A complaint was received, and an investigation initiated on. May 17, 2023. On site inspections were conducted on June 1 and June 13, 2023. Concerns regarding communication and interactions between parents and the center and access to children and records were investigated. Additionally, records were reviewed, staff were interviewed, and the center?s communication system was discussed and reviewed. Based upon information gathered during the investigation, a violation was cited regarding access to children, so the complaint is found to be valid. The violation was discussed during the exit interview with the Program Director and details are located on the violation notice.
Based on documents review and interviews, the center failed to ensure that the custodial parent was given the right to be admitted to the center while their child was in care, as required by the Code of Virginia. Evidence: 1 ? A copy of written notification stated that as of June 13, 2023, a custodial parent of Child #1 would no longer be permitted on the school?s property, while Child #1 was in care at the center. 2 ? Staff #1 (owner) and Staff #2 (program director) confirmed that a letter was given to a parent of Child #1 informing them that the parent was banned from the school?s property. 3 ? The parent of Child #1 confirmed that on June 13, 2023, they had received a written notice that they would not be permitted on the school premises even when their child was in care.
Plan of Correction:
8VAC20-780-(6)-420-C We had safety concerns about the child #1s parent and felt it was in the best interest of the school to keep everyone safe to not allow her to be admitted into our facility. 1. The initial complaint was on communication, which was not never denied and the parent had complete access through our Brightwheel app. 2/3. While licensing was on site, we gave her a copy of the letter. Due to safety concerns, we wrote a letter to the guardian ad litem for the child expressing our fears. The guardian ad litem scheduled an emergency hearing. All apprehensions that we had felt by us and by the child?s teacher were heard in court one of the several times we testified in their divorce/custody case. The teacher felt threatened as she felt the parent followed her out of the parking lot with two other cars behind her that were accompanying the parent. 4. The parent of the child remains banned from our school, which is no longer a violation because she is no longer a custodial parent and has not been one since June 15th after an emergency hearing had taken place and the child?s father was given emergency temporary custody- which we had sent to the licensing agency that day. The parents pick up and drop off time for every other weekend has changed as well and it is no longer at school. We feel that our swift action was in the best interest of the students and staff at our school.
Disclaimer:
This information is provided by the Virginia Department of Social Services, which neither endorses any facility nor guarantees that the information is complete. It should not be used as the sole source in evaluating and/or selecting a facility.
Find this content at:
http://www.dss.virginia.gov/facility/search/cc.cgi