Home › MI › Jackson › Northwest Early Impressions
Northwest Early Impressions
6900 Rives Junction Road, Jackson MI 49201 · License #DC380409751 · Center
Contact
- Phone
- (517) 817-4741
- Website
- Add via profile claim
- Address
- 6900 Rives Junction Road, Jackson MI 49201 · Directions
Hours
Care & schedule
When they operate
Ages served
- Licensed for 157 children
How this facility compares
Violations per inspection, 3-yrInspection history & violations
Source: Michigan MiLEAP, Child Care Licensing Bureau- Violation
R 400.8280(2)(c) · R 400.8280(2)(c) Discipline (2) All of the following means of punishment are prohibited: (c) Restricting a child's movement by binding or tying the child.
Teacher 1 restricted the ability for Child A to move away from the table by placing her foot behind the chair leg of Child A's chair and moving her body closer to the table.
- Violation
On 4/2512023, 1 completed an unannounced on-site inspection at the child care center accompanied by and i interviewee program director was aware of the allegations and confirmed she complete Poth a verbal and written report to her assigned child care licensing consultant, Jenny Brundage. said around 10:30a.m. on 4/24/2023, Child Care Staff Member (CCSM) 2 brought Child A to her office stating that Child A seemed to be experiencing pain in her right arm and was not using her right said arm. Child A a eared upset and did not want anyone to touch her right arm. CCSM 2 told she is not aware of any incidents that occurred in the classroom that caused ChildA to injure her arm. said she asked CCSM 2 to return to the classroom to ask the other CCSMs if they observed Child A fall or any other incidents that may have caused an injury to Child A's arm said while CCSM 2 went back to the classroom, called Child A's Mother to inquire whether Child A had sustained an arm injury while she was at home. Child A's Mother told that Child A did not have any arm injuries prior to being dropped off at the child care said after she of off the phone with Child A's Mother, CCSM 2c reetnurtneedM R and informed that CCSM 1 reported that while walking down the hallway from th"ca eria to the classroom, CCSM 1 was holding Child A's hand when Child A tripped over her own feet. CCSM 1 told CCSM 2 she kept a hold of Child A's hand as Child A tripped, then Child A was able to get her balance and stand up again. CCSM 1 told CCSM 2 that was the only thing she could think of that may have caused Child A to have arm pain. said when she spoke to CCSM 1, Iexplained the incident the same ass e explained it to CCSM 2. CCSM 1 told Child A did not cry out or appear as if she was in pain immediately CaftCe *se ripped in the hallway but expressed pain in her arm after they returned to the classroom, said she C] called Child A's Mother again to explain what happened with Child A and CCSM 1 in the hallway. said there are cameras located in the hallways at the center. Ms. said the cameras are owned and operated by Northwest School District and does not have access to the camera footage. The footage must be obtained through the Northwest School District administration. The child care center is in the same building as the Northwest School District administrative offices. acgcompanied me, ttoo the administrativeR!Rwere we inquired about watching e rector of o erations a reed to come to his office to show us the video footage. and I reviewed the footage. The video footage s classroom walking down the hallway at 10:00a.m. identified CCSM 1 and Child A. CCSM 1 was using her left hand to hold i Wright hand when Child A appeared to stumble over her own feet and fall to the ground. CCSM I kept a hold of Child A's hand as Child A fell. CCSM 1 maintained hand holding contact with Child A as CCSM 1 used her right arm to assist Child A up to a standing position. CCSM 1 reached down to pick up Child A under her arms to carry Child A the remainder of the way to the classroom. The video did not have audio, so it we were unable to determine if Child A yelled out as if she was in pain when she fell. Upon completion of the video observation said the injury to Child A appeared to be an accident therefore, law"enorcement will not pursue additional investigation at this left the premises whil and I remained at the centteimr toec,o"nintinuuee erviews. and I interviewed CCSM 1. CCSM 1 said her role at the center is a floater - who is placed in various classrooms where she is needed depending on the staffing requirements that day. CCSM 1 said on 412412023, she was working in Child A's classroom during lunch time to cover for another CCSM who was on a lunch break. CCSM 1 said Child A's classroom was in the cafeteria/gymnasium. CCSM 1 was holding Child A's hand as they walked from the gymnasium to the classroom. CCSM 1 always holds Child A's hand as Child A is identified as an "elopement risk." CCSM 1
