SAINT VICTOR'S PRESCHOOL

Type B citation from complaint investigation - potential risk if not corrected

Type B citation from complaint investigation - potential risk if not corrected

Type B citation from complaint investigation - potential risk if not corrected

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 32Per P1, on 04/17/23 at 11:45 AM, when P1 got to their car after picking up C1, P1 noticed that C1’s face was red, swollen, and had a lot of scratch marks. P1 had not been notified of any injuries/scratches to C1’s face. When P1 returned to the Center to ask Staff 1 (S1), who is C1’s teacher, about the scratches to C1’s face, S1 told P1 that C1 had scratched their own face. At 12:16 PM, Parent 2 (P2) sent an email to the director to inquire about the injuries/scratches. At 12:38 PM, after not receiving a response to their email from the director, P2 sent a text message to the director to inquire about the injuries/scratches and the director called them and asked about whether C1 has food allergies; P2 said that no, C1 does not have any known food allergies. The director told them that they would investigate the cause of the injuries/scratches. At 1:42 PM, the director sent a text message notifying P2 that they identified a child (C2) that is new to the center with long nails and that she had trimmed them. The director notified P2 that though S1 did not witness C1 being physically scratched by any child, it does not mean it didn’t happen. The Director contacted the parents of C2 and notified them their child scratched C1’s face. LPA interviewed four facility staff and they disclosed that they do not know what happened to C1. S1 disclosed that when the parent picked up C1, S1 told the parent that C1’s face was red and that C1 had a scratch on their face, but that S1 had not seen anyone scratch C1. Per S1, C1 sustained the injuries/scratches to their face sometime between diaper change at 11:30 and when she noticed the scratches/injuries on C1’s face when S1 was taking the 5 children to the restroom to wash their hands at 11:45 AM. S1 disclosed that they noticed the scratches/injuries when C1 began touching their face. The director disclosed that she does not know exactly what happened to C1’s face on 4/17/23 and does not know how it happened. The director admitted to telling the parents via text message that another child scratched their child. The director told mom they did not know what happened but would go and look at the children’s nails and if they found one with long nails, they would trim them. LPA received photographs of C1’s face and injuries/scratches sustained while in care. The photos show that the left side of the child’s face is red and irritated with one vertical scratch over the cheekbone and another small scratch at an angle on the check. LPA received a copy of the text messages between the Director and parents. The Director notified them that that a child with long nails was identified and their nails were trimmed. Page 2 of 3 SUPERVISORS NAME: Betty Bell LICENSING EVALUATOR NAME: Antonio Almanza LICENSING EVALUATOR SIGNATURE: DATE: 07/26/2023 I acknowledge receipt of this form and understand my licensing appeal rights as explained and received. FACILITY REPRESENTATIVE SIGNATURE: DATE: 07/26/2023 FACILITY NAME: SAINT VICTOR'S PRESCHOOLFACILITY NUMBER: 197417482 VISIT DATE: 07/26/2023 NARRATIVE 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 32The director informed them that although S1 did not witness C1 being scratched, it does not mean it didn’t happen. The director also informs them that the parents of the child with long nails have been notified that their child scratched C1. After considering the information provided, it was revealed that facility staff are unaware of how or what caused the injures to C1’s face; that staff did not notify child's authorized person at pick up that child sustained minor injuries/scratches; and that staff at first blamed C1, accusing C1 of scratching themselves before accusing another child in care, that had “long nails,” for the injuries/scratches to C1’s face. S1 disclosed that they only wrote an incident report the following week because P1 asked for one. Based on LPA’s observation, interviews which were conducted and record reviews, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met; therefore, the above allegations are found to be substantiated. California code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 12, Chapter 1, are being cited on the attached LIC9099D. A notice of site visit was given and must remain posted for 30 days. Exit interview conducted and report was reviewed with the facility representative Julie Zaring. Page 3 of 3 SUPERVISORS NAME: Betty Bell LICENSING EVALUATOR NAME: Antonio Almanza LICENSING EVALUATOR SIGNATURE: DATE: 07/26/2023 I acknowledge receipt of this form and understand my licensing appeal rights as explained and received. FACILITY REPRESENTATIVE SIGNATURE: DATE: 07/26/2023 FACILITY NAME: SAINT VICTOR'S PRESCHOOLFACILITY NUMBER: 197417482 DEFICIENCY INFORMATION FOR THIS PAGE:VISIT DA

