complaint·July 22, 2024

Page 2 of 3 Per complaint report, it was disclosed by a 5-year-old child (Child # 1) that, a four-year-old child (child # 2) was having inappropriate interaction with 5-year-old child on the playground. It was reported that during the incident, staff were present with the children however, the staff did not have eyes on the children because the children would hide behind a playhouse. Reporting party stated staff were being observed on the phone. During the course of investigation, LPA interviewed 9 staff including an attempt to contact 3 former staff. However, LPA was successful to interview one former staff who denied witnessing any children being engaged in inappropriate behavior. LPA interviewed 10 qualified children, including child # 1, and attempt to interview child # 2, and 11 parents of whom two parents responded. During interviews with staff, Staff # 1 stated on the day of the reported incident, staff # 1 and staff # 2 were supervising children on the playground. They were not on the phone. They were supervising children closely. They did not observe any suspicious activities happening between children on the playground behind the playhouse. No children brought up any unusual incident to their attention on that day. Staff # 2 stated they were giving break to staff # 3 on the playground on the day of reported incident from 10:00 to 10:30 am and 12 to 12:30 pm on the playground. There were 12 preschool children under supervision of staff # 1 and 2. Staff # 2 denied witnessing children doing inappropriate behavior on the playground behind the playhouse. No child reported any incident to staff # 2. Staff # 2 stated the staff are not supposed to use their phone during work time. However, the staff might check in children on a smart application. Staff # 3 stated they watch children closely and they were not using phone during working with children. They might have checked the smart app for the internal sign in. They make sure they have every single child under supervision on the playground and in the classroom. Staff # 3 stated child # 1 and child # 2 are not in the same classroom. They have the same recess on the playground. Staff # 3 denied witnessing anything inappropriate happening between children. They said the playground did not have hidden areas. Other staff were interviewed and denied witnessing engagement of any inappropriate behavior between children. LPA interviewed child # 1 who stated child # 2 was engaged in inappropriate behavior with them behind the playground. However, there were discrepancies in the child’s statements. Child # 1 did not disclose to LPA observing staff on the phone. Child # 1 stated staff were walking around in the circle on the playground Continued on page 3 Page 3 of 3 watching them. LPA attempted to interview child # 2 but not successful. The rest of the children who were interviewed did not disclose to LPA they witnessed any inappropriate behavior happened between child # 1 and 2. One child stated child # 1 and child # 2 never played with each other. Two children stated they play pretend babies, and they pretend change babies' diapers on the playground and not behind the playhouse. One child stated they play inside the playhouse for pretend cooking. Children stated their teachers watch them on the playground and they have not seen them on the phone. LPA contacted 10 parents of whom 2 parents responded with positive feedback. During the course of interviews with 9 staff, 10 children, and 10 parents of whom 2 responded with positive feedback, review documents, and LPA's observation of the playhouse on the playground which was visible from sides, there is not enough proof or evidence to support the above allegation occurred or did not occur. This agency has investigated the complaint alleging “Staff do not properly supervise children, resulting in children having inappropriate interaction”.;although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not preponderance of evidence to prove, the alleged violation did or did not occur, therefore the allegation is UNSUBSTANTIATED. Notice of Site Visit was posted. The notice of site visit must be posted for 30 consecutive days. Failure to post will result in civil penalties of $100. In the areas which were investigated, no deficiency was cited today. The director, Stephanie Vera was provided a copy of their appeal rights (LIC 9058 1/16) and their signature on this form acknowledges receipt of these rights. Exit interview was conducted with director, Stephanie Vera. This report ends here.