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 | (Page 2)
LPA interviewed Reporting Party (RP) for further information. RP stated that they observed via cameras that daycare children exposed their private parts.
During the investigation, LPA Garcia interviewed 4 staff, 6 children, and authorized representatives and reviewed the facility roster, facility incident reports, 7/17/26 face-to-name transition sheet, LIC 624, 7/28/26 training agenda and staff sign in sheet, and personnel report. LPA requested the video footage, but the facility is unable to provide due to lapse of time of the request date.
During staff interviews, staff stated the supervision policy is watching them, positioning themselves around the classrooms for maximum supervision, redirecting children, and constantly explaining rules to the children. Based on interviews conducted with staff, Three of four staff members reported that on 7/17/26, during lunchtime, two staff were present. Staff stated they did not directly observe any inappropriate interactions between Child 1 (C1), Child 2 (C2), and Child 5 (C5). Staff further stated they became aware of the incident through information provided by the director.
During children’s interviews, children stated that when they get into trouble they are written up by a teacher and their parents are spoke to. LPA interviewed Child 1 (C1), Child 2 (C2), and Child 5 (C5). C1 and C2 made no disclosures regarding the 7/17/26 incident or allegations. C5 states that C2 was showing private parts during lunch time on 7/17/26. C5 stated Staff 3 (S3) was present but did not see the incident. C5 showed private parts to C1 after C1 asked multiple times.
LPA interviewed authorized representatives. Authorized representatives interviewed made no disclosures regarding allegations.
(continue to page 3) |