- Violation
and I asked CCSM 1 if the center has a history of CCSMs swinging children y their arms. CCSM 1 does not have first hand knowledge of CCSMs swinging the children by their arms. CCSM 1 has only heard about an incident where CCSM 3 and CCSM 4 from the infant room took a picture of CCSM 3 swinging Child B by the arms close to a pond. CCSM 1 said that is the only time she has heard of any other CCSMs swinging children by their extremities. and I interviewed Child B's Mother. Child B's Mother said one of Child B's CCSM5 sent her a photo CCSM 4 took of CCSM 3 swinging Child B by her wrists over a pond. CCSM 3 and CCSM 4 were present when Child B's Mother opened the photo on her phone to look at it. Child B's Mother believes CCSM 3 and CCSM 4 expected Child B's Mother to find the photo amusing, but Child B's Mother was not amused by the photo. Child B's Mother was concerned that her young child was being held over a body of water by the wrists. CCSM 3 and CCSM 4 told Child B's Mother that CCSM 3 was swinging Child B in a fun and joking manner. Child B's Mother was told that Child B was repeatedly asking to be picked up by CCSM 3 when CCSM 3 grabbed Child B by the wrists and swung her over the pond while telling Child B in a joking manner that CCSM 3 was going to throw Child B in the pond. When CCSM 3 and CCSM 4 realized Child B's Mother was concerned about the photo, they apologized to Child B's Mother. Child B's Mother expressed her Rs concern about the photo to told CCSM 3 and CCSM 4 not to go to the pond anymore. Ro Mer is not sure if there was any further disciplinary action taken against CCSM 3 or CCSM 4 due to the incident. Prior to this incident, she did not have any concerns with the care Child B received from CCSM 3 and CCSM 4. and I inquired whether Child B's Mother had any other concerns with - CCSMs swinging children by their extremities. Child B's Mother said she heard there was recently an incident where a child's arm was hurt when the CCSM who was holding the child's arm didn't let go when the child fell. Child B's Mother said from what she heard, the incident sounded like an accident, but she was not present so she cannot say whether it was an accident or not. Child B's Mother is not aware of any other incidents involving CCSMs swinging or picking up children by their extremities. On 4/25,2023, and I returned to the child care center to complete additional interviews, showed the picture of CCSM 3 swinging Child B over a pond by her wrists, said she learned on 4117/2023 that CCSM 3 or CCSM 4 sent Child s Mother the same photograph that said she believed CCSM 3, and CCSM 4 thought Child B's Mother would find the picture to be cute or funny. However, Child B's Mother was concerned about CCSM 3 swinging Child B over the pond by her wrists. Child B's Mother brought the picture and her concerns to Ms. 1.3 spoke to CCSM 3 and CCSM 4. CCSM 3 told she was joking and being playful about throwing Child B in the pond. PCC"tSoM 3 she realized as soon as she swung Child B over the pond and threatened to throw Child B in, she made a mistake, and her actions were bad judgment. CCSM 4 said she was photographing all the children in the pond area to send pictures of the children playing outside to parents. CCSM 4 also told Ms. she realized CCSM 3 should not have swung Child B over the pond and It Ire=atened to throw Child B in the pond as soon as CCSM 3 completed the action. agreed that CCSM 3's actions were not appropriate even though CCSM 3 was joking around at the time, said because of the incident, CCSM 3, CCSM 4 and all the other CCSMs e center are no longer allowed to take any children to the pond area. said CCSM 3 and CCSM 4 received a formal write up for their behavior and they were each placed on a two- week probationary period. and I viewed the documentation that stated both CCSM 3 and CCSM 4 were"p ed on a probationary period that ends on 5/1/2023. and I interviewed CCSM 3. CCSM 3 said a couple of weeks ago she and CCSM 4 took
- Violation
CCSM 4 said she found the actions of CCSM 3 swinging Child B by her wrists over a pond to qualify as a form of abuse or neglect on a child but did not report the incident.
- Violation
The center did not obtain parent's written permission for non- routine transportation when CCSM 3, CCSM 4 and CCSM 7 took the children in their classroom to the pond that is located off the center's premises.