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 32Per P1, on 04/17/23 at 11:45 AM, when P1 got to their car after picking up C1, P1 noticed that C1’s face was red, swollen, and had a lot of scratch marks. P1 had not been notified of any injuries/scratches to C1’s face. When P1 returned to the Center to ask Staff 1 (S1), who is C1’s teacher, about the scratches to C1’s face, S1 told P1 that C1 had scratched their own face. At 12:16 PM, Parent 2 (P2) sent an email to the director to inquire about the injuries/scratches. At 12:38 PM, after not receiving a response to their email from the director, P2 sent a text message to the director to inquire about the injuries/scratches and the director called them and asked about whether C1 has food allergies; P2 said that no, C1 does not have any known food allergies. The director told them that they would investigate the cause of the injuries/scratches. At 1:42 PM, the director sent a text message notifying P2 that they identified a child (C2) that is new to the center with long nails and that she had trimmed them. The director notified P2 that though S1 did not witness C1 being physically scratched by any child, it does not mean it didn’t happen. The Director contacted the parents of C2 and notified them their child scratched C1’s face. LPA interviewed four facility staff and they disclosed that they do not know what happened to C1. S1 disclosed that when the parent picked up C1, S1 told the parent that C1’s face was red and that C1 had a scratch on their face, but that S1 had not seen anyone scratch C1. Per S1, C1 sustained the injuries/scratches to their face sometime between diaper change at 11:30 and when she noticed the scratches/injuries on C1’s face when S1 was taking the 5 children to the restroom to wash their hands at 11:45 AM. S1 disclosed that they noticed the scratches/injuries when C1 began touching their face. The director disclosed that she does not know exactly what happened to C1’s face on 4/17/23 and does not know how it happened. The director admitted to telling the parents via text message that another child scratched their child. The director told mom they did not know what happened but would go and look at the children’s nails and if they found one with long nails, they would trim them. LPA received photographs of C1’s face and injuries/scratches sustained while in care. The photos show that the left side of the child’s face is red and irritated with one vertical scratch over the cheekbone and another small scratch at an angle on the check. LPA received a copy of the text messages between the Director and parents. The Director notified them that that a child with long nails was identified and their nails were trimmed. Page 2 of 3 SUPERVISORS NAME: Betty Bell LICENSING EVALUATOR NAME: Antonio Almanza LICENSING EVALUATOR SIGNATURE: DATE: 07/26/2023 I acknowledge receipt of this form and understand my licensing appeal rights as explained and received. FACILITY REPRESENTATIVE SIGNATURE: DATE: 07/26/2023 FACILITY NAME: SAINT VICTOR'S PRESCHOOLFACILITY NUMBER: 197417482 VISIT DATE: 07/26/2023 NARRATIVE 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 32The director informed them that although S1 did not witness C1 being scratched, it does not mean it didn’t happen. The director also informs them that the parents of the child with long nails have been notified that their child scratched C1. After considering the information provided, it was revealed that facility staff are unaware of how or what caused the injures to C1’s face; that staff did not notify child's authorized person at pick up that child sustained minor injuries/scratches; and that staff at first blamed C1, accusing C1 of scratching themselves before accusing another child in care, that had “long nails,” for the injuries/scratches to C1’s face. S1 disclosed that they only wrote an incident report the following week because P1 asked for one. Based on LPA’s observation, interviews which were conducted and record reviews, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met; therefore, the above allegations are found to be substantiated. California code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 12, Chapter 1, are being cited on the attached LIC9099D. A notice of site visit was given and must remain posted for 30 days. Exit interview conducted and report was reviewed with the facility representative Julie Zaring. Page 3 of 3 SUPERVISORS NAME: Betty Bell LICENSING EVALUATOR NAME: Antonio Almanza LICENSING EVALUATOR SIGNATURE: DATE: 07/26/2023 I acknowledge receipt of this form and understand my licensing appeal rights as explained and received. FACILITY REPRESENTATIVE SIGNATURE: DATE: 07/26/2023 FACILITY NAME: SAINT VICTOR'S PRESCHOOLFACILITY NUMBER: 197417482 DEFICIENCY INFORMATION FOR THIS PAGE:VISIT DA

