DC D Tutor Time Childcare Learning Center

STATE OF MICHIGAN GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS_LANSING

ORLENE HAWKS DIRECTOR

March 24, 2020

April Cole / Stephanie Evans Tutor Time Learning Centers, LLC Suite 100 21333 Haggerty Road Novi, MI 48375 RE: License #: Investigation #: DC500250275 2020D0929008

Tutor Time Childcare Learning Center Dear Ms. Cole / Ms. Evans

I conducted a special investigation because the childcare licensing division received a complaint against your facility that related to licensing rules or law. The allegations were related to the following:

R 400.8125 (1) Staff; volunteer; requirements. R 400.8125 (2) Staff; volunteer; requirements. R 400.8140 (2) Discipline

R 400.8110(13a) Applicant; licensee; licensee designee; requirements

The details of the allegations are in the attached report. To investigate the allegations:  I interviewed the person who made the complaint, program director, licensee

designee, caregivers, and parents.

 I completed on-site inspections on the following dates: 02/14/2020 and 02/26/2020.

As a result of this investigation, I found the following violation(s):

R 400.8125 (1) Staff; volunteer; requirements R400.8188 (6) Sleeping, resting, and supervision.

I recommend issuance of a 1st provisional license. If you accept the provisional license, you must sign and return the enclosed waiver form. If you do not accept the provisional license, you must notify this office in writing and an administrative hearing will be

scheduled. Even if you don’t accept the provisional license, you must still send us an acceptable corrective action plan.

Due to the violations, you must send us a corrective action plan by 04/09/2020. You can use our corrective action plan form or create your own.

If you need help writing the corrective action plan, please contact me. If you do not send a corrective action plan, you may face disciplinary action. The corrective action plan must include the following:

 How compliance with each rule will be achieved.

 Who is directly responsible for implementing the corrective action for each violation.

 Specific time frames for each violation as to when the correction will be completed or implemented.

 How continuing compliance will be maintained once compliance is achieved.

 The signature of the responsible party and a date.

Due to the infant safe sleep violation(s), all of your infant caregivers must take training on infant safe sleep. In addition, a follow up inspection may be made to check

compliance with the infant safe sleep rules.

During this special investigation: Yes No

A rule or law violation was found and a serious injury or death occurred.

x

A rule or law violation was found and abuse and/or neglect of a child occurred.

x

This report and any related corrective action plans must be filed in your licensing notebook. This report and any related corrective action plans will be online for parents to review under the Statewide Search for Licensed Child Care Centers and Homes. Please review the enclosed documentation for accuracy and contact me with any questions. In the event that I am not available and you need to speak to someone immediately, please contact the local office at (810) 787-7031.

Sincerely,

LaTonya Kegler, Licensing Consultant Bureau of Community and Health Systems 4809 Clio Road

Flint, MI 48504 (586) 256-1280 Enclosure

MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS BUREAU OF COMMUNITY AND HEALTH SYSTEMS

SPECIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT I. IDENTIFYING INFORMATION

License #: DC500250275

Investigation #: 2020D0929008

Complaint Receipt Date: 02/13/2020

Investigation Initiation Date: 02/14/2020

Report Due Date: 04/13/2020

Licensee Name: Tutor Time Learning Centers, LLC

Licensee Address: Suite 100

21333 Haggerty Road Novi, MI 48375

Licensee Telephone #: (248) 697-9000

Administrator: April Cole, Designee

Licensee Designee: April Cole, Designee

Name of Facility: Tutor Time Child Care Learning Center

Facility Address: 8305 14 Mile Road

Sterling Heights, MI 48312

Facility Telephone #: (586) 795-4770

Original Issuance Date: 04/02/2003

License Status: REGULAR

Effective Date: 12/04/2018

Expiration Date: 12/03/2020

Capacity: 141

II. ALLEGATION(S)

III. METHODOLOGY

02/13/2020 Special Investigation Intake 2020D0929008

02/14/2020 Contact - Document Sent

Email sent to complainant for further information 02/14/2020 Special Investigation Initiated - On Site

