Inspection · 2021-05-03
Date
2021-05-03
Complaint Related
No
Licensing Inspector
Eureka Nance
(703) 638-5968
(703) 638-5968
SHSIA monitoring inspection of an approved subsidy vendor to determine compliance with current subsidy requirements regarding the health and safety of children and to promote quality standards for the children in their care.
No
Areas Reviewed
63.2 Facilities & Programs.
Inspector Notes
An unannounced investigation was initiated in response to a self-reported incident that was received by the licensing inspector on May 3, 2021. Interviews were conducted relating to a parent not being allowed to remove their child, who was in care at this child day center. The evidence gathered during the investigation supported the allegation, therefore a violation was cited. Please see Violation Notice for additional information. Should you have any questions, you may contact me at mary.wizbicki@dss.virginia.gov or 703-479-4707.
Violations
1Standard 63.2-1813
Based on interviews and record review, the center failed to admit a custodial parent or guardian into the child day program.
Evidence
1. After interviewing Staff #1 and Parent #1, it was determined that on 5/3/21 at approximately 1pm, Parent #1 was not admitted into the classroom of Child #A in order to remove the child from the center. Staff #1 had read the custody agreement and believed that she was following the written schedule, which included a time frame for when Parent #1 was allowed to begin caring for the child on the day in question. However, the custody agreement clearly indicated that the child "shall be in the primary physical custody of [Parent #1]". Therefore, Parent #1 should not have been denied access to the child while in care at this child day program.
Evidence
1. After interviewing Staff #1 and Parent #1, it was determined that on 5/3/21 at approximately 1pm, Parent #1 was not admitted into the classroom of Child #A in order to remove the child from the center. Staff #1 had read the custody agreement and believed that she was following the written schedule, which included a time frame for when Parent #1 was allowed to begin caring for the child on the day in question. However, the custody agreement clearly indicated that the child "shall be in the primary physical custody of [Parent #1]". Therefore, Parent #1 should not have been denied access to the child while in care at this child day program.
Plan of Correction: Our primary concern throughout was the safety and welfare of the child. The issue arose as we had contrary explicit instruction from one parent. Not being attorneys, we were not certain of the proper legal interpretation of the Court Order in these circumstances. We also did not know whether the Court Order had been modified. We contacted out Franchisor [sic] legal staff for guidance, which we followed. We did not refuse absolutely to release the child, but only to release later in accord with the initial parental instructions, which we explained to the other parent. We regret that the Mother [sic] was distressed by our good faith efforts to assure the safety of the child.