Type B citation - potential risk if not corrected

Type B citation - potential risk if not corrected

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 32Per P1, on 04/17/23 at 11:45 AM, when P1 got to their car after picking up C1, P1 noticed that C1’s face was red, swollen, and had a lot of scratch marks. P1 had not been notified of any injuries/scratches to C1’s face. When P1 returned to the Center to ask Staff 1 (S1), who is C1’s teacher, about the scratches to C1’s face, S1 told P1 that C1 had scratched their own face. At 12:16 PM, Parent 2 (P2) sent an email to the director to inquire about the injuries/scratches. At 12:38 PM, after not receiving a response to their email from the director, P2 sent a text message to the director to inquire about the injuries/scratches and the director called them and asked about whether C1 has food allergies; P2 said that no, C1 does not have any known food allergies. The director told them that they would investigate the cause of the injuries/scratches. At 1:42 PM, the director sent a text message notifying P2 that they identified a child (C2) that is new to the center with long nails and that she had trimmed them. The director notified P2 that though S1 did not witness C1 being physically scratched by any child, it does not mean it didn’t happen. The Director contacted the parents of C2 and notified them their child scratched C1’s face. LPA interviewed four facility staff and they disclosed that they do not know what happened to C1. S1 disclosed that when the parent picked up C1, S1 told the parent that C1’s face was red and that C1 had a scratch on their face, but that S1 had not seen anyone scratch C1. Per S1, C1 sustained the injuries/scratches to their face sometime between diaper change at 11:30 and when she noticed the scratches/injuries on C1’s face when S1 was taking the 5 children to the restroom to wash their hands at 11:45 AM. S1 disclosed that they noticed the scratches/injuries when C1 began touching their face. The director disclosed that she does not know exactly what happened to C1’s face on 4/17/23 and does not know how it happened. The director admitted to telling the parents via text message that another child scratched their child. The director told mom they did not know what happened but would go and look at the children’s nails and if they found one with long nails, they would trim them. LPA received photographs of C1’s face and injuries/scratches sustained while in care. The photos show that the left side of the child’s face is red and irritated with one vertical scratch over the cheekbone and another small scratch at an angle on the check. LPA received a copy of the text messages between the Director and parents. The Director notified them that that a child with long nails was identified and their nails were trimmed. Page 2 of 3 SUPERVISORS NAME: Betty Bell LICENSING EVALUATOR NAME: Antonio Almanza LICENSING EVALUATOR SIGNATURE: DATE: 07/26/2023 I acknowledge receipt of this form and understand my licensing appeal rights as explained and received. FACILITY REPRESENTATIVE SIGNATURE: DATE: 07/26/2023 FACILITY NAME: SAINT VICTOR'S PRESCHOOLFACILITY NUMBER: 197417482 VISIT DATE: 07/26/2023 NARRATIVE 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 32The director informed them that although S1 did not witness C1 being scratched, it does not mean it didn’t happen. The director also informs them that the parents of the child with long nails have been notified that their child scratched C1. After considering the information provided, it was revealed that facility staff are unaware of how or what caused the injures to C1’s face; that staff did not notify child's authorized person at pick up that child sustained minor injuries/scratches; and that staff at first blamed C1, accusing C1 of scratching themselves before accusing another child in care, that had “long nails,” for the injuries/scratches to C1’s face. S1 disclosed that they only wrote an incident report the following week because P1 asked for one. Based on LPA’s observation, interviews which were conducted and record reviews, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met; therefore, the above allegations are found to be substantiated. California code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 12, Chapter 1, are being cited on the attached LIC9099D. A notice of site visit was given and must remain posted for 30 days. Exit interview conducted and report was reviewed with the facility representative Julie Zaring. Page 3 of 3 SUPERVISORS NAME: Betty Bell LICENSING EVALUATOR NAME: Antonio Almanza LICENSING EVALUATOR SIGNATURE: DATE: 07/26/2023 I acknowledge receipt of this form and understand my licensing appeal rights as explained and received. FACILITY REPRESENTATIVE SIGNATURE: DATE: 07/26/2023 FACILITY NAME: SAINT VICTOR'S PRESCHOOLFACILITY NUMBER: 197417482 DEFICIENCY INFORMATION FOR THIS PAGE:VISIT DA