- Violation
The allegations of were reported to the department within the required 24 hour an -our timeframes as required by the child care licensing rules. On 4/21/2023, 1 completed an unannounced on-site inspection at the child care center. I spoke to Child Care Staff Member (CCSM) 6 who informed me the program director, Erica Bullinger, was at a training and would return on 4/2412023. CCSM 6 said she heard second hand about an incident regarding Child A and Child B. CCSM 6 was told Child A's Mother spoke to Ms. Bullinger Bullinger that Child A said that Child B scratched Child A Child A's Mother told Ms. Bullinger that Child A sai*d* CaCoSiM 1 and CCSM 2 were outside when the incident occurred. CCSM I and CCSM 2 were not present at the time of my on-site inspection. I interviewed CCSM 3. CCSM 3 said she works in the with both Child A and Child B every day. A is a "very animated', child. CCSM 3 believes if something happened to Child A as described in the allegations, Child A would say something to a CCSM right away. CCSM 3 said Child A and Child B sometimes "butt heads" in the classroom when they both want to play with the same toy. CCSM 3 has never seen Child B touch Child A or any other child in an inappropriate manner. On 4/24/2023, 1 completed an unannounced on-site inspection at the child care center. I spoke to program director Erica Bullinger. Ms. Bullinger said on 4/1712023 Child A's Mother came into Ms. Bullinger's office and said, "we have a problem." Child A's Mother told Ms. Bullinger that on the way home from the center on 4/14/2023. Child A told her that when she was outside, Child B had a Child A. Child A said I s Mother told Ms. Bullinger that Child said e and that CCSM 1 and CCSM 2 were both present outside when the incident occurred. Ms. Bullinger said Child A and Child B are both enrolled in the same - classroom. After the program ends for the day, both children move to a second classroom. Once the 3 number of children present at the center decreases, both Child A and Child B move to a third classroom where they remain until their parents pick them up for the day. Ms. Bullinger said Child B was not in attendance at the center at all on 4/14/2023, which was a Friday. Child B has not been attending the center on Fridays for quite some time. Ms. Bullinger said she was also confused about Child A saying CCSM 1 and CCSM 2 were present during the alleged incident outside because CCSM 1 and CCSM 2 do not work together in any of the classrooms Child A and Child B attend throughout the day. Ms. Bullinger said it is very rare for CCSM 1 and CCSM 2 to ever be present in the same classroom. Ms. Bullinger said CCSM 2 is a "floater" who covers classrooms so other CCSMs can have a break. CCSM 2 only works from 10:OOAM until 2:OOPM. CCSM 2 primarily covers breaks from lunch time until nap time. It is very rare for CCSM 2 to cover for another CCSM during outdoor play time. Ms. Bullinger said she reviewed the staff calendar for the weekdays prior to 4/14/2023, in case Child A got her days mixed up. Ms. Bullinger said there were no times from the week of 4/10/2023 to 4/14/2023 where CCSM 1 and CCSM 2 were together during outside time. Ms. Bullinger said she has never received any other reports that Child B . Ms. Bullinger said Child B is going through a but has never attempted to Ms. Bullinger ToRePmeRne attendance log to verify Child B was not signed into the center on 4/14/2023. I interviewed CCSM 1. CCSM 1 said Child A and Child B are in his classroom at the very end of the day. CCSM 1 said Child A and Child B "don't really talk to each other at all.'' Child B typically keeps to himself and does not engage much with any of the children in the classroom. CCSM 1 has never seen Child B Child A or any of the other children CCSM 1 said CCSM 2 leaves for the day around 2:OOPM every day. Child A and Child B do not come to CCSM 1's classroom until 4:OOPM every day. CCSM 1 cannot recall a time when he and CCSM 2 were outside together when Ch
- Violation
I interviewed Child A and B's Mother. Child A (age 5 years, male) attends before and after school care. Child A is transported to and from the center by parent arranged school bus transportation. Child B (age 7 months, male) also attends the center all day in the infant room. Child A and B's Mother stated that when she picked up Child A on 12/6/22, she was told by the school-age Child Care Staff Member (CCSM) 1 that he had a good day. She then went to the infant room to pick up Child B. While in the infant room, CCSM 2 told her that Child B had a good day but asked if she was told yet about Child A. CCSM 2 informed her that Child A walked down to the infant room. CCSM 2 asked Child A where he came from, but he did not answer her. He wanted to see his brother. CCSM 2 stated that she looked down the hallway but did not see anyone following him. Child A was returned to his class were the CCSM 3, who was getting the children off the bus, did not know that he was gone. Child A and B's Mother stated that she returned to the school-age room to confront the CCSMs for not telling her about what happened. CCSM 1 was not aware of the incident, but said that she would inform the program director, Ms. Bullinger. CCSM 1 also told tell her that Child A had a history of trying to run off the bus and run into the center. Child A and B's Mother stated that she was later told by Ms. Bullinger that Child A was always in sight of a CCSM, but Child A and B's Mother is not sure what to believe as she has not been given specifics about what happened, nor has she been allowed to view the school's video footage of the incident despite repeated requests. Child A and B's Mother stated that Child A has mild autism, and he has a history of running that is outlined in his Individual