complaint·April 6, 2023

An initial 10-day site inspection was conducted on March 13, 2023, by LPA King, and LPA notated that there were no immediate safety hazards or concerns observed. LPA also interviewed children and staff members, including the Center Director during the initial visit. In regard to the allegation staff do not provide proper food service to child in care, it was alleged that facility staff was not feeding child #1 (C1) “enough food with proper limitation.” Confidential interviews revealed that C1 was provided proper and adequate food while attending the facility. Staff denied the allegation, and interviews revealed that the parent of C1 advised facility staff verbally at one point to not feed C1 so much food because C1 likes to overeat. Per the Director, if children are still hungry after a snack and/or lunch, staff will provide the children with additional food so that they do not go hungry, and that C1 has never been limited food except at the request of C1’s parent. Regarding the allegation staff do not notify child's authorized representative of child's incidents, it was alleged that if C1 gets hurt, C1’s parent is not notified. Confidential interviews revealed that facility staff could not recall any incidents that C1 may have been involved in, as C1 never obtained any injuries or got hurt while attending the facility. Additionally, LPA reviewed C1’s file, and LPA did not observe any Injury or Ouch Reports in the child’s file. In regard to the allegation staff do not treat day care child with respect, it was alleged that facility staff do not respect personal boundaries with C1’s hair. Confidential interviews revealed that no child has ever been treated without respect and dignity. Per the Director, the isolated incident occurred when C1 got their hair braided and when they came into the facility, C1 ran to the Director to show off her hair because C1 was so excited about it. The Director patted C1 on the top of their head and relayed to C1 that their hair was beautiful. The parent of C1 saw the interaction occurring and advised the Director to not touch C1’s hair again because it is a sign of disrespect. Per the Director, she apologized for the incident, and relayed to the parent that it would never happen again. Based on the information obtained during this investigation, it has been determined that although the allegations may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove that the alleged violations did or did not occur. Therefore, the allegations are UNSUBSTANTIATED at this time. See LIC 9099C (pg 3) for a continuation of this report. An exit interview was conducted, and this report was reviewed with the Assistant Director, Patricia Gibson, and a copy was provided. Appeal rights were discussed and provided during the exit interview. A Notice of Site visit was given, and the Licensee understands that it must remain posted for 30 days. Regarding the allegation staff took pictures of child in care without parent's consent, confidential interviews revealed that a Staff Member (S2) took a picture of child #1 (C1) during a President’s Day curriculum. Interviews also revealed that S2 was previously advised by the Director, who was also advised by the parent to not take any pictures of C1. In addition, a record review of C1’s file revealed that Kindercare’s policy for pictures was not signed or initialed by the parent, but the parent did inform the staff verbally not to take any pictures of C1, per the Director. Although the photograph was not taken under malicious intent and was only taken for curriculum purposes, S2 disregarded the request of C1’s parent and took a photograph of C1, sending it to C1’s parent via the KinderCare App. Based on the information obtained from the confidential interviews and record review , the preponderance of evidence standard has been met, therefore the above allegation is found to be SUBSTANTIATED . Facility is cited in accordance with California Code of Regulations, (Title 22, Division & Chapter number), Section 101223(a)(2) Personal Rights. An exit interview was conducted, and this report was reviewed with the Assistant Director, Patricia Gibson, and a copy was provided. Appeal rights were discussed and provided during the exit interview. A Notice of Site visit was given, and the Licensee understands that it must remain posted for 30 days.