complaint·June 25, 2024

Reporting Party (RP) stated, \342\200\234Staff 1 (S1) told RP that another teacher Staff 2 (S2) had handled two children, Child #1 and Child #2, in room #103 in a rough manner. RP stated that S1 stated that S2 had grabbed C1 by the arms to where C1\342\200\231s feet weren\342\200\231t touching the ground and sat C1 down abruptly for time out. RP stated that there is no explanation of what happened to Child #3\342\200\231s (C3) injury. C3 was bit on the leg, and there were bite marks, but no broken skin and it looked like a bruise. RP stated that RP doesn\342\200\231t know who bit C3 but when the parent asked what happened, no one knew.\342\200\235 During the course of investigation, LPA interviewed 7 staff members, 3 parents and 5 children. During the staff interviews, Staff 2 (S2), initially denied ever handling children in a rough manner but then admitted to pulling a child\342\200\231s arms too roughly. S2 stated S2 was trying to get the child in line and maybe pulled too hard, S2 was not trying to hurt them at all. The child was a handful. The child was nonverbal. Staff 3 (S3) disclosed, in regard to staff that have violated children\342\200\231s personal rights, S3 said the two staff that left did and at one point S2 had. S3 redirected S2 as soon as it was called to S3\342\200\231s attention. S3 has heard kids say S2 is mean. S2 stated that S1 informed S3 that in October of 2023, in room 103, S1 was a co-teacher with S2. S1 observed that S2 was pretty rough. S2 would sit down children roughly, pull their shoulder, kind of try waking up the children from nap. S2 was written up on Oct. 6, 2023. S2 did not deny it but did not seem to think it was as a big deal. The director wrote S2 up and reduced S2\342\200\231s hours. The director would observe S2 when S2 was subbing and was not left alone with children. S3 stated, Last week S3 had two parents come to S3 with concerns about S2 being too rough with children. One parent said they were concerned on how S2 is treating the children and the other parent said they were concerned that S2 was too stern with the kids. Staff 4 (S4) stated S4 has seen S2 treat children in a rough manner and has observed S2 using a rough tone when speaking with children. S4 said S4 is not aware of any child getting an unexplained injury like getting bit on the leg. Staff 5 (S5) disclosed, once S5 observed S2 speaking a bit too loudly and rough in tone to a child. \342\200\234From my understanding, it was during transition the other staff. S1 was in the bathroom supervising hand washing and S2 was with the other children. That is when S5 observed S2\342\200\231s tone and offered to step in and support. S2 was defensive at first but then S5 explained S5 was only there to help. Then S2 became very apologetic not necessarily for what S2 did to the child but for getting defensive with S5\342\200\235. S5 stated S5 does not know of a leg bite in Room #103. \342\200\234There are biters, in room 103 but I have not heard anything about a leg bite.\342\200\235 Page 2 of 3. Staff 6 (S6) denied seeing anyone do anything to harm a child. S6 also said S6 does not know of an incident where a child\342\200\231s leg was bit. Staff 7 (S7) denied observing any staff handling children in a rough manner. S7 disclosed that S7 is aware of a child getting bit on the leg. C3 was bit was and the suspect biter was C4 . Staff did not see how it happened but staff suspected it was at nap time. S7 saw C4 lay on C3. C3 started crying. S7 thinks C4 may have bitten C3 and it did not break skin. It was C3\342\200\231s parent informed staff of the injury. Staff knew C3 cried but did not realize C3 had been bit. C3 was mainly nonverbal, and staff thought it was because C3 was awoken so abruptly by C4. C3\342\200\231s parent also told the Director about it right away. LPA interviewed 5 children and all 5 children did not make any disclosures. 3 of 5 parents were interviewed, 3 of 3 parents interviewed had concerns about the daycare. Based on LPA\342\200\231s interviews and record review, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met, therefore the above allegations are found to be SUBSTANTIATED . California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 12, Chapter 1 Section 101223(a)(3) Personal Right s and 101229 (a)(1) Responsibility for Providing Care and Supervision two Type As are being cited on the attached LIC LIC9099D. Please refer to attached 809D for documentation of deficiencies. LPA Valdez Santana informed Director, Deanne Walkwitz , that this report dated 06/24/24 documents two Type A citations which shall be posted for 30 consecutive days as there are immediate risks to the health, safety, or personal rights of children in care. Also, LPA Valdez Santana informed the Director to provide a copy of this licensing report dated 06/24/24 that documents any Type A citations 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. Exit interview was conducted. The Notice of Site Visit was posted. Appeal Rights was explained. A copy of appeal rights (LIC 9058 1/16) was provided and their signatures on this form acknowledges receipt of these rights. First level appeal is to Regional Manager, address is above on the report. Page 3 of 3. End of Report.