1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32 | LPA spoke with the parent of C4 and they expressed that they were not present at the facility or on the property on May 22, 2026. LPA attempted to interview Child 1(C1) and Child 2 (C2), however they refused to speak with LPA. LPA did interview Child 3(C3) who expressed that they enjoy their time at daycare and their teachers are kind. LPA interviewed Parent 1 (P1) – Parent 3 (P3), all expressed that they are happy with the care at the facility.
LPA P. Ochoa had S2 recreate how the classroom when the incident occurred. LPA observed a small portable bookshelf used as a divider between the table C4 was playing on and a cot where C1 would have been napping. S2 also placed the blanket on the table and showed LPA were C4 crawled down to cry. Per S2, C4 was sitting on the floor near the corner of the blanket but was not covered.
Based on interviews conducted, the above allegation is deemed UNSUBSTANTIAED. 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.
A notice of site visit was given and must remain posted for 30 days.
Exit interview conducted and report was reviewed with the Director, Fazeena Razikeen.
Page 3 of 3
|