complaint·May 22, 2025

Page 2. During interviews, Staff #3 (S3) staff stated they witnessed Child #1 (C1) spitted the foods out during the lunch time, and Staff #8 (S8) stated they witnessed C1 threw up food while eating lunch. Staff #6 (S6) stated, based on the work duties, the lead teacher should be the one responsible to write the incident/accident or daily report to the parents by the end of the day, and send the report home to parents. Staff #8 (S8) admitted that S8 forgot to write the incident to the parents. During parent's interviews, none of the interviewed parents share any related concern to the allegation. Five (5) children were interviewed, did not share any related concern to the allegation. Additionally, the four (4) parents interviewed did not raise any concerns regarding the above-mentioned allegation. According to the record review, in Parents handbook under section Illness/Injury page 13, and 14 mention “In cases of illness, accident or injury to a child, the parents will be notified, and instruction for the course of action to be followed will be requested”. Based on record review of the school communication with C1’s representative, the facility did not notify parents regarding the incident in which C1 vomited at school, until the parents come up to the Director and confirmed that S8 forgot to report the incident. Based on LPA’s observation, interviews and record reviews, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met, therefore the above allegation is SUBSTANTIATED. Violation of California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 12, CCR 101212(f) Reporting Requirements was observed and cited on the attached 9099D. An exit interview was completed with Director. The report was reviewed and discussed. The Director was informed that the “Notice of Site Visit” must be posted for 30 consecutive days. Failure to post will result in Civil Penalties of $100.00. End of the Report. Page 2. During the investigation, LPA conducted observations, interviewed seven (7) staff members, including the Director, five (5) children, and five (5) parents, 1 out of 5 parents did not respond, and reviewed pertinent records including LIC 500 Personnel Report, LIC 9040 Children’s Roster, the Personnel Handbook, child incident reports, child daily reports, and the Parent Handbook. Regarding allegation (1) Staff do not treat children with respect. During the interview, seven (7) staff members interviewed stated that they did not witness S5 treating children in care without respect. The LPA also interviewed five (5) children; all of them reported that they neither witnessed nor experienced disrespect from S5. Additionally, the four (4) parents interviewed did not raise any concerns regarding the above-mentioned allegation. Regarding allegation (2) Staff force children to nap. During the investigation, the LPA observed children transitioning from lunch to napping time and did not see any signs of force being used during nap time. Seven (7) staff members interviewed confirmed that they had not witnessed S5 force children to nap. The LPA also interviewed five (5) children in care; all children stated that they had not witnessed or experienced any force from S5. Additionally, all five children demonstrated and showed the LPA the quiet toy material they use if they do not want to sleep. The four (4) parents interviewed did not express any concerns regarding the allegations mentioned above. Regarding allegation (3), the Staff did not ensure the child's clothes were cleaned properly. During the interview, seven (7) staff members interviewed confirmed that they clean the children when they become dirty. During the investigation, the LPA observed children cleaning clothes inside their cubbies. Additionally, five (5) children stated that when they get dirty from playing outside or food on their clothes, their teacher consistently cleans and changes them into new clothes. The four (4) parents interviewed did not express any concerns regarding the allegations mentioned above. Based on the information gathered from LPA observations, interviews, and record reviews, there is insufficient evidence to corroborate the allegations: (1) Staff do not treat children with respect. (2) Staff force children to nap. (3) Staff did not ensure the child's clothes were cleaned properly. Although the allegations may have happened or are valid, there are not a preponderance of evidence to prove the allegations did or did not occur in the day-care facility. Therefore, the listed allegations are UNSUBSTANTIATED. An exit interview was completed. The report was reviewed and discussed with Director Angela Galitski. Appeal Rights were provided. The Director was informed that the “Notice of Site Visit” must be posted for 30 consecutive days. Failure to post will result in Civil Penalties of $100.00. End of the Report.