complaint·August 10, 2023

LPA Lee observed that Staff#1 did not sign or comment on the written warning. During an interview, Staff#1 stated the written warning was not signed due to believing that they had not done anything wrong. Staff#1 went on to state that the incident involving Child#1 being kicked by another child was not documented because they did not see the incident and Child#1 did not say anything after the incident had occurred. During an interview, the Director stated that Staff#1 was asked not to use their personal phones when providing care for children during outdoor play time. During the inspection conducted on this date, the Director informed LPA Lee that Staff#1 was no longer employed with the facility as of 07/31/2023. Although it is possible that a staff member could have missed or not see an incident while providing proper supervision, the fact that Staff#1 received a written and verbal warnings from the Director about documenting incidents, and not looking at their personal phone while at the facility does indicate that Staff#1 was not providing the proper amount of supervision when they were working at the facility until 07/31/2023. Based on the information obtained during the investigation, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met, therefore the allegation that facility staff is not properly supervising children in care has been substantiated. California Code of Regulations,(Title 22, Division 12 & Chapter Number 1, ariticle 6), is being cited on the attached LIC 9099D. The notice of site inspection must remain posted for 30 days during hours of operation. Failure to maintain posting during business hours will result in a civil penalty of $100.00 dollars. Exit interview conducted with Director Gracie Chavez. Appeal rights discussed and explained. The reporting party stated in the details of the allegation that Staff#1 was "always yelling at the children or raising their voice at the children". Interviews conducted during the investigation did not provide any evidence that supported or went against this allegation. Whether a staff member is yelling or rasing their voice, the specific situation that caused either to occur is needed to determine if personal rights of the children were violated. For example, if the classroom is trying transition from one activity to another, than a staff member might have to raise their voice to get the children's attention so the classroom can begin lining up to go outside or begin preparing for meals or nap time. In this example a staff member is raising their voice to get the children's attention while the noise level was already high. Another factor is how the staff was feeling when raising their voice. For example a staff member can raise their voice to get a child's attention, but doing so while being in a frustrated or upset. This can produce a tone that can cause the child to become scared by the teacher raising their voice and be a violation of personal rights. This department has investigated the allegation that Staff yells at day-care children . Although the allegations may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation did or did not occur, therefore the allegation is Unsubstantiated at this time. The notice of site inspection must remain posted for a period of 30 days during hours of operation. Failure to maintain posting during business hours will result in a civil penalty of $100.00 dollars. Exit interview conducted with Director Gracie Chavez. Appeal rights discussed and explained.