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 32Per P1, on 04/17/23 at 11:45 AM, when P1 got to their car after picking up C1, P1 noticed that C1’s face was red, swollen, and had a lot of scratch marks. P1 had not been notified of any injuries/scratches to C1’s face. When P1 returned to the Center to ask Staff 1 (S1), who is C1’s teacher, about the scratches to C1’s face, S1 told P1 that C1 had scratched their own face. At 12:16 PM, Parent 2 (P2) sent an email to the director to inquire about the injuries/scratches. At 12:38 PM, after not receiving a response to their email from the director, P2 sent a text message to the director to inquire about the injuries/scratches and the director called them and asked about whether C1 has food allergies; P2 said that no, C1 does not have any known food allergies. The director told them that they would investigate the cause of the injuries/scratches. At 1:42 PM, the director sent a text message notifying P2 that they identified a child (C2) that is new to the center with long nails and that she had trimmed them. The director notified P2 that though S1 did not witness C1 being physically scratched by any child, it does not mean it didn’t happen. The Director contacted the parents of C2 and notified them their child scratched C1’s face. LPA interviewed four facility staff and they disclosed that they do not know what happened to C1. S1 disclosed that when the parent picked up C1, S1 told the parent that C1’s face was red and that C1 had a scratch on their face, but that S1 had not seen anyone scratch C1. Per S1, C1 sustained the injuries/scratches to their face sometime between diaper change at 11:30 and when she noticed the scratches/injuries on C1’s face when S1 was taking the 5 children to the restroom to wash their hands at 11:45 AM. S1 disclosed that they noticed the scratches/injuries when C1 began touching their face. The director disclosed that she does not know exactly what happened to C1’s face on 4/17/23 and does not know how it happened. The director admitted to telling the parents via text message that another child scratched their child. The director told mom they did not know what happened but would go and look at the children’s nails and if they found one with long nails, they would trim them. LPA received photographs of C1’s face and injuries/scratches sustained while in care. The photos show that the left side of the child’s face is red and irritated with one vertical scratch over the cheekbone and another small scratch at an angle on the check. LPA received a copy of the text messages between the Director and parents. The Director notified them that that a child with long nails was identified and their nails were trimmed. Page 2 of 3 SUPERVISORS NAME: Betty Bell LICENSING EVALUATOR NAME: Antonio Almanza LICENSING EVALUATOR SIGNATURE: DATE: 07/26/2023 I acknowledge receipt of this form and understand my licensing appeal rights as explained and received. FACILITY REPRESENTATIVE SIGNATURE: DATE: 07/26/2023 FACILITY NAME: SAINT VICTOR'S PRESCHOOLFACILITY NUMBER: 197417482 VISIT DATE: 07/26/2023 NARRATIVE 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 32The director informed them that although S1 did not witness C1 being scratched, it does not mean it didn’t happen. The director also informs them that the parents of the child with long nails have been notified that their child scratched C1. After considering the information provided, it was revealed that facility staff are unaware of how or what caused the injures to C1’s face; that staff did not notify child's authorized person at pick up that child sustained minor injuries/scratches; and that staff at first blamed C1, accusing C1 of scratching themselves before accusing another child in care, that had “long nails,” for the injuries/scratches to C1’s face. S1 disclosed that they only wrote an incident report the following week because P1 asked for one. Based on LPA’s observation, interviews which were conducted and record reviews, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met; therefore, the above allegations are found to be substantiated. California code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 12, Chapter 1, are being cited on the attached LIC9099D. A notice of site visit was given and must remain posted for 30 days. Exit interview conducted and report was reviewed with the facility representative Julie Zaring. Page 3 of 3 SUPERVISORS NAME: Betty Bell LICENSING EVALUATOR NAME: Antonio Almanza LICENSING EVALUATOR SIGNATURE: DATE: 07/26/2023 I acknowledge receipt of this form and understand my licensing appeal rights as explained and received. FACILITY REPRESENTATIVE SIGNATURE: DATE: 07/26/2023 FACILITY NAME: SAINT VICTOR'S PRESCHOOLFACILITY NUMBER: 197417482 DEFICIENCY INFORMATION FOR THIS PAGE:VISIT DA