Interview with program director Stephanie Evans, caregivers Marquita Edwards-Swift and Tania Stanley

(10am -12:50 pm)

02/14/2020 Contact - Telephone call made

Voice message left for Child A’s mother

02/14/2020 Contact- Document sent. Email sent to Child A’s mother. 02/14/2020 Contact- Document received from Child A’s mother. 02/19/2020 Contact- Document sent. Email sent to Child A’s mother. 02/26/2020 Inspection Completed On-site

Watched video with April Cole, district manager and Stephanie Evans, program director

(9:55am-10:45am)

03/11/2020 Contact - Telephone call made. Interview with Child B‘s Mother. 03/11/2020 Contact - Telephone call made. Interview with Child C‘s Mother. 03/13/2020 Contact – Telephone call made to Child D’s mother. Left voice

message for return call.

03/18/2020 Contact – Telephone call made to Child D’s mother. Left voice message for return call.

Violation Established?

Caregiver Marquita Edwards-Swift was observed wiping multiple infants faces with the same bibs / burp cloths on 2/6/2020 and 2/10/2020.

Yes Caregivers Marquita Edwards-Swift and another unknown

caregiver were both observed shaking the cribs of infants who were laying in the cribs napping.

Yes Caregivers in the room smelled of marijuana as well as the room

where the infant car seats are stored.

No

03/19/2020 Contact – Telephone call received. Voice message left from Child D’s mother.

03/20/2020 Contact- Telephone call made. Interview with Child D’s mother 03/20/2020 Exit Conference with Stephanie Evans

ALLEGATION:

INVESTIGATION: On February 13, 2020 at 5:12 pm, Ms. Evans left a voice

message for this consultant that she had a concern from a parent and she needed advice. On February 14, 2020, I conducted an unannounced onsite investigation to the Tutor Time Learning Center and interviewed program director Stephanie Evans. I informed Ms. Evans that I received her voice message regarding needing my advice and that our office also received a complaint. Ms. Evans stated she wanted to discuss an email she received from Child A’s mother on February 12, 2020 about withdrawing Child A (two-month old, male,) from their care. The email addressed several concerns, one of the concerns was that Child A’s mother observed on camera that the same burp rag or bib had been used on Child A that was also used on other children. This consultant reviewed the email which also stated that Child A’s mother believes that this was the reason her child ended up getting a stomach bug, cough, and nasal congestion during this same week. As a result, Child A’s mother was giving a two week notice that she would be withdrawing Child A from care. Ms. Evans stated that she tried unsuccessfully to contact Child A’s mother via telephone regarding her concerns but was unsuccessful.

Ms. Evans informed this consultant that the center provides the bibs for all the children which are all similar in color. This may give the appearance that the same cloth is being used. Ms. Evans discussed the concerns with caregivers Tania Stanley and Marquita Edwards-Swift who are the primary caregivers in the infant room. They both stated that there is a possibility that they used the same bib to clean up milk from different children’s clothing.

During the onsite investigation, I interviewed infant caregivers Ms. Edwards-Swift and Ms. Stanley. The following information was obtained during their interviews:

 Ms. Edwards-Swift stated that she has only worked in the infant room for one week prior to this incident. Her routine was to place a burp cloth on her shoulder and while she is carrying a child on her shoulder, she will place their face on the burp cloth while carrying the child, or while burping a child so their face isn’t coming into contact with her clothing. She stated that it is a strong possibility that she has handled multiple babies and has placed their face on the same burp cloth without changing the burp cloth. She was just going about her day and didn’t think about changing the burp cloth. She indicated

