complaint·July 29, 2025

LPA interviewed complainant who explained that this is not the first time someone has had issue with Staff #2 and that there have been others stating that they are a mean staff member. During interview with Staff #2 (S2) they were asked if there had been anything unusual that had happened at the facility. According to S2, there was something that was said but had been resolved since then. LPA observed a slight language barrier in how S2 spoke English. This was also confirmed by S4 with mention of cultures using different tones. LPA asked S2 to explain what took place. S2 stated that the toilet was not working and denied asking C1 to assist by removing feces from the toilet. According to S2 \342\200\234It didn\342\200\231t happen\342\200\235 and the toilet was simply not flushing. S2 states that the child mistakenly thought they were asked to put [their] hand in the toilet to grab the poop\342\200\235. Staff states that the child did not remove the feces from the toilet , however, S2 admits that they informed C1 that the toilet was not working, and to \342\200\234go grab it out of the toilet\342\200\235. Staff #4 was interviewed about the situation and corroborated information shared by Staff #2. S4 stated that S2 informed them that C1 refused to flush the toilet and acknowledged that that there was an issue with the toilet not flushing. According to S2, S4 disclosed that they went to go \342\200\234 fix\342\200\235 the issue and gave C1 a pair of gloves to help [them]. Said [S2] would plunge it and the [child] could flush. It is unknown why child would need gloves to flush the toilet. S4 states that they agreed that having the child assist with a toilet issue was not the best decision. LPA interviewed C1, who corroborated the information regarding the toilet not flushing and Staff #2 telling them to get it out. Shared that Staff #2 was getting mad at them for not wanting to take the feces out of the toilet. No additional disclosures were made. Children interviews made no disclosures regarding the allegations. Other parent interviews found no disclosures regarding the allegations. LPA reviewed the write up, or \342\200\234Counseling Record,\342\200\235 for Staff #2. It reflected the information obtained by staff regarding the clogged toilet and how Child #1 stated they were instructed to pick up poop with their gloved hands, while S2 states they were giving them gloves to help unclog the toilet. Staff #2 has been given this \342\200\234Counseling Record\342\200\235 with the improvement section stating they will be \342\200\234reading up\342\200\235 and \342\200\234training under [S4] regarding Developmentally Appropriate Practice and Appropriate Interactions. They will have a one on one meeting once a week for 4 weeks and as needed thereafter.\342\200\235 REPORT CONTINUES PAGE 2 of 3 Though, there are some corroborated details in the clogged toilet incident, including the involvement of Staff #2 and Child #1, the account of the situation from both sides of the incident are inconsistent. Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation(s) did or did not occur, therefore the allegation is unsubstantiated. Information from Reporting party also indicates that Staff #2 used \342\200\234treats\342\200\235 as way to have Child #1 not get the staff member in trouble. During interviews, it was determined that \342\200\234treats\342\200\235 are not given to children in care. Staff do, however, provide items such as stickers, happy faces, or stamps. Parent #2 and #3 confirm that stickers and pencils are given to children, with mentions of a \342\200\234treasure box.\342\200\235 Child #5 also disclosed that they have been given \342\200\234happy faces\342\200\231 on their hand. LPA reviewed email documents regarding the situation. There was report of Staff #2 telling Child #1, \342\200\234Why did you get me in trouble, why did you tell mom, now I\342\200\231m not going to give you a treat but I will give your friend a treat instead.\342\200\235 Facility noted that they would be checking with other staff and children to verify the incident\342\200\231s validity. In interview with Staff #4, they stated that there were no witnesses to verify that anything like that was said. Staff #2 stated \342\200\234C1 said that I was going to give a friend a candy. But we only give stickers or pencils for doing their work or helping a friend.\342\200\235 When LPA asked S2 about candy and if there was something that would have made C1 think that, they responded, \342\200\234I think so but I don't know what. [They] mistakenly told her mom.\342\200\235 Though there seems to have been a verbal interaction between Staff #2 and Child #1, there was no corroborating evidence to verify what was said. Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation(s) did or did not occur, therefore the allegation is unsubstantiated. LPA discussed with Program Director continued monitoring of Staff #2 and the documentation of the training sessions being conducted with Staff #4. Facility will continue to work to ensure safety for children in care. At this time, no deficiencies are being cited in accordance with Title 22 regulations. A notice of site visit was given and must remain posted for 30 days. Exit interview conducted and report was reviewed with Program Director Rachel Cordova, at 12:45am. Copy of Report provided. END OF REPORT PAGE 3 of 3