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 | Interviews also revealed that prior concerns about S1’s handling of children had been reported to the director by staff members, an outside therapy agency providing in classroom services, and parents who stated they had witnessed similar behavior. These concerns were brought to the director’s attention before the complaint was filed.
Regarding the allegation that staff yelled at, threatened, and made inappropriate comments toward day care children in care, LPA Waters conducted confidential interviews, observed staff interactions, and reviewed facility records. Interviews revealed that some staff observed Staff #1 (S1) and Staff #2 (S2) using aggressive tones and language with children on multiple occasions. During visits conducted as part of the investigation, LPA Waters observed both S1 and S2 using loud, harsh tones and making inappropriate and threatening comments toward children during transition periods and nap time. On 06/11/26, LPA Tricia Danielson, who was at the facility for an unrelated matter, observed S1 yelling at children and informed the Director to intervene, which was corroborated by interviews.
Based on observation, confidential interviews and record review, the preponderance of evidence has been met and the allegations that the facility violated the personal rights of children in care is SUBSTANTIATED. California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Section 101223 (a)(1) and Section 101223(a)(3), are being cited on the attached LIC 9099D. These are repeat violations and civil penalties will be assessed. See LIC 9099D and LIC 421FC for details.
An exit interview was conducted, and a copy of this report was provided along with copies of the Appeal Rights were provided.
A Notice of Site visit was given, and Director understands that it must remain posted for 30 days. |