complaint·February 27, 2025

According to Staff 1, during circle time on December 18, 2024, Child #1 was scratched while Staff 1 attempted to prevent him from running. Staff #1 stated the child tripped, and when Staff 1 tried to grab Child #1, they scratched Child #1's back accidentally. Staff 1 informed the office, iced the scratch, provided an "ouch report" to the Reporting Party, and met with the Reporting Party the next day. According to staff interviews, the Reporting Party initially appeared to accept the apology during this meeting. Regarding the September 24, 2024, incident, Staff #1 confirmed that Child #1 fell from a playground structure, but they were not present at the time. Staff 1 stated that another teacher filed the incident report. Staff 1, as well as other staff members, did not recall the early October 2024 incident where Child #1 was hit in the nose with a toy, and nor was an incident documented with an "ouch report". During interviews, no staff members recalled Child #1 being hit with a toy block. Most staff recalled the scratch injury and the incident on the playground. However, "ouch reports" were sent home regarding the playground fall and the scratch, and the Reporting Party was notified. In a follow-up interview, the Reporting Party stated that Child #1 did not engage in any activities that could have caused the mark on their arm before it was noticed, nor did they have contact with other children or animals between pickup and finding. The Reporting Party also explained that the mark was noticed before a shower and that temporary tattoos were not present in the area of the mark at the time of finding. The Reporting Party assumed the mark came from the center since the child had not been around other children. Additionally, LPA Dunlap reviewed photos and determined the mark did not appear to be a typical bite mark. Regarding the alleged bite mark, staff interviews, combined with photographic evidence of temporary tattoos, strongly suggest that the alleged bite mark was not observed by staff and that the mark observed by the parent could have been related to the temporary tattoos or another unseen incident. Based upon 10 out of 10 parent interviews, the majority of families expressed high satisfaction with the child care center. Based on the Parent Handbook, the center acted within its established policies by disenrolling the child. The Parent Handbook outlines procedures for addressing behavioral concerns, including disenrollment, and staff interviews corroborated the existence of ongoing behavioral issues, thus supporting the center's stated reason for the disenrollment. Page 2 of 2 Based on observations and interviews, while incidents involving Child #1 occurred, there is not a preponderance of evidence to that the centers actions were against the regulations and/or policies. Therefore, the allegation for physical injury is UNSUBSTANTIATED. The allegation for lack of supervision regarding the playground fall and toy block incident is UNSUBSTANTIATED. The allegation for the alleged bite mark is UNSUBSTANTIATED. The allegation regarding the disenrollment is UNSUBSTANTIATED. No deficiencies will be cited today 02/27/25. A notice of site visit was given and must remain posted for 30 days. Exit interview was conducted with the Assistant Director- Evelyn Barba Appeal rights given to the Assistant Director- Evelyn Barba Page 3 of 3