complaint·June 25, 2024

S5 roughly puts children on time out. S5 pulls children off mat after nap having children rolling on the floor. Children feel intimidated by S5 and are scared of S5. S5 is not patient with children and gets frustrated really quickly. S5 treats children as they were soldiers. Parents have complained about this situation and S5 continues working with children. S5 once shared with RP, that S5 got fired from another school because somebody “lied” stating S5 abusing children. S5 in fact does treat children in a rough manner. RP has brought this matter to the Director, Director did not fire S5. The Director only reduced S5’s hours and now is able to work full time with children. S5 should not be working with children, children are not safe around S5. During the course of investigation, LPA interviewed 6 staff members, and 1 of 5 parents called were interviewed. Parent disclosed dissatisfaction with unfriendly staff. Children were not interviewed due to being non-verbal. During the staff interviews, Staff 1 (S1), disclosed two previous staff that left and at one point S5 violated children’s personal rights. S1 redirected S5 as soon as it was called to S1’s attention. S1 has heard kids say S5 is mean. In October of 2023, in room 103, Adult #1 (A1) was a co-teacher. A1 observed that S5 was pretty rough. S5 would sit children down roughly, pull their shoulder, kind of try waking up the children from nap. S5 was written up on Oct. 6, 2023. S5 did not deny it but did not seem to think it was as a big deal. S5’ working hours were also being reduced, S5 was being monitored and was not being left alone supervising the children. Staff 2 (S2) disclosed observing when a child was crying, S5 always tells the kids that “I’m not going to hurt you” which was weird, but S2 saw S5 pull children’s arms harshly. S2 said S2 has not seen teachers speak inappropriately to children but worries about S5 when no one is around. S2 has seen S5 was being rough with the children. Sometimes S2 doesn’t even want to go on S2’s breaks because S2 doesn’t want to leave S5 alone with the kids. S2 does not feel children are safe with S5. Staff 3 (S3) stated S3 has not seen any staff speak inappropriately or treat children in a rough manner. Although S3 stated about 2 years ago, a child in S5’s class complained to S3 that S5 pulled the child’s arm. S3 talked to the director about it. The director just made excuses for S5 and did not really address the issue. Staff 4 (S4) said S4 reported to the Director that S5 was speaking inappropriately to children. Then Director removed S5 from the classroom and reduced S5’s hours. S5 was no longer being left alone with kids.Page 2 of 3 S4 stated the only staff that S4 feels is not safe with children is S5, everyone else is really great with the kids. Staff 5 (S5) disclosed that S5 may have pulled a child’s arm too roughly. S5 was trying to get the child in line and maybe pulled too hard. S5 was not trying to hurt the children at all. The child that S5 was pulling hard was a handful child. The child was also nonverbal. S5 stated S5 has not yelled at children but rather projected S5’s voice to get their attention. 2 of 5 parents were interviewed, 1 of 2 parents interviewed disclosed dissatisfaction with the facility. Based on LPA’s interviews and records reviewed, 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 101223(a)(1) Personal Right s , two type As are being cited on the attached LIC 809D. Please refer to attached 809D for documentation of deficiencies. LPA Valdez Santana informed Director, Deanne Walkwitz , that this report dated 06/25/24 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 06/25/24 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. During the course of investigation, LPA interviewed 6 staff members, 2 parents. Children were not interviewed due to being non-verbal. During the staff interviews, Staff 1 (S1) denied discouraging staff from reporting to Licensing but rather implemented that if staff see something they should say something. S1 wanted staff to feel like they can hold each other accountable but also keep S1 in the loop so S1 can follow up. S1 denied threatening staff to write them up if the staff don’t report to S1 first. S1 does want staff to speak to S1 about any incidents. Staff 2 (S2) disclosed that S1 said S1 would write staff up if staff did not tell S1 first before reporting to Licensing. Staff 3 (S3) stated S1, in the last (licensing) report S1 talked to the staff, and S1 asked staff if staff see anything that staff should address it with that person. S4 denied S1 ever discouraged staff from reporting to licensing. S5 said S5 is not aware of S1 ever discouraging or threaten staff from reporting to licensing. Staff 6 (S6) did not make any disclosures. 2 of 5 parents were interviewed, 1 of 2 parents interviewed had concerns with the daycare. Based on LPA’s interviews and record review, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged Staff discourage other staff from reporting incidents involving day care children in care violation s did or did not occur; therefore, the allegation is UNSUBSTANTIATED . Exit interview was conducted, and report was reviewed and discussed. Notice of Site Visit was posted during the visit. The facility representative 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 per day. The facility was provided a copy of their appeal rights (LIC 9058 12/15) and their signature on this form acknowledges receipt of these rights. Page 2 of 2.