit C1. When LPA conducted interviews, S1, S2, and S4 all stated that the dog jumped on the child's leg when the child was coming out of the restroom. The dog was being playful, not aggressive. All three observed the child's body after the incident at various times, and none noticed any marks or injuries. C1 never cried or complained of any pain. The mark that the parents showed S1 was on the back of the child's thigh. The dog jumped on the front of the child's left leg. S3 stated that S1 and she checked the child's body and did not see any bite marks. When LPA conducted interviews, C1 stated that Champagne bit them but kept changing the spot of the injury to several different areas of each of their legs. The child was unable to show a concrete spot where the dog bit them. When conducting interviews, C2 stated that C1 told them that Champagne bit them. When S3 and S1 heard this, they came and checked their body. C2 showed their left calf to show the area of the injury. C2 explained that they did not see a mark on C1, and neither did the teachers. The parents did not provide a doctor's report when requested by LPA. The second allegation indicates that “Staff did not provide aid to child's injury.” Page 2 Per the reporting party, the parents of C1 reported that the child grabbed her own band aid to place on the injury. When conducting interviews, S1, S2, S3, and S4 all reported that they checked the child's body at various times of the day and did not see an injury to provide aid. S4 also stated that she saw the child grab a Band-Aid and place it on their left calf. S4 approached the child and checked under the Band-Aid and did not see any mark or injury. The third allegation indicates that “Staff told child not to report incident to authorized representatives.” Per the reporting party, the parents of C1 reported that the teachers told the child not to tell anyone that they were bitten by the dog. When conducting interviews, S1 and S3 both stated that they only told the child not to tell her classmates that Champagne bit them when this did not happen. They never told the child not to tell their parents. Since they did not observe an injury, they did not call the parents. However, during pick-up time, S1 explained the entire incident and the events after the incident to the parent. When conducting interviews, C1 did not answer LPA's questions about whether the teachers told them to not tell their parents. C2 told LPA that they had not heard the teachers say this. Page 3 The fourth allegation indicates that “Staff had child make an errand.” Per the reporting party, the teacher asked C1 to get a soda from another room. When conducting interviews, S5 stated that this was the first time that a child had been asked to get soda. The child was visually supervised. LPA interviewed five staff, and none stated that teachers ask children to run errands. When conducting interviews, C1 and C2 both stated that their teachers do not ask them to complete any tasks for them. Based upon the evidence as presented above, 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 allegations are unsubstantiated. A notice of site visit was given and must remain posted for 30 days. Exit interview conducted and report was reviewed with Director Peggy Nairn. Page 4