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 | The Licensing Program Analysts (LPAs) Samuel Lopez and Eric Ramos investigated the above allegations and gathered the following information: On April 10, 2025, during lunch time, a child asked for oatmeal for lunch, which is something this child would always ask for. The food that was served was on that day was chicken nuggets and fries. The child insisted on the oatmeal and the licensee informed the child that if they did eat what was served, they would not eat. Also, if they wanted oatmeal, they could eat some once they returned home. The child refused to eat the chicken nuggets and fries, so the licensee threw the food away in the trash. At the time, the child was standing, and the licensee placed their hand on the child’s neck and shoulder area, pushed down, to have the child sit on the bench.
The child in question is described as a “picky eater” but, not on any special diet. The child is known to pick at the food provided at the facility and not eat it, at times, unless the food provided was oatmeal. The child would have eaten oatmeal every day, if served, but this was not what the parent/legal guardian desired. The parent/legal guardian offered to provide food for their child and licensee informed them that it would not be needed because the facility provided food for the children. During once instance, the child refused to eat apples because the skin was not peeled off. The licensee then refused to peel them or give the child any more apples to eat. The licensee would be stern with the child due to not wanting to eat certain foods served.
Licensee denied the allegations and did not recall the child’s desire to constantly eat/want oatmeal.
Additionally, in conducting interviews with pertinent sources, corroboration with the alleged was not obtained. Instead, there were conflicting statements regarding whether the alleged occurred.
Based on the information obtained, and although the allegations may have happened or are valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violations did or did not occur, therefore the allegation is unsubstantiated.
A notice of site visit was given and must remain posted on, or immediately adjacent to, the interior side of the main door for 30 days. Failure to comply with posting requirements shall result in an immediate civil penalty of $100.
Exit interview conducted and report was reviewed with the Licensee Susan Seymour. |