complaint·August 22, 2022

Page 2 On 06/07/2022, during the initial 10 days of inspection, LPA Nguyen interviewed 4 staff members. All interviewed staff denied of witnessing any staff discipline the child by putting the child\342\200\231s pants on inside out and shoes on the wrong feet. Interviewed staff members indicated that they did not witness any children made fun at subject child. Interviewed staff members denied of witnessing S4 put the child in a corner, left out of the classroom. Staff #3 (S3) is one of the teachers in the classroom where incident occurred. S3 indicated SC threw the tantrum the past couple of months; recently SC was taking of shoes throwing at friend and SC also took off SC\342\200\231s pants. S3 stated that on the day of incident 5/25/22, S3 was at the lunch area with other children; S4 had to stand at the door so S4 can supervise SC and other children in the lunch area at the same time. SC took off SC\342\200\231s pant and shoes, throwing the shoes, and walking around the classroom; S4 tried to help SC with putting the shoes and pant back; SC refused to let S4 helping SC; SC wanted to do it by self without any help; SC put the shoes on the right way, but the pants was inside out. S4 offered to help putting the pants but SC did not let S4 to change it back. S3 and S4 indicated that when S4 checked SC\342\200\231s diaper, S4 asked to help SC to put the pants back the proper way but SC did not want to. In the afternoon, SC threw another tantrum and threw the shoes again. This time SC put shoes back the wrong way. S3 shared that SC did not want to let the teachers help. S4 indicated that during the day of incident, S4 offered multiple times to help SC changing the shoes and pants back the correct way but SC denied S4\342\200\231s help; S4 stated S4 did not want to trigger another tantrum if S4 kept on asking SC to put on the pants and shoes the correct way. S4 also indicated that S4 told S2 about the incident so S2 can communicate with the parents about that. S4 stated that the school and subject child family have had multiple conferences on behavior problems with subject child and the family have always been willing to work with the facility. During the inspection on 06/07/2022, LPA Nguyen interviewed three children. All interviewed children like their teachers. LPA was unable to interview SC since SC is too young to provide full statement. LPA Nguyen contacted five parents for interview, was able to talk to two parents. Interviewed parents did not have concern with the teachers and the facility. Continue on page 3 Page 3 Based on the information gathered from LPA' interviews, observation, and reviewing records, there is insufficient evidence to corroborate the allegations of staff inappropriately manages daycare child's behaviors and staff did not properly supervise daycare child. Although the allegations may have happened or are valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged staff inappropriately manages daycare child's behaviors and staff did not properly supervise daycare child did or did not occur, therefore the allegations are UNSUBSTANTIATED. An exit interview was conducted. The Notice of Site Visit was posted. The facility representative was informed that the Notice of Site Visit must be posted for 30 consecutive days. Failure to post will result in a civil penalty of $100. \342\200\234The facility representative was provided a copy of their appeal rights (LIC 9058 12/15) and their signature on this form acknowledges receipt of these rights.\342\200\235 This report LIC 9099 was provided to the facility representative. First level appeal is to Regional Manager, the address is above on the report.