complaint·July 28, 2022

The child not only had a bite mark, but also another reddish mark on their stomach area, that was observed by the licensee during a diaper change. However, what caused the mark could not be explained by the parent/legal guardian nor the licensee. The biting incident was observed and could not be prevented, according to the licensee. Also, per the licensee, and prior to the incident, the child that was bit had been exhibiting challenging behavior. The child had been throwing toys around, which had been observed by another child in care, and hitting their own head against the walls of the facility\342\200\231s playroom. The behavior had been reported to the parent/legal guardian and assumed that it was possibly due to a new environment, given that the child had only been at the facility for a few days. The licensee had already decided to terminate care of the child prior to the incident. The day of the incident the licensee informed the parent/legal guardian that the care/contract would be terminated two days later (5/20/2022). According to the licensee, the child did not return after the incident, and no reason was given. Additional information regarding the need for or if medical attention was obtained for the bite and/or mark on the stomach was not provided. Although the allegation of Personal Rights may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation did or did not occur, therefore the allegation is unsubstantiated. A notice of site visit was given and must remain posted on, or immediately adjacent to, the interior side of the main door for 30 days. Failure to comply with posting requirements shall result in an immediate civil penalty of $100. An exit interview was conducted, and the report was reviewed with the Licensee Ana Holmes.