that “It wasn’t done to cause harm”. I asked Ms. Edwards-Swift about her using the same bib/burp cloth to clean milk and clean the faces of children. She denied that she used the same cloth to clean up milk and then used it on the face of an infant. She stated there were multiple children in the infant room who were ill with RSV, stomach viruses, and pink eye. The babies were vomiting and spitting up constantly and stated that “there were huge amounts of puke everywhere”. This went on throughout the entire day for a few days which caused the days to be very hectic in the room. She admitted that she used the same burp cloth / bib to clean vomit from one child and used it on another child who was also puking at the same time to wipe their mouth. She stated that it is also possible that a bib/burp cloth that had been used on a child may have been used to clean up the immediate surface area where the children were located to prevent them touching or coming into contact with the vomit. “We had to grab the closest thing we could get to prevent the kids from coming into contact with the puke”. Ms. Edwards-Swift was informed by Ms. Evans that Child A’s mother is withdrawing Child A from care due to her concerns about the cleanliness of the center. When Child A’s mother arrived to pick up Child A, Ms. Edwards-Swift stated that she asked her why she was thinking about withdrawing. She stated that Child A’s mother appeared upset and stated cleanliness; but didn’t provide any additional information to Ms. Edwards-Swift or mentioned anything about the sharing of bibs/burp cloths.  Ms. Stanley stated that the burp cloths they use are similar in color and there

is a possibility that she may have used the same cloth on different children. She can’t say yes or no. She usually tries to use one cloth per child, but they are sitting out and it is very possible she may have accidentally used the same cloth for different children. She confirmed there was an incident when she wiped one child’s face while feeding a child, then another child started vomiting and she did wipe another child’s mouth. “It was so quick. I did it without thinking about it, to quickly catch the vomit from going everywhere”. She denied that this is a common practice of sharing bibs / burp cloths. “There were so many babies sick with stomach viruses, and RSV. I just returned to work from being ill. I think I got ill because I was cleaning up vomit all day”. Ms. Stanley added that if children have drainage from their noses that she will use separate wipes to clean the children.

After interviewing the caregivers, I discussed with Ms. Evans the information discussed during the interviews about several children being ill in the infant room and that

caregivers admitted to the sharing of bibs or burp cloths on multiple children. Ms. Evans confirmed that there were several illnesses/viruses in the infant room which consisted of RSV, stomach virus, and pinkeye. There were also cases of strep throat with some of the older children. I provided technical assistance to Ms. Evans and informed her that the practice of the caregivers sharing bibs/burps cloths may have contributed to the spread of the communicable illnesses in the room. I asked Ms. Evans what methods were used to help remedy the illnesses. She stated that they made the appropriate notifications to parents regarding cases of communicable illnesses and

required parents to provide notes from physicians as well as requiring the children to be fever free for 24 hours prior to returning to care. She stated that they also cleaned and sanitized the equipment in the room.

On February 14, 2020, Child A’s mother confirmed that the caregiver she observed using the same burp cloth on multiple children was Ms. Edwards-Swift.

On March 11, 2020, I interviewed Child B’s mother. She stated that she has no

concerns with the level of care that Child B (six-month old, male) receives at the center. She stated that they do a good job. She has no concerns about the cleanliness of the center or her child while in care. Her child has acid reflux and spits up a lot. He is always clean when she arrives to pick him up. She has never observed any caregivers using the same bib/burp cloth on multiple children. She confirmed that there were illnesses in the infant room. She stated that she was immediately made aware by the center when there was a case of RSV in the infant room. Her child did not get RSV, but he ended up with an ear infection which she attributed to drainage from his ear from a cold and not due to him getting it from another child.

On March 11, 2020, I interviewed Child C’s mother. Child C (nine-month old, female) has been enrolled for two months. Child C has been sick three times since being enrolled. She was one of the children that became ill with pinkeye. There were a lot of children who were ill at the same time which she attributed to kids mouthing the same toys without them being cleaned. The caregivers have gotten better with cleaning the toys and the illnesses seem to have slowed. She has no concerns with how the caregivers care for her child and likes the caregivers.

