Skip to main content

Inspection visit

complaint

Clean visit · 0 citations

Inspector’s narrative

What the inspector wrote

S1 had denied the allegation, stating she wasn\342\200\231t sure why that was reported, stating that although S1 did grab onto C1\342\200\231s hands to help them rinse the soap off, she did not hit C1. The UIR stated that because of the allegation, as a precaution, one on one coaching was conducted with S1, covering skills including how to gain cooperation with kids, how to be flexible and being more aware of words/tone used with students and parents. The UIR further stated that an all-staff training was being planned on the topic of personal rights. On 06/14/23 LPA Strother received a copy of the outline of the staff training conducted on 06/02/23. During interviews conducted, D1, S1 and S2 all denied the allegation, stating that they are not aware of a staff member hitting a child in care. S1 gave a detailed account of helping C1 to wash their hands in the bathroom, when C1 did not want to rinse the soap off when asked. S1 stated that no other children or adults were present in the bathroom at the time that C1 alleged that S1 hit them. S1 denied the allegation, stating that she did not hit C1 in anyway, only placed her hands on top of C1\342\200\231s to aide them in rinsing the soap from their hands under the water. Staff interviewed stated that the staff are patient with the children and realize that they may be waiting longer than they think for a child to complete a task. Staff interviewed shared that the school is very harmonious. Staff mentioned discipline techniques such as redirection and allowing the child(ren) to help find a solution to problems. According to children interviews with C1-C3, they all like their school. During interviews with two of the three children, they mentioned that they like their teachers, specifically including S1\342\200\231s name when naming their teachers. During the interviews, two children stated that teachers help them wash their hands. Based on interviews conducted, 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. This report was reviewed and discussed with facility representative, Amy DeJung . Appeal Rights were provided. Notice of Site Visit shall be posted for 30 days from today's visit. Failure to comply with posting requirements shall result in an immediate civil penalty of $100.

Citations

No citations recorded on this visit

The inspector found no violations of California child care regulations during this visit.

FAQ · About this visit

Common questions about this visit

What happened during the August 3, 2023 inspection of TREE HOUSE HOLLOW-REDWOOD CAMPUS?

This was a complaint inspection of TREE HOUSE HOLLOW-REDWOOD CAMPUS on August 3, 2023. The inspection found no deficiencies and no citations were issued.

Were any citations issued to TREE HOUSE HOLLOW-REDWOOD CAMPUS on August 3, 2023?

No citations were issued during this inspection. The facility was found to be in compliance with all applicable regulations.

What type of inspection was this?

This was a complaint inspection. Complaint inspections are triggered when someone reports a concern about the facility to CCLD.

SourceView on CCLDView original report

Share this reportEmail

Next steps

If this is your facility,claim this pageand add your response to the public record. Free.

Researching this visit professionally?Book a 20-minute calland we will walk through what we have on file.

Data from CCLD public records. Last updated . If you believe any information is inaccurate, report it here.