complaint·January 11, 2024

According to POD, she was unaware of any concerns related to staff not changing diapers or unaware of a child(ren) being left in diaper containing feces until the concern was raised to her attention by another individual. POD stated staff were required to change children’s diapers every two hours and as needed. The statements provided by staff reported they had not seen any staff intentionally leave any child(ren) in soiled undergarment, staff claimed they checked and changed a child’s diaper every one to three hours in accordance with the facility’s communication log. A2 and P1-P2 & P4’s statements reported prior incidents of picking their child up in a heavily soiled diaper and adults and parents validated they either saw a parent pick up or they picked their child up with a soiled pull/diaper that contained large sum of feces. A2 reported on two or three occasions, A2 found his child in undergarment that contained a lot of feces, while P1-P2 & P4 stated between two through more than ten occasions, they picked up their child in a soiled diaper with a lot of feces. Furthermore, A2 and P1 reported their child sustained a consistent diaper rash as a result of their child being left in a diaper for long period(s); and some parties felt the staff were not performing their duties. Based on the investigation, there’s a preponderance of evidence to show a consistent pattern of children’s diapers not being changed in a timely manner and children were left in a soiled diaper containing feces, and therefore, the above allegations are found to be SUBSTANTIATED. Notice of Site Visit was given and must remain posted for 30 days. Failure to comply with posting requirements shall result in an immediate civil penalty of $100. The following violations of the California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 12 were cited during this visit. Appeal Rights were provided. POD stated she did not witness any incident(s) involving a child getting slapped, and according to POD, staff were trained in methods to mitigate challenging behavior(s). POD confirmed the facility conducted an internal investigation which did not substantiate S7 yelled at child(ren), but S7’s interaction with an adult was described as inappropriate and unprofessional. Statements provided by staff (S1-S7) either reported they did not witness S7 yell at a child and/or they did not witness any incident(s) involving a child being slapped in the face by another child. Furthermore, staff expressed they never saw any staff dismiss/ignore, not address behavior(s) or acts of bullying that could result in injury to a child. Staff described when they communicated with a child, they got down to a child’s eye level, used calm, positive and respectful voice to speak with the children. Additionally, staff claimed they redirected, separated, and encouraged children to use their words to express their feelings. Although S1-S3 & S5 did not report any concerns, S4 expressed S7 sometimes yelled and was aggressive with the children, while S6 described S7 as being stern and loud; and felt some people may misinterpret S7’s tone for yelling. S6 stated she sometimes heard aggression in S7’s voice and felt that S7 should be in a different occupation. A statement alleged that a staff hit a child, however; that statement was not corroborated. A2 and P1-P3 did not report any concerns related to staff yelling at children, and stated they never witnessed staff yell at child(ren); and their child never disclosed anything negative about staff conduct. A2 stated his child was consistently being bullied and was bitten twice by other child(ren) which prompted A2 to raise concerns to facility management which eventually addressed A2’s concerns. P2 said she noticed an unexplained visible red bruise on her child’s finger, and P4 stated he witnessed S7 talking in a loud verbal tone and arguing with his child, and P4 felt S7 lacked patience to work with the children; and was in the wrong line of work. Based on the investigation, there was no conclusive evidence to support the allegations. Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violations did or did not occur, therefore the allegations are unsubstantiated. Notice of site visit was given and must remain posted for 30 days. Failure to comply with posting requirements shall result in an immediate civil penalty of $100. There were no violation(s) of California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 12 cited at this time. Appeal Rights were provided.