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 | S1-S2 confirmed they did not work with each other, and each staff worked individual shift with LS. S1-S2 reported they never saw any child(ren) left without staff supervision or any child left in the care of a minor; and they felt the facility had adequate staff to supervise the children. Based on S1-S2’s knowledge, the children were grouped and transitioned together, and LS hired other staff including minor(s) to work with the children, however; S1-S2 never met or worked with those staff; and in their absence(s), they were uncertain if any child(ren) was/were ever left unsupervised.
The statements provided by P1-P4 did not report any concern(s) related to lack/absence of supervision, and parents reported they never saw any child(ren) left unattended and never saw the children in the care of only a minor(s). When parents dropped off/ picked up their child(ren), staff were present, and parents waited outside the door and did not enter the facility; and they were uncertain of the activities taking place inside the facility; and had no knowledge if child(ren) were left without staff supervision. Although multiple parents did not report any concerns related to the allegation, P1 & P3 expressed the facility was inadequately staff. P1 felt LS misled parents on how many staff she had available, while P3 conveyed the lack of staffing caused LS to be overwhelmed, resulting in the quality-of-care deteriorating and felt the children were left alone longer than they should have been. During LPA’s visit to the facility, LS was present and engaged in providing care and supervision to the children. LPA did not witness any incident(s) of child elopement or lack/absence of supervision.
Based on this investigation, there is not a preponderance of evidence to show LS left daycare children unattended, and therefore, the allegation is unsubstantiated. Exit interview conducted, and report was reviewed with the Licensee, Paula Stenz. A notice of site visit was given and must remain posted for 30 days. There were no California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 12, Chapter 1, Article 06 violation(s) cited during this visit. Appeal Rights were provided.
|