complaint·June 17, 2024

On 5/6/24 the Orange County Child Care Office received a complaint alleging Child sustained unexplained injuries while in care, Staff did not meet child's diapering needs resulting in a diaper rash, and Staff did not provide copies of incident reports to parent. Reporting Party (RP) stated that Child#1 (C1) sustained scratches to C1 face and staff did not know how the incidents occurred. RP suspects C1 fell and sustained the scratches. RP stated they did not receive an incident report from the facility. RP stated that in November and December, staff did not change C1’s diaper which cause C1 to sustained a diaper rash. During the investigation, LPA Nunez interviewed 6 staff members, and obtain copies of incident reports, diaper charts, staff timecards, and messages from brightwheel app. The children were not interviewed due to age and being non-verbal. LPA Nunez interview 5 staff member. Staff#5 (S5) stated S5 saw C1 and Child#2 (C2) in the play house S5 was a few feet away from the play house when the incident occurred. C2 was sitting in the play house and C1 was taunting C2 and getting on C2’s face. C2 then kicked C1 on the face and left a scratch on C1’s face. Staff#2 (S2) stated C1 approached S2 to show the mark on C1’s face and S2 stated S2 glance at the mark and it was a scratch that was about half the size of S2 pinky finger. Staff#4 (S4) stated S4 informed C1’s Parent#1 (P1) about the incident. LPA requested RP to provide pictures of the marks, but they were never provided. S4 stated that S4 gave P1 a copy of incident report on the day of the incident. LPA also obtained a copy of the incident report that was dated the day the incident occurred. Staff#1(S1) stated that C1 had a severe diaper rash at one point. S1 stated P1 had notify the facility about C1’s diaper rash and S1 stated that P1 told S1 that C1 had a diaper rash due to the medication C1 was taking. S1 stated P1 brought in prescribed cream and told S1 to put heavily cream on C1’s bottom when changing C1’s diaper. S1 stated they were doing that for some time. Staff#2 (S2) stated P1 told S2 to put ointment cream on C1’s bottom no matter what and to put a lot. S2 also stated P1 told S2 that if they need more ointment P1 can provide it. LPA also reviewed messages between P1 and staff from brightwheel app. that were provided by the facility. On 12/4/23, on the brightwheel app messages it states S4 messaging P1 to notifying P1 that when they changed C1’s diaper and it looked a lot better and there were no rashes, but they added ointment just like they were instructed by P1. P1 messaged S4 and thanked S4. S4 also messaged P1 that all the staff knew to put ointments on C1’s bottom. On 12/8/23 and 12/11/23 there were messages between staff and P1 regarding putting ointment cream on C1’s bottom. Page 2 of 3 On 12/20/23, there was a message from P1 to staff stating that C1 is taking medication and to check C1’s diaper frequently because they might not notice if C1 has a soiled diaper because C1’s solid diapers do not smell. On the diaper chart it states C1 had 3 diaper changes and one diaper change was done by P1 at the end of the day. There are messages on 12/21/23 and none of the messages stated concerns about C1’s diaper rash. There were no messages for the month of November between P1 and staff regarding a diaper rash. On 5/3/24 LPA attempted to interview 6 parents however only 2 parents were available for interviews. None of the parents disclosed any concerns about the childcare center. The 2 parents were satisfied with the childcare center. Based on LPA’s staff interviews, record reviews, and parent interviews, the complaint alleging Child sustained unexplained injuries while in care, Staff did not meet child's diapering needs resulting in a diaper rash, and Staff did not provide copies of incident reports to parent are found to be UNSUBSTIATED. Although the allegation may have happened or are valid, there is not enough preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violations did or did not occur, therefore the allegation are unsubstantiated. Exit interview conducted and report was reviewed with Director Meredith Cagle. Notice of site visit was given and must remain posted for 30 days. Failure to comply with the posting requirements shall result in an immediate civil penalty of $100. Appeal Rights were explained. The Director was provided with a copy of the appeal rights (LIC 9058 01/16) and their signature on this form acknowledges receipt of these rights. All appeals must be in writing and received by the Regional Office within 15 business days. First level appeals should be sent to the regional manager to the address listed above. End of Report Page 3 of 3