complaint·June 6, 2025

(2) Licensee made inappropriate comments towards a child in care It was alleged that licensee made inappropriate comments to a child in response to a child picking their nose and placing what they picked in their mouth. During interview, licensee acknowledged that the incident occurred and stated that they told the child “That’s icky” and that “nobody will want to kiss your lips” because of it. Such language constitutes an inappropriate comment to a daycare child. The preponderance of evidence standard has been met; therefore, the allegation is SUBSTANTIATED (3) Licensee used an inappropriate form of discipline towards children in care It was alleged that the licensee used and inappropriate form of discipline towards children in care. Through interviews with licensee and relevant witnesses, LPA determined that, by facility, policy nap time is between approximately 1:00pm and 3:30pm, and that all children, including school-aged children, are required to be on their nap mats napping during this time. Licensee and witness interviews corroborate that this naptime is compulsory, even for older school-aged children. Further interviews also provided evidence that a reward system of receiving candy is used to reward those who nap well, while children who do not nap well do not receive the candy, and that timeout is also used to discipline children who do not nap as the policy requires. The preponderance of evidence standard has been met; therefore, the allegation is SUBSTANTIATED. (4) Licensee used chairs as restraint devices for children It was alleged that the licensee has infants remain in infant floor chairs for prolonged periods of time, during which the children’s free movement is effectively impeded by either buckles or feeding trays. Upon arrival to the facility for a visit on 3/25/2025, LPA observed young children to be seated in such chairs and that these children remained in the chairs for approximately an hour while the rest of the children were playing and engaging in other activities. Relevant interviews provided additional corroborating evidence that young children will remain placed in such seats for multiple hours in the day. The preponderance of evidence standard has been met; therefore, the allegation is SUBSTANTIATED. Report continues on 9099-C Title 22 deficiencies are cited on the following 9099-D pages Licensee acknowledges, that FOR TYPE A DEFICIENCIES ONLY upon receipt, licensee shall post LIC 9099D with Type A deficiencies for 30 days 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. LIC 9224 must be signed by parents/guardians and kept with the children's forms as a receipt whenever any Type A documents are provided by the licensee. LIC 9224 and Appeal Rights were provided. Exit interview conducted and report was reviewed with the licensee, Robyn Lowry. A notice of site visit was given and must remain posted for 30 days. (2) Licensee pulled day-care child’s hair It was alleged that the licensee pulled a day care child’s hair. Information gathered through interview and observation did not provide additional evidence that corroborated the allegation. Without meeting a preponderance of evidence standard, the allegation is UNSUBSTANTIATED, meaning that although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove that it either did nor did not occur. (3) Facility was operating over licensed capacity It was alleged that the facility was operating over licensed capacity. LPA visited the facility on 3/25/2025 and 6/4/2025 and observed the licensee to be complying the capacity terms of their license. Interviews with staff and parents did not produce any additional evidence that the licensee was operating over capacity, and record review of sign in/sign out sheets did not conclusively demonstrate that fact. Without meeting a preponderance of evidence standard, the allegation is UNSUBSTANTIATED, meaning that although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove that it either did nor did not occur. (4) Licensee did not address child’s behavior of bullying other children It was alleged that the licensee does not address a child’s behavior of bullying other children. Interviews and observation did not provide any further evidence to support this allegation. Without meeting a preponderance of evidence standard, the allegation is UNSUBSTANTIATED, meaning that although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove that it either did nor did not occur.