complaint·March 1, 2024

Other staff interview confirmed witnessing S1 using the conditioner, and then another staff interview witnessed S1 combing C1’s hair. S1 showed LPA the conditioner that was used during the initial visit on 2/22/2024. Staff Two (S2) was interviewed and revealed that it is their expectation that no products or conditioners be used in children’s hair at any time. Based upon information obtained during interviews with staff the allegation is substantiated. A finding that is Substantiated means that the allegation is valid because the preponderance of the evidence standard has been met. An exit interview was conducted where a copy of this report was provided along with a copy of the LIC9099D, LIC811, and Appeal Rights. A Notice of Site visit was given, and the Licensee understands that it must remain posted for 30 days. LPA conducted record review of the alleged day of incident, (2/15/24), and found that there were approximately 9 children, and 3 staff supervising the room. Through staff interviews, and record review, the allegation could not be corroborated, nor refuted. Based upon interviews and observations the allegation is unsubstantiated. A finding of UNSUBSTANTIATED means that although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation did or did not occur. An exit interview was conducted where a copy of this report was provided along with a copy of the LIC811, and Appeal Rights. A Notice of Site visit was given, and the Licensee understands that it must remain posted for 30 days.