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 complaint allegation involves an incident in April where the facility did not pick up a child during an afterschool pick-up. During confidential interviews 7 out of 10 witnesses confirmed that the child was not picked up from school. However, upon interviews with the parties involved, the incident in April was explained. 2 out of 2 staff members explained that the child’s pick-up plans varied. The child was sometimes picked up by the facility, their guardians, or the child stayed at the school as they were enrolled in the school’s after-school program. Both staff members stated that sometimes the child’s guardians communicated pick-up plans to the facility, other times the facility had to reach out to the guardians, or the facility would ask the child who would communicate with their guardians on a personal cellphone. On the day of the incident, Staff 1 stated that the child met them after school and reported that their guardian was going to pick them up. Upon LPA’s interview with the child, the child confirmed that although their guardian had initially stated that they would be picking them up, the child received a text message later in the day from their guardian instructing the child to go to the day care facility after school. The child explained that they did not notice the text message from their guardian, so they did not leave with the facility staff members. Later that day, the facility received a call from the guardian asking for their child to be picked up from school. During the interview with the Director, the Director stated that the facility’s Site Supervisor, Melissa Corado, called the Director and informed them of the incident. The Director stated that she told the staff that they were unable to leave the facility to pick up the child as the facility needed to abide by capacity and ratio regulations. Director added that the facility would usually pick up the child if prearrangements were made. The Site Supervisor was not interviewed as they are no longer employed at the facility and, despite attempts to interview, contact was not made.
Based on LPA Hurtado’s observations, interviews, and the review of facility records, although the allegation may have happened or are valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation did or did not occur, therefore, the allegation is UNSUBSTANTIATED at this time.
A notice of site visit was given to the Director and must remain posted for 30 days. Exit interview conducted and report was reviewed with the Director, Alejandra Piedra. Appeal rights were discussed and provided during the exit interview. |