complaint·September 1, 2023

Allegation regarding- Staff exclude day-care child from activities with other day care children. According to complainant, C1 has been excluded from activities on several occasions. No dates or times provided. It is alleged that RP was informed that C1 was not allowed to be present during a Build a Bear activity. It is alleged that C1 was able to build a bear but not allowed to stay in the classroom with the other children. Rather, C1 was taken to another room. S1 doesn’t recall if C1 was present for the Build a Bear activity, however, if C1 was present, C1 did participate. According to S1, children who did not pay for the Build a Bear activity were still able to participate since S1 paid for those children who did not pay. S1 also stated that all children participating in the Build a Bear activity were rotated; there was approximately 4-5 children sent at a time, due to the number of children participating and the activity being from 10:00 a.m. – 11:00 a.m. Per S1, there was approximately 50 children participating in the activity and once the group of children were done Building their bear, they would all be sent back to class to allow other children to participate. In addition, S1 states that a directive was given by C1’s guardian to exclude C1 from attending activities if C1 misbehaved. S2 and S3 also corroborated with S1’s statement. Per S1, at times, C1 was removed from certain activities into other activities when exhibiting challenging behaviors. C1’s guardian denies asking staff to exclude C1 from activities when C1 misbehaved. LPA interviewed P1 and 5, who made no disclosures. LPA interviewed C2, who did not make any disclosures. LPA interviewed C3 who acknowledged that C1 would not always engage in activities when C1 exhibited challenging behaviors. Allegation regarding- Staff did not ensure supervision was provided for child in care. According to complainant, RP was informed by another adult that C1 ran out into the street. It was alleged that the adult present returned C1 back to class. LPA clarified that C1 did not run “into the street” but rather into an area within the facility where staff can park their cars. LPA observed the area to be between the preschool and the chapel. The preschool and the chapel are on the same premises. Per S1 thru S3, C1 never ran into the street and had no knowledge of what was being alleged. LPA also interviewed P1 and 5, who made no disclosures. LPA interviewed C2 and C3; however, no disclosures were made. This agency has investigated the complaint alleging “Staff exclude day-care child from activities with other day-care children” and “Staff did not ensure supervision was provided for child in care.” Based on interviews conducted, LPA found conflicting statements regarding each allegation and therefore have found the complaint to be deemed UNSUBSTANTIATED. Meaning that, although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of the evidence to prove that the alleged violation occurred. Page 2 of 3 A notice of site visit was given and must remain posted for 30 days. Exit interview conducted and report was reviewed with Director Bernadette Galindo. Appeal rights provided. Page 3 of 3