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 9099C
During the investigation, LPA conducted 2 physical plant inspections, interviewed two staff members, two children, a parent, and reviewed facility roster. All staff interviewed denied ever knowing or observing C3’s scratches at the facility. Staff #1 (S1) stated child was sick for a few days, so when the child came back to the facility, child was little fussy and have a hard time napping. The child moved around a lot inside the crib when taking nap on that day. When C3 left the facility, S1 stated they didn’t recall observing any marks for scratches on the child. S1 stated they couldn’t recall anything abnormal happen on that day beside Child #3 (C3) being little fussy and that C3 scratched S1 when trying to comfort C3. S1 reported they are always with the children, even during nap time. S1 couldn’t recall anything happen to C3 at the facility. Staff #2 (S2) stated the scratches couldn’t have happen at the facility because we are always with the children. S2 was not aware of any incident occurring while C3 was in care that would have made the red marks. S1 cares for only five children, including two of her own. The children interviewed were either too young to qualify or did not disclosed any information to support the allegation. S1 currently has three families enrolled. LPA contacted all three parents by phone and was able to talk to a one parent. Parent interviewed did not express any concerns with the care and supervision given to the children, or have any concerns with any staff at the facility. Parent stated they would recommend facility to others.
Based on LPA observations, document reviews and interviews which were conducted, the preponderance of evidence was not met, therefore the above allegation is found to be UNSUBSTANTIATED. Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation(s) did or did not occur, therefore the allegation is UNSUBSTANTIATED.
Exit interview was conducted with licensee, Li, Jiarong. Notice of Site Visit was posted during the visit. Director was informed that the notice of site visit must be posted for 30 consecutive days. Failure to post will result in civil penalties of $100. Licensee was provided a copy of their appeal rights (LIC 9058 01/16) and their signature on this form acknowledges receipt of these rights. First level appeals should be sent to the regional manager to the address listed above. |