Complaint·May 30, 2023

Allegation #1: Infant in care sustained unexplained bruising According to the allegation, after parent #1 (P1) picked up Child #1 (C1) from the facility on 3/3/23, parent noticed bruising on the front and the back of the left ear of C1. P1 believes the bruising occurred at the facility as P1 states C1 did not have the bruising when dropped off at the facility that morning. Staff interviewed made no disclosures they observed a bruise on the left ear of C1 or that anything unusual happened to C1 on 3/3/23. Staff interviewed stated they do a morning check of all children for bruises and scrapes and document their observations on the Infant Daily Log Sheet. The Daily Log Sheet for C1 on 3/3/23 does not show any notations of observed injuries from teachers. Director stated if staff observe an injury on a child during the morning check, “We always write an injury report whether it happened at school or not. It goes in the child’s file. Teachers will also write it on the Daily log sheet”. Parents interviewed reported they are happy with the care being provided to their child. LPA Babcock obtained video footage of the classroom, however per director, only one of three cameras was working on that day. LPA reviewed the video footage and noted there are blind spots on the top and bottom of the video’s frame. The blind spots conceal 3 areas. One blind spot is where the kitchen and changing table are located, which is concealed by a wall. The second blind spot is the area across from the kitchen and behind the crib area, and the third blind spot is the main door area. LPA reviewed all the footage provided and although C1 did go off camera into the blind spots throughout the day, LPA did not observe C1 fall, cry, or rub his ears, and did not observe staff to hurt the ears of C1. Police report states the officer that reviewed the video classroom footage, “did not observe any evidence of a crime”. Based on LPAs interviews with staff and parents, and review of video footage of the classroom from 3/3/23, 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, therefore the allegation is unsubstantiated. There were no deficiencies cited on the above-mentioned allegations per California Code of Regulations Title 22. 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 Director, Maribeth Peralta. Page 2 of 2