complaint·December 15, 2021

Interviews corroborate that C1 did kick C2 while in care, and that although a staff person was standing close by when the incident occurred and witnessed the incident, they could not have feasibly prevented C2 from being kicked because it happened so quickly. Staff interviews corroborate that C2 did not report being injured as a result of the kick at the time of the incident. Interviews revealed an inconsistency on where on the body C2 was kicked. Some interviewees stated that C2 was kicked on the hand, others stated C2 was kicked on the shoulder, arm or the ribs. Interviews with staff and children additionally corroborate that staff intervene regularly when children have conflicts, stating that on more than one occasion children have been asked to sit out from activities or have been spoken to by staff when undesired behavior by a child or children has occurred, separating children or redirecting as necessary. It was corroborated through interview that there has not been repeated inappropriate behavior between C1 and C2 at the Family Child Care home, but that repeated inappropriate behavior between C1 and C2 may have occurred while attending their local elementary school. Although interviews corroborate that inappropriate interactions between day care children C1 and C2 occurred while in care, there is not a preponderance of evidence to support that inappropriate interactions between day care children occurred due to a lack of supervision or a violation of personal rights. Based on interviews conducted and records reviewed, although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove that an alleged violation occurred, therefore the allegation is UNSUBSTANTIATED. There were no Title 22 deficiencies cited during today's inspection. This report was reviewed and discussed with the Licensee. Appeal Rights were provided. Notice of Site Visit shall be posted for 30 days from today's visit.