Complaint·February 22, 2024

Since LPA Lee was not able to get in contact with the reporting party, there was no way to determine if reporting requirement was not met. If the reporting party did provide a specific incident with a child in care, LPA Lee could have looked up past incident that occurred at the facility to determine if parents/legal guardian should have been contacted over the phone immediately. The complaint also alleges that a child in care sustained unexplained rashes at the facility. The reporting party also alleged that facility may not be cleaning and sanitizing enough. It was not made clear by the reporting party if their child sustained rash from a lack of changing or another type of rash in another area of the child's body. During an interview, the Director did confirm that some children in care wear pull ups and require changing while at the facility. During the inspection LPA Lee inspected the changing area and interviewed staff members that change children's pull ups as part of their duties. LPA Lee did not observe any evidence from the observation or the interviews conducted that supported or went against the allegation. Based on the evidence collected during the investigation, the allegation that staff do not provide adequate supervision and child sustained unexplained rash while in care may be valid. However, there is not enough preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation(s) did or did not occur, therefore at this time the above allegations are found to be unsubstantiated. 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 Monique Yip. Appeal rights discussed and explained.