On March 20, 2020, I interviewed Child D’s mother. She stated that Child D (nine-month old, male) she has been enrolled two (nine-months. Since his enrollment he has been ill three times. She can’t attribute it to anything specific that is happening at the center and believes the illnesses are related to the common cold or teething. She was made aware by the center of pinkeye and other illnesses being in the center. She denied that her child became ill with RSV or pinkeye. She has never witnessed caregivers sharing bibs/burp cloths at the center. She does not watch the videos of the classroom

consistently and can’t confirm or deny that it happens. “Honestly, I feel all centers probably share the same burp cloths with multiple children”. She has no major concerns with how they care for her child. Any questions or issues have been addressed with the director and she has resolved them immediately.

APPLICABLE RULE

R 400.8125 Staff; volunteer; requirements.

(1) All staff and volunteers shall provide appropriate care and supervision of children at all times.

ANALYSIS:

Ms. Edwards-Swift and Ms. Stanley failed to provide appropriate care of children when they used the same burp clothes on the faces of multiple children when they spit-up or vomited during a time when several children had communicable illnesses.

CONCLUSION: REPEAT VIOLATION ESTABLISHED

SIR (2019D0929017) dated November 26, 2019 Corrective Action plan dated December 16, 2019 REPEAT VIOLATION ESTABLISHED

SIR (2019D0929011) dated July 12, 2019 Corrective Action plan dated July 17, 2019 REPEAT VIOLATION ESTABLISHED

SIR (2019D0929005) dated May 10, 2019 Corrective Action plan dated May 20, 2019 REPEAT VIOLATION ESTABLISHED

SIR (2018D0929005) dated May 3, 2018 Corrective Action plan dated May 18, 2018

ALLEGATION:

INVESTIGATION: Ms. Evans received a second email on February 12, 2020 from

Child A’s mother stating that she saw on camera cribs being shaken by caregivers while babies were in them napping. As a result, she would be doing an immediate disenrollment of Child A.

Ms. Evans denied to this consultant that she had ever witnessed caregivers shaking cribs. Ms. Evans discussed the concerns with the caregivers in the room. Ms. Edwards-Swift and Ms. Stanley both confirmed to Ms. Evans that they shook the cribs while children were inside of the cribs. They both stated that they gently shook the cribs and denied doing it in an aggressive manner. They placed their hands on the infants while shaking the crib.

Ms. Evans stated that there are no policies their center has regarding shaking of cribs. Staff have received safe sleep and shaken baby training. They have also been trained to frequently monitor the breathing of infants while they are napping in the cribs. Since being informed of Child A’s mother’s concern she discussed with the staff how things can look or can be perceived on a video. She has informed the caregivers to refrain from shaking / moving of the cribs and informed them that she

preferred if they just placed their hands on the child’s chest when trying to soothe them for naptime.

I asked Ms. Evans if either caregiver had any prior issues of using inappropriate discipline methods in the past. She denied that either caregiver had any issues with inappropriate discipline. She has no concerns with the temperament of either

caregiver.

I reviewed the files of caregivers who work in the infant room. All of them have received safe sleep and shaken baby training as required. The center has

completed the appropriate comprehensive background clearance checks on all the infant caregivers. There was nothing on the clearances that would indicate that the caregivers were not eligible to work with children.

