complaint·November 20, 2024

Page 2 of 3 wipe their face on children, and would often pretend to pull children’s hair. The RP stated staff never used force or hit any children just spoke inappropriately. The RP stated that children did laugh but it was inappropriate. LPA interviewed the following staff regarding the above allegation. Staff # 1 (S1) reported that S1 loves to be silly to make children laugh and S1 did not know that the behavior was inappropriate. For example, S1 was tapping on children’s shoulder by a plastic baseball toy bat during transitioning from playground to classroom slightly and playfully. S1’s intention was to be playful and silly to make children laugh. S1 reported S1 would wipe their face with a pretend napkin and would tell children "you are the napkin" but there was no touching of the face to children's face. S1 also stated S1 pretended pulling children's hair, so children laugh. S1 admitted S1 never hurt any child. S1 stated the inappropriate behavior was addressed with S1 from the Licensing Office and the facility management few weeks ago and S1 stopped the behavior. However, S1 believes S1 is a playful person and jokes with children and S1 has not done anything hurtful to children. Staff # 2 (S2) stated S2 has not observed any inappropriate behavior from any staff. Children have not complained to S2 of any inappropriate behavior from any staff. Staff # 3 (S3) stated S3 has not seen anything from anybody to be inappropriate towards children. Staff # 4 (S4) stated S4 has not seen any staff to be inappropriate towards children. Staff # 5 (S5) stated S5 has not observed any inappropriate behavior from staff at the facility. Staff # 6 (S6) reported that S6 acknowledged S1 is very playful with children but S6 has never observed any inappropriate behavior from S1 towards children. Staff # 7 (S7) reported that it was brought to S7’s attention that S1’s behavior has been inappropriate. S7 addressed the inappropriate behavior with S1. S7 stated S1 informed S7 that S1 was just being playful and silly with children and wanted to make children laugh and did not think the behavior was inappropriate. This Continued on page 3 Page 3 of 3 was addressed by licensing inspection date of 10/9/2024. A training was conducted with staff and appropriate and inappropriate behaviors were addressed. No staff has witnessed any inappropriate behavior from any staff after the training was conducted. LPA interviewed 9 older children. Children did not disclose any inappropriate behavior from staff towards them. Three children disclosed S1 is playful and make them laugh. LPA also contacted 10 random parents. Out of 10 parents contacted, 3 parents responded expressing no concerns regarding the above allegation. Based on the previous investigation and interviews conducted from the Department with facility staff on October 9, 2024, , it was determined the preponderance of evidence standard has been met, the allegation of " Facility staff speaks inappropriately to day care child(ren)”" is found to be SUBSTANTIATED. However, no citation is being issued at this time, as the facility had previously received a citation related to this matter on October 9, 2024. Following that citation, a meeting was conducted with the staff by the director to address the concern. A follow-up review, involving interviews with 7 staff members, 9 children, contact with 10 parents, and examination of relevant documentation, confirmed that no further incidents of inappropriate behavior have been observed since the citation on October 9, 2024 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 penalty of $100. The director, Christina Guerrero 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, Christina Guerrero. End of report Page 2 of 3 LPA interviewed the following staff regarding the above allegations. Staff # 1 (S1) reported children have enough time to eat. S1 has not taken any food away from children. However, S1 tells children to eat their healthy food first. S1 has not forced children to eat. Staff # 2 (S2) stated S2 encourages children to eat their main course first. They might have gummy bears or pouches or candy bar in their lunch bags. Children are told to put those aside, eat their main food first. S2 has not witnessed any staff withhold food from children or force them to eat. Staff # 3 (S3) stated if S3 observes a child is eating cookie and not eating their main food, S3 suggests the child to eat the main food first but not forcing the child. S3 denied keeping food away from children. Staff # 4 (S4) reported that S4 encourages children to take a bite and another bite for healthy food. S4 encourages children to eat their food but not forcing hem. S4 denied withholding food from children. Staff # 5 (S5) denied forcing children to eat. S5 stated S5 has not withhold food from children and has not observed anybody doing that. Staff # 6 (S6) reported that S6 and the rest of the staff encourage children to eat the food which is healthier first. S6 stated this is just for encouraging and not forcing children to eat. S6 denied keeping children's food away from them. Staff # 7 (S7) reported that they make sure children eat healthy food before their junk food. S7 denied anybody withholds food from children or forcing children to eat. LPA interviewed 9 older children. Children did not disclose any staff to take away their food from them or forcing them to eat. LPA also contacted 10 random parents. Out of 10 parents contacted, 3 parents responded expressing no concerns regarding the above allegations. Continued on page 3 Page 3 of 3 Based on the interviews with 7 staff, 9 children, and contacting 10 parents, there is not enough proof or evidence to support the above allegations occurred or did not occur. This agency has investigated the complaint alleging 1) Facility staff withhold food from day care child(ren), 2) Staff are forceful with children to eat, forcing them to take bites.”; although the allegations may have happened or are valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove, the alleged violations did or did not occur, therefore the allegations are 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 penalty of $100. The director, Christina Guerrero 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, Christina Guerrero. Endo of report