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 | LPA could not clearly determine through interview with staff and children whether staff had or had not in fact observed the nail polish in the child's hair prior to the end of the day when the hat was taken off. Therefore, it is inconclusive as to whether staff was aware that an incident occurred that required reporting. LPA did determine that staff had observed nail polish on the child's hands and made an unsuccessful attempt to remove it through soap and water. Based on the collected evidence, the allegation is found to be UNSUBSTANTIATED. This means that, although the allegation may have occurred or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove it.
(2) Staff do not ensure toxins are inaccessible to children
It was alleged that staff did not ensure that toxic nail polish was inaccessible to children. Through interviews with relevant parties, LPA determined that the nail polish was not provided by the facility but brought to class by a child, and staff interviews suggested that staff were not aware of the nail polish having been brought into the classroom until after it was used. In addition, although the nail polish was not removable by soap and water, available information about the specific nail polish was insufficient to reliably assess its toxicity. Based on the collected evidence, the allegation is found to be UNSUBSTANTIATED. This means that, although the allegation may have occurred or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove it.
Exit interview conducted and report was reviewed with the facility representative, Paolo Sarmiento. A notice of site visit was given and must remain posted for 30 days. LPA provided appeal rights. |