During my onsite investigation I interviewed Ms. Edwards-Swift and Ms. Stanley. The following information was obtained during their interviews:

 Ms. Edwards-Swift denied that she shook the crib in an effort to harm a child or out of frustration because a child wouldn’t nap. She is upset over this allegation, because she would never harm a child. She acknowledged that she did shake the crib, but she did it to soothe the child, not harm the child. She stated that she will place a child in the crib and pat them on the back or butt. She stated that both Child B and Child C, are larger children and it is difficult trying to rock them while holding them in her arms. She stated that she shook the cribs of Child B and Child C while they were laying in their cribs. She denied that this was done at any other times other than them napping in the cribs. She demonstrated that she lightly shook the crib and described it as if a child is in a bouncer seat or infant swing that is placed on vibration mode. She stated that the other caregiver who has used this shaking method was Ms. Stanley and that are times that both caregivers stood back to back or side by side shaking children in their cribs. Ms. Evans informed Ms. Edwards-Swift that Child A’s mother expressed concerns about them shaking the cribs and she asked her if they were shaking the cribs. She confirmed to Ms. Evans that she was shaking the cribs but it was only done to soothe children. Ms. Evans told her “you can’t shake the cribs”. Ms.

Edwards-Swift stated that no one had ever informed her that they weren’t allowed to shake the cribs. She stated that there were multiple people in the room while she was shaking the crib which included the district manager April Cole. She stated that there was also a CDA specialist in the room doing an evaluation. “If it was done in a harmful manner, why didn’t Ms. Cole say something about it at the time when it was happening. Ms. Edwards-Swift stated that she had a conversation with Ms. Cole about the crib shaking and she assured her that it wasn’t done to harm a child. Ms. Cole informed her that she would watch the video. Ms. Edwards-Swift was unable to provide an explanation as to where the practice of shaking the cribs originated from.

 Ms. Stanley denied that she shook the crib in an effort to harm a child or out of frustration because a child wouldn’t nap. She stated that the method she uses to get infants to sleep are to place them in the crib, pat their butts and gently shake the crib side to side. She stated that shaking the crib only occurred while they were laying the children in the crib to nap and no other times. She stated that she has shook Child C and Child D while they are laying in the crib. She did it gently and was simulating a vibration movement like being in a bouncy seat. I inquired about her patting children on the butt, and why she places them on their stomach to nap. She stated that they only shake the cribs of the older infants who are 9-11 months of age and place these children on their stomachs because they are all able to roll from their backs over to their front and vice versa. She stated that other caregivers that have done the shaking crib method are Ms. Edwards-Swift with Child B. She stated that Ms. Cole and a CDA validator were present in the room and if they were doing something harmful someone would have questioned them about what they were doing. Neither one of them said anything to her at the time about the crib shaking and observed it. She was later informed by Ms. Evans that Child A’s parent had a concern about the method and Ms. Evans told the caregivers that we aren’t going to continue the practice of shaking the cribs. Ms. Stanley was also unable to provide an explanation as to where the practice of shaking the cribs originated from.

On February 19, 2020, Child A’s mother confirmed that she observed the crib shaking via video. “Tobe honest it appears that it was to soothe the child, but in an annoyance/frustration that the child was not being soothed”.

On February 26, 2020, I made an onsite inspection to observe the video. Ms. Cole and Ms. Evans were present during the review of the video. Ms. Cole requested specific clips of times when caregivers were observed in the crib area giving the appearance of moving/shaking cribs. There were three clips that had been uploaded for this consultant to review.

 Clip #1 had a time stamp starting at 12:50 pm and lasted 4 minutes and 59 seconds. I observed Ms. Stanley place an infant in the crib on his stomach. Ms. Stanley was observed rubbing the child’s back and patting his butt. Ms. Evans identified the child as Child D. I asked Ms. Evans if Child D was able to roll from his stomach to his back and from back to his stomach on his own. She stated that he was able to do so both ways. There was no crib shaking observed in this clip.

 Clip #2 had a time stamp starting at 1:05 pm and lasted 9 minutes and 56 seconds. In this clip Child D is still in his crib. Ms. Stanley is observed

holding a female infant in her arms. Ms. Evans identified this child as Child C. While Ms. Stanley is holding Child C in her arm, she walks over to Child D’s crib. Ms. Stanley begins to rock/shake the crib containing Child D with one hand while simultaneously standing and holding/cradling Child C with her

other hand /arm. It should be noted that the crib has wheels that have not been locked and the crib is moving around from her shaking the crib and as well as now slightly rolling around the floor due to the wheels not being locked. This goes on for approximately 2 minutes of the clip. Ms. Stanley then places Child C in her own crib and returns to the crib where Child D is laying. Ms. Stanley then begins shaking Child D’s crib mildly to shaking and moving the crib in a medium to moderate speed, so much so that the crib has moved out of the spot that it was located in and she begins to move and roll the crib several feet from the original spot.

