complaint·May 4, 2022

Page 2/8 Throughout the course of the investigation, interviews were conducted with five staff and three adults, which included both Reporting Parties; and documentation in the form of the Child Care Facility Roster, six internal \342\200\234incident Reports\342\200\235 and a copy of the \342\200\234Child\342\200\231s Pre-admission Health History Parents Report\342\200\235 of Child #1 was obtained. -Pertaining to the allegation that \342\200\234Child touching children and staff inappropriately\342\200\235: This allegation refers to an incident on February 8, 2022, when Child #1 (C1) allegedly touched Child #2 (C2) on their genitals. C1 is described as active\342\200\224hyperactive, even\342\200\224needing of a lot of attention, smart, friendly, needs to be kept busy, has a short attention span, and is \342\200\234grabby\342\200\235 or \342\200\230handsy\342\200\235 (i.e. liked to grab people) According to Adult #1 (A1), during breakfast, C1 had a habit of running around, going under the table, and going inside the bathroom\342\200\224staff needed to be sitting down next to C1 all the time. The day of the incident, there were two tables set up with one staff and a few children at each table. A1 had briefly turned around to get more cereal for another child and that was when C1 allegedly crawled under the table and touched C2 on their genitals. According to Adult #3 (A3), they saw C1 go under the table but could not reach C1 in time to retrieve them from under the table. When it occurred, both A1 and A3 corroborate that C2 said out loud, \342\200\234(C1) touched me in my private part." Page 3/8 After the incident, to prevent recurrence, staff sat next to C1. According to C2, though this is the only time they were touched by C1, C1 was observed to have kissed another child on the playground, though it is unclear when or how often this had occurred and whether staff were aware of this. Regarding C1 touching staff inappropriately: According to A1, C1 touched them on their genitals one time and an incident report was written to document it. A photo of this incident report was provided by A1. The incident report is dated February 7, 2022, the day before the incident with C2, and is signed by both A1 and Staff #5 (S5). Staff #2 (S2) stated they were grabbed on their breast by C1, had witnessed when C1 touched A3 on their genitals, and were informed by A1 that they were touched inappropriately by C1, though it was never stated what exactly had occurred. The exact dates of each occurrence is unknown and an incident report was never completed for any of the incidents. According to A3, C1 had grabbed their breast one time, though the exact date is unknown and an incident report was not completed. Administration were aware of C1 touching children and staff inappropriately, as the incident report dated 02/07/22 regarding C1 touching the genitals of A1 was signed by S5. As to why follow up action was not taken, per S5, they believe C1 was exploring. Regarding the incident between C1 and C2, S5 allegedly told A2 that they did not believe it had occurred. Page 4/8 According to S1, they were aware that staff had been saying that C1 was grabbing, touching and pinching staff on their breasts and genitals and liked to hug them a lot, but felt it was \342\200\234weird\342\200\235 that staff were complaining about this, as S1 chalked it up to children \342\200\234wanting a reaction.\342\200\235 When asked about C1 allegedly touching C2, S1 stated that C2 \342\200\234makes stuff up\342\200\235 and figured that C1 actually touched C2 on their leg, but that C2 just said it was their genitals because C2 has older siblings with boyfriends and because C1 is an only child. According to A1 and S1, there are cameras which record at the Center. When asked whether I could watch the recording of that morning, S1 stated they don\342\200\231t know how to replay the tape. When asked whether the parent of C1 was made aware of the incidents with C1, it could only be determined that the parent of C1 was made aware of the incident on 02/08/22 with C2 because it does not appear staff know who is to inform whom of what or when. Per S1, it was A1 and A3 who had completed and incident report and reported it to the parents. However, according to A1, only the Licensee or the Director are permitted to speak with parents about incidents. The day of the incident, A1 phoned S1, who said they would let S5 handle the situation once S5 arrived at the Center. A2 stated they had disenrolled C1 from the Center due to the lack of supervision and lack of communication regarding incidents. When asked what could be done to prevent recurrence in the future, there is no concrete plan in place; S1 suggested having staff trained