complaint·May 18, 2023

All of the video clips had clear audio and clear video quality. During the review of the footage, LPA Lee did not observe any clear signs that Staff#1 was handling Child#1 in a rough manner. For example, the reporting party stated that Child#1 was running around the classroom, while Staff#1 was sitting on a chair, and Staff#1 grabbed Child#1's arm and started to forcefully pull Child#1 and the child fell to the floor. Staff#1 ignored child after the fall and did not check to see if child had any injuries. When LPA Lee reviewed the footage of this incident LPA observed that Staff#1 was sitting on a chair while the rest of the children in the class were sitting on the classroom carpet floor. It looked like Staff#1 was about to tell a story or engage in some activity when Child#1 and another child got up and began to run around the other children sitting down. When Child#1 ran past Staff#1 she reached out their arm to stop Child#1 from running. Staff#1 ended up getting of one of Child#1's arm and the child ended up falling to the floor due to already running before. While it is true that Staff#1 did cause Child#1 to fall on the ground, the surface looked to be some sort of carpet that the other children were already sitting on. While it is true that Staff#1 did not get up from their seat after Child#1 fell, the Child lightly fell right next to Staff#1 and did not seem upset or in any type of pain, so it does not seem appropriate to infer that Staff#1 was ignoring Child#1 after pushing him to the ground. Child#1 was already running, and only fell when Staff#1 stopped the Child from running around. The manner in which the child fell, and the immediate reaction of the child after falling did not seem to warrant any type of concern about potential injures. The other footages that was observed during this inspection also did not match up with the descriptions. For example the reporting party also stated that in one footage, Staff#1 forcefully pushed Child#1's shoulders down in order to force the child to stop laughing and wiggling around. When LPA Lee observed this footage, LPA observed that it was actually the other staff member in the classroom (Staff#2) that went to Child#1 and while Staff#1 was not interacting with Child#1. LPA observed Staff#2 putting their hands on Child#1's shoulders in order to get him to calm down while sitting down and waiting to be served their meals. The complaint also alleges that Staff#1 yelled at children in care. The staff member denied this allegation and made no disclosure. The footage that was observed did have full audio, and while LPA Lee was able to hear Staff#1's voice go up in volume in certain interactions with children, there was no clear instances of Staff#1 yelling a child. For example the complaint described a footage where Staff#1 pushed and yelled at a child (Not Child#1) to get back in line. When LPA Lee observed this footage, LPA observed Staff#1 telling a child not to stop touching another child who next to each other while waiting in line. While Staff#1 did raise her voice at this time, based on the how the child being spoken to reacted and the fact that the classroom was very loud at this time, it is understandable that Staff#1 had to raise their voice in order to get attention of the children who could have hurt themselves if they continued their respective interactions while waiting in line. Based on the evidence collected during the investigation, the allegation that staff handled child in a rough manner and yelled at child in care may be valid. However, there is not enough preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation(s) did or did not occur, therefore at this time the above allegations are found to be unsubstantiated. The notice of site inspection must remain posted for a period of 30 day during hours of operation. Failure to maintain posting will result in a civil penalty of $100.00 dollars. Exit interview conducted with Director Parima Madan. Appeal rights discussed and explained.