complaint·June 3, 2025

Disclosed in interviews with S1, S2, S8 and S11 stated that they have observed or were aware of commingling preschool age children with school age children. Per S1, school age children may be placed in a preschool classroom if the school age staff are stuck in traffic and are running a few minutes behind. Per S1, the school age children are usually in the preschool classroom for 4-6 minutes. Per S2, school age children were brought into the preschool classroom or outside if snacks were occurring for about 5 minutes. Per S2 that occurred a hand full of times. S8 stated, school age children come into the preschool classroom if the school has a shortened day or there is no school. Per S8, the school age children are usually in the preschool classroom for 15 minutes until a school age staff arrives at the facility. Per S11, there were 2 children that did not nap and were placed in a school age classroom. S11 stated, after consulting with LPA Tcheng there has not been any more commingling. LPA interviewed C5 (5 years old) who stated they have played with two preschool age children in their classroom. LPA was unable to determine if C5 was talking about the preschool classroom they were in last year or the current school age classroom they are in now. C6 (8 years old) stated they have played with preschool age children outside. LPA interviewed P1 to P3, who did not corroborate the allegation. Based on interviews conducted the above allegation is deemed SUBSTANTIATED. S1, S2, S8, S11, C5 and C6 corroborated that commingling has occurred at the facility. A finding of Substantiated means that the preponderance of evidence standard has been met. The facility is being cited one Type B deficiency in accordance with Title 22 Regulations section, 101161(a), see LIC9099D. An exit interview was conducted, and a copy of this report was provided to the Executive Director, Debbie Rudman along with Appeal Rights. A Notice of Site Visit was provided and must be posted for 30 days. RP alleged, “Facility staff are not following reporting requirements”. The department received an incident report from the facility that occurred on 04/01/2025 where inappropriate interaction with children occurred. Per RP, the facility did not fully disclose what occurred with the children. Per RP, there was inappropriate touching with two children who were involved in the inappropriate behavior. LPA interviewed S2, who stated they did not observe any inappropriate touching with the children but did observe hand movement under the table. Per S2, they asked the children involved if touching occurred during that incident and the children stated no. Per S2, video footage was reviewed did not observe any touching. The children involved in the incident were interviewed by LPA Tcheng on an earlier date, there were no disclosures made by the children. There was no corroborating information obtained from other staff that were interviewed, children or parents. Based on interviews conducted, the above allegation is deemed UNSUBSTANTIATED. Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation did or did not occur. An exit interview was conducted, and a copy of this report was provided to the Executive Director, Debbie Rudman along with Appeal Rights. A Notice of Site Visit was provided and must be posted for 30 days.