complaint·October 20, 2022

Page 2 Allegation: Staff handled day care children in a rough manner: During the course of the investigation, LPA Torrence interviewed six staff members. S1 stated a staff member witnessed another staff sit a child down for an extended amount of time and felt the staff was a little rough with the child. S1 stated management spoke with three staff members, who were on the yard at the same time, and they stated they did not feel the teacher was aggressive, or had a child sitting for an extended amount of time. S1 stated management determined that there was not enough evidence to find it to be true. Staff 2(S2) Staff 3 (S3), and Staff 6(S6) denied witnessing a teacher being rough with any children. Staff 4(S4) and Staff 5(S5) disclosed witnessing S2 being rough with Child #1 (C1). S4 stated S2 yanked the child arm, pulled the child away from the water bin, placed the child down on the ground by the brick wall, and when other children went to C1, S2 would not let the children interact C1. S5 stated witnessing S2 yank C1’s right arm and sat C1 down next to S2, in front of the cement block, and C1 was crying and upset. S5 stated S5 was not sure how long C1 was sitting next to S2, but C1 was sitting there for a good while. During the course of the investigation, LPA received a picture depicting S2 sitting on the playground, watching the children, and C1 was sitting alone, against a brick wall, next to S2, while children are playing around C1. During the course of the investigation, LPA received a video depicting S2 was sitting on the playground supervising the children. A child kicked a ball to S2. S2 did not pick the ball up and hand it to the child, instead S2 kicked the ball back to the child and just missed hitting C1 sitting by the brick wall. Allegation: Staff inappropriately disciplined day care child: During the course of the investigation, LPA interviewed six staff members. S2 and S3 denied witnessing a child sitting alone, next to a teacher, not allowed to interact with other children. S4 stated witnessing S2 placed C1 by the brick wall and when children go to C1, S2 would not let the children interact with C1. S4 stated witnessing C1 was sitting there for 20 minutes. S5 stated witnessing C1 sitting in front of the cement block and the child was crying and upset. Page 3 During the course of the investigation, LPA reviewed a video of the children playing on the playground. LPA observed a child going over to C1 who was sitting against the brick wall and S2 was holding an arm out to prevent the child from interacting with C1. LPA Torrence contacted four parents. Interviewed parents had no issues or concerns. Based on LPAs interviews and records review including reviewing picture and a video, 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 3, 101223(a)(3) Personal Rights and 101223(a)(3) Personal Rights are being cited on the attached LIC9099D. Exit interview was conducted. The Notice of Site Visit was posted. Appeal Rights was explained. A copy of appeal rights (LIC 9058 1/16) will be provided through email and their signatures on this form acknowledges receipt of these rights. First level appeal is to Regional Manager, address is above on the report. “Upon receipt, licensee shall post and provide copies of this licensing report to parents/guardians of children in care at the facility and to parents/guardians of children newly enrolled at the facility during the next 12 months.”