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 | Pg 2
On the second allegation, which is, staff does not ensure communication is provided to responsible party, LPA obtained a copy of the Incident Report dated September 21, 2023, which was also signed by the parent (complainant). The incident report states that child #1 continues to run out of the classroom and office after being redirected and brought back to the child’s classroom. The incident report proves that a copy was also provided to the responsible party.
Based on the information gathered and interviews with relevant parties, it was found out that children were never left unsupervised inside the facility and the teachers are always in ratio. The facility has cameras installed and parents can have access to their child’s daily activities. During pick up time, parents were given access codes to log in and pick up their child. Parents are also informed regarding the incident reports of their child and were asked to sign the report which serves as proof that parents were notified.
After observations, records review, and interviews with staff and all parties involved, regarding the allegations: 1) child in care was left unsupervised resulting in elopement from facility, and 2) staff does not ensure communication is provided to child’s responsible party, it was determined that the allegations could not be collaborated.
Although the allegations may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of the evidence to prove that the child was left unsupervised and that communications are not provided to the responsible party, therefore the above allegations are Unsubstantiated. No deficiencies were cited as a result of the investigation.
An exit Interview was conducted, and a copy of this report was read, Appeal Rights, and a Notice of Site Visit, was discussed and left with director Aimee Ward at the facility. Failure to maintain the posting of the Notice of Site visit will result in a $100 Civil Penalty. |