complaint·November 25, 2024

Allegations 1: The first allegation states that staff transported day care children to an unknown location. During the investigation, it was revealed that Staff 1 transports the child care children from school to the child care center. Staff 1 admitted to transporting the children to an associated family child care home to the child care center; however, the facility does not have any written agreements on transporting children to their associated facility. This is a Type B citation, see the LIC 9099D for the details. Allegations 2: The second allegation states that staff did not notify day care children's authorized representative of incident . During the investigation, it was revealed that Staff 1 transports the child care children and during one time of transporting the children, Staff 1 admitted to transporting the child care children to the associated family child care home. While Child 1 and Child 2 were in the facility, a minor disagreement occurred between Staff 3 and Staff 4 and their voices were raised. Child 2 stated they did not understand why they were transported to this location and cried but did not notify the staff of their confusion. Staff 1 stated that there was a verbal agreement between some parents to transport the child care children to the associated family child care facility; however, there is nothing in writing. Staff 1 returned Child 1 and Child 2 and additional child care children to the child care facility; however, the parents were not notified about the incident that occurred at the associated family child care home. This is a Type B citation, see the LIC 9099D for the details. Based on information obtained, observations, and interviews with relevant complaint parties, the Allegation is deemed substantiated for allegation 1 and 2; as a result, two Type B citations will be issued for the allegations. A finding of substantiated means that allegations were valid because the preponderance of the evidence standard has been met. As a result of the investigation, the facility was found to be in noncompliance with Title 22 Regulations and has been cited deficiencies, see the LIC 9099D for the details. An exit interview was conducted, and a copy of this report was provided to the Facility Representative along with the Notice of Site Visit and Appeal Rights. Allegation 3: the third allegation stated that Staff did not ensure day care children's authorized representative was given copies on contract . During the investigation, it was revealed that the authorized representative did not complete the parent packet provided for the children attending the facility and the copies were not provided as the children were removed from the facility prior to the due date of the documentation needing to be submitted to the authorized representatives. After reviewing the relevant information obtained, there is not a preponderance of the evidence to support the allegation. After observations, record reviews, and interviews, it was determined that there was insufficient evidence that the following occurred: staff did not ensure day care children's authorized representative was given copies on contract. The allegations could not be corroborated with the evidence found during the investigation. Therefore, the allegations have been found unsubstantiated. Although, the allegations may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of the evidence to prove that the facility operated in violation of policy in this circumstance. An exit interview was conducted, and a copy of this report was provided to Director Carolyn Armstrong along with the Notice of Site Visit and Appeal Rights.