on how to react when a child is pinching them and touching them, or to simply disenroll the child or to have the child attend S1\342\200\231s family child care home instead of the Center. Page 5/8 As both A1 and A3 were aware that they should have sat next to C1; and as Administration did not inform the parent of C1 of the incidents regarding C1 touching and grabbing staff on their breasts and genitals and possibly kissing other children, as well as the fact that only one incident report was written to document the behavior, the allegation of \342\200\234Child touching children and staff inappropriately\342\200\235 has been determined to be Substantiated . This agency has investigated the complaint alleging that there was a violation of Title 22, Division 12, Chapter 1, Article 6, Section 101226.3 \342\200\234Observation of the Child.\342\200\235 The complaint alleged that a \342\200\234Child touching children and staff inappropriately.\342\200\235 Based upon the evidence as presented above, the allegation has been determined to be Substantiated. A finding of Substantiated means that the preponderance of evidence standard has been met. California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 12, Chapter 1, Article 06, Section 101226.3 \342\200\234Observation of the Child\342\200\235 is being cited on the attached LIC 9099D. -Pertaining to the allegation that \342\200\234Center is not reporting incidents to Community Care Licensing\342\200\235: According to the Reporting Party, they do not believe that the Center has been reporting incidents to Community Care Licensing (CCL), as required. This allegation is referring particularly to the February 8 incident when C1 touched C2 on their genitals. Per Title 22 regulation, the following is required to be reported to CCL by any Child Care Center: Death of any child from any cause Page 6/8 Any injury to any child that requires medical treatment Any unusual incident or child absence that threatens the physical or emotional health or safety of any child Any suspected physical or psychological abuse of any child Epidemic outbreaks Poisonings Catastrophes Fires or explosions that occur in or on the premises However, a Center is not limited to reporting just those events listed above and should report anything \342\200\234unusual\342\200\235 (meaning something which does not normally occur) which occurs during the hours of operation involving staff or children. When asked what\342\200\231s reportable to CCL, Staff #4 admitted to not knowing. In reviewing the facility file, it was noted that since the facility was approved for licensure on June 7, 2017, the Center has not reported any unusual incidents to CCL. Page 7/8 Though it is possible that in almost five years, nothing \342\200\234unusual\342\200\235 has ever happened to any staff or children, including no one tested positive for COVID or that the Center has never closed down for any breaks, it is not probable. At the very least, the incident which occurred on February 8 should have been reported to CCL. This agency has investigated the complaint alleging that there was a violation of Title 22, Division 12, Chapter 1, Article 6, Section 101212 \342\200\234Reporting Requirements\342\200\235. The complaint alleged that \342\200\234Center is not reporting incidents to Community Care Licensing.\342\200\235 Based upon the evidence as presented above, the allegation has been determined to be Substantiated. A finding of Substantiated means that the preponderance of evidence standard has been met. California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 12, Chapter 1, Article 06, Section 101212 \342\200\234Reporting Requirements\342\200\235 is being cited on the attached LIC 9099D. LPA Emiko Bell informed licensee Elaine Davis that this report dated 05/04/22 document(s) two Type A citation(s) which shall be posted for 30 consecutive days as there is/are immediate risk(s) to the health, safety, or personal rights of children in care. Also, LPA Emiko Bell informed the licensee licensee Elaine Davis to provide a copy of this licensing report dated 05/04/22 that documents any Type A citation(s) to parents/guardians of all children currently enrolled by the next business day or the next day the children are in care, and to any newly enrolled parents/guardians for 12 months from the date of this report. A signed Acknowledgement of Receipt of Licensing Report (LIC 9224), or other written statement, must be placed in the child's file for verification. Page 8 /8 A notice of site visit was given and must remain posted for 30 days. Failure to comply with posting requirements shall result in an immediate civil penalty of $100 Exit interview conducted and report was reviewed with Licensee Elaine Davis.