 Clip #3 had a time stamp starting at 2:20 pm lasted 14 minutes and 57 seconds. Ms. Edwards-Swift is observed placing an infant in a crib on his back. Ms. Evans identified this child as Child B. Ms. Edwards-Swift began lightly and gently rocking the crib touching the front of the crib where the plexiglass is located. The shaking movement appeared to be more in the arms of Ms. Edwards-Swift rather than the crib itself. You could barely observe the crib move in the video.

After reviewing the video clips, I informed Ms. Cole that the caregivers mentioned in their interviews that she was present in the room while they were shaking the cribs. She stated that she was in/out of the room around noon doing safety and bottle checks. She denied that she observed the caregivers shaking the cribs while she was present in the room as she was only briefly in and out of the room.

I informed Ms. Evans and Ms. Cole that based on what I observed on the video clips there is no concern that staff were shaking the cribs in a malicious manner to harm a child. I provided technical assistance and discussed with them the difference between how Ms. Edwards-Swift was shaking the crib which appeared to be mostly arm

movements rather than the crib, whereas Ms. Stanley was at one point shaking the crib more vigorously and also moving the crib around which could be viewed by someone on camera as her frustration level growing. I also pointed out how it was concerning and inappropriate for Ms. Stanley to hold Child C in one arm while simultaneously rocking the crib of Child D with her other arm. There was a potential hazard of her dropping Child C especially since the crib wheels weren’t locked and she was moving around the crib of Child D. I asked Ms. Cole for her perspective on the matter. Ms. Cole stated that she shared my concern in how people can perceive things on video and the potential of harm to Child C. She stated that staff have already been instructed to refrain from the practice of shaking or moving cribs.

I interviewed Child B’s, Child C’s, and Child D’s mothers. They all denied ever witnessing or having any knowledge of any caregivers shaking cribs. They all stated that their children are able to roll from their backs to their stomach’s and from their stomachs to their back’s easily.

APPLICABLE RULE

R 400.8140 Discipline.

(2) All of the following means of punishment are prohibited: (a) Hitting, spanking, shaking, biting, pinching, or inflicting other forms of corporal punishment.

ANALYSIS: Ms. Edwards-Swift and Ms. Stanley were not shaking the cribs as a means of discipline or to inflict corporal punishment due to children not wanting to nap.

CONCLUSION: VIOLATION NOT ESTABLISHED

APPLICABLE RULE

R 400.8125 Staff; volunteer; requirements.

(1) All staff and volunteers shall provide appropriate care and supervision of children at all times.

ANALYSIS: Ms. Stanley failed to provide appropriate care when she held Child C with one arm while vigorously shaking and moving the crib which contained Child D with her other hand.

CONCLUSION: REPEAT VIOLATION ESTABLISHED

SIR (2019D0929017) dated November 26, 2019 Corrective Action plan dated December 16, 2019 REPEAT VIOLATION ESTABLISHED

SIR (2019D0929011) dated July 12, 2019 Corrective Action plan dated July 17, 2019 REPEAT VIOLATION ESTABLISHED

SIR (2019D0929005) dated May 10, 2019 Corrective Action plan dated May 20, 2019 REPEAT VIOLATION ESTABLISHED

SIR (2018D0929005) dated May 3, 2018 Corrective Action plan dated May 18, 2018

APPLICABLE RULE

R 400.8188 Sleeping, resting, and supervision.

(6) When infants can easily turn over from their stomachs to their backs and from their backs to their stomachs, they shall be initially placed on their backs, but shall be allowed

ANALYSIS: Ms. Stanley initially placed Child D in his crib on his stomach, instead of on his back then allowing him to adopt whatever position he preferred for sleeping.

CONCLUSION: VIOLATION ESTABLISHED

ALLEGATION:

INVESTIGATION: Ms. Evans denied ever smelling marijuana in the infant room, on

caregivers or parents. She denied ever witnessing any caregivers or parents appearing to be under the influence of any controlled / mood-altering substances. Ms. Evans is aware of a parent who arrives with a heavy smell of smoke from cigarettes on his clothes. The smell doesn’t linger on the classroom and is not present on the clothes or belongings of his child.

During my onsite investigation, I inspected the infant room. I did not observe any smells of marijuana in the infant room or in the car seat storage area located inside of the infant room. I did not observe any smells of marijuana coming from any of the caregivers in the infant room.

During my onsite investigation I interviewed Ms. Edwards-Swift and Ms. Stanley. They both denied coming to work under the influence of marijuana or any other drugs or controlled/mood-altering substances. They both denied witnessing any caregivers appearing to be under the influence of any drugs or controlled/mood-altering substances. They both denied smelling marijuana on any of the caregivers or smelling marijuana in the storage area where the car seats are stored. The following information was also obtained:

 Ms. Edwards-Swift stated that Child B’s father comes in smelling of what appears to be the smell of marijuana. She stated that it is not a strong smell as if it was smoked just prior to arriving at the center. She described it as a very faint smell as if it is in his clothing. She denied that any marijuana is smelled on Child B or any of Child B’s clothing or car seat. She denied that Child B’s father appears intoxicated or under the influence of a controlled substance. There are no other parents that she has observed to smell of marijuana. No other parents have ever voiced any concerns of smelling marijuana in the room or in the area where the car seats are stored. Ms. Edwards-Swift stated that she hasn’t addressed her observation of the smell with Child B’s father or Ms. Evans.

 Ms. Stanley also stated that Child B’s father is the only parent that arrives to the center with a slight smell of marijuana in his clothes. He doesn’t appear intoxicated or under the influence of a controlled substance. The odor is not in Child B’s belongings or car seat, it is only smelled on Child B’s father. No other parents have voiced any concerns of the smell of marijuana in the infant

room. She has not informed Ms. Evans or anyone else of her suspicions regarding the smell of marijuana on the parent.

I interviewed Child B’s, Child C’s, and Child D’s mothers. They all denied ever witnessing or having any knowledge of any caregivers smelling of marijuana or appearing under the influence of mood-altering substances. They also denied ever smelling marijuana in the infant room or in the area where the car seats are stored. Child B’s mother further added that the room always smell clean and there are never any odors. “I don’t even smell soiled diapers”.

APPLICABLE RULE

R 400.8110 Applicant; licensee; licensee designee; requirements.

(13) Smoking and vaping must not occur in or during both of the following:

(a) In the childcare center or on real property that is under the control of the center and upon which the center is located.

ANALYSIS: There is no evidence that smoking is occurring in the classroom or on the premises of the center.

CONCLUSION: VIOLATION NOT ESTABLISHED APPLICABLE RULE

R 400.8125 Staff; volunteer; requirements.

(2) All staff and volunteers shall act in a manner that is conducive to the welfare of children.

ANALYSIS: There is no evidence to suggest that the caregivers are acting in a manner that is not conducive to the welfare of children.

CONCLUSION: VIOLATION NOT ESTABLISHED

IV. RECOMMENDATION

Upon receipt of an acceptable corrective action plan, I continue to recommend modification of the current status of the license to first provisional as also recommended in SIR# 2019D0929017.

March 20, 2020 LaTonya Kegler Licensing Consultant Date Approved By: March 20, 2020 ________________________________________ Scott W. Bettys