Education Plan that she provided the center. Child A can be persistent and will not let people stop him if he wants to do something. Child A told her that he wanted to see his brother but did not provide any other specifics. She stated that this type of limited detail response is typical for Child A, and that he will often not respond to questions. She did not believe that Child A would want to speak with me. I interviewed Ms. Bullinger, program director. She stated that she was in a connecting hallway on 12/6/22 when Child A was separated from his assigned school-age group for a few minutes. She stated that the school-age children all arrive to afternoon child care on the same bus. The bus stops at the side door of the school. From the door of the center, the children enter the building and immediately turn right. The children walk down the hallway until they get to the end, and then turn left to walk down a second hallway to their room. During drop off, there was one CCSM waiting in the classroom, one CCSM standing directly outside the school-age room, one CCSM waiting at the corner allowing for a view of both hallways where the children are dropped off and leading to their room, and one CCSM directly viewing the children get off the bus and holding the door for the children to come inside the center. As such, at least one CCSM should have direct line of sight supervision the entire time from bus drop off to arriving at their room. The CCSM holding the door for the children to enter the building was CCSM 3. Ms. Bullinger stated that when Child A got off the bus and walked through the center door, Child A continued to walk straight down the hallway toward the infant room instead of turning right with the rest of the school age children. Child A's brother, Child B, attends the infant room. Child A went into the infant room, which is in direct line of sight from where Child A entered the center. In addition, there were other CCSMs in the infant room hallway where he was walking. Child A was brought back to his class within two to three minutes. The school-age class was still in the first hallway, along with Ms. Bullinger. Infant room CCSM 4 walked Child A down the hallway and gav
- Violation
I interviewed Child A and B's Mother. She stated that on 12/6/22, CCSM 2 told her that Child A was inside the infant room. She was not told anything further. She stated that on 12/8/22, CCSM 2 told her that on 12/6/22, Child A tried to hug Child B, whom she was holding at the time. Child A hugged Child B in an aggressive manner, that they both fell to the floor, and that Ms. Bullinger did not want her to know. Child A and B's Mother stated that she is upset that they did not tell her on the day of the fall, no incident report was completed, and they CCSMs were instructed to withhold information from her. Child B was not injured. He did not require medical treatment. I interviewed Ms. Bullinger. She denied the allegations. She stated that based on her interviews, Child A wanted to hug Child B. CCSM 2 squatted down while holding Child B to allow the brothers to hug. CCSM 2 did not fall, but she contacted the floor with her knees to stabilize herself. Neither she, Child A, or Child B fell. There were no injuries. As such, there was nothing to report as an incident did not occur. She denied every telling CCSMs to not speak with parents. I interviewed CCSM 2. She stated that on 12/6/22, Child A come into the room and wanted to hug his brother Child B. She was holding Child B. She leaned forward so they could hug each other. Child A wrapped his arms around Child B and pulled, which she was expecting Child A to do. As such, she moved forward toward Child A. She went to one knee and continued to hold Child B; she did not fall. Child A and Child B did not fall. No one was injured. An incident report was not needed as nothing happened. She denied that she waited two days to inform Child A and Child B's Mother, saying that she told her about it on 12/6/22 as part of the story of when Child A entered the infant room. She denied telling Child A and B's Mother that she fell or that she was instructed to not tell her. I interviewed CCSM 5. She observed Child A enter the infant room. She observed Child A hug Child B like a "bear hug." Child B was being held by CCSM 2, who leaned into the hug. CCSM 2 lowered her body toward the floor safely. No one fell or was injured. CCSM 5 stated that she has never been told to not communicate with parents. I also interviewed assistant director CCSM 6, and CCSMs 1, 3, 4, 7. These five individuals did not have any firsthand information, as they were not in the room at the time. None of them have been told to not communicate with parents. I also interviewed licensee designee, Ms. Mentink. She too did not have firsthand information as she was not in the room at the time. She does not believe that the CCSMS were told to not communicate with parents. She believes that the CCSMs do a good job communicating with parents regarding their children. I separately interviewed three additional parents to include Child C's Mother; Child D, Child E, and Child F's Mother; and Child G and Child H's Mother. The three parents are happy with the center and have no concerns. They believe that they receive good communication from the CCSMs. I attempted contact with Child I's Mother but was not successful.
- Violation
I interviewed Child A and B's Mother. She believes that the center is retaliating against her for questioning what happened with Child A, and the center is now taking it out on Child B. She stated that Child B has been allowed to sleep with a thin muslin blanket while in care since he was ten weeks old. CCSM 2 told her that Ms. Bullinger implemented a new rule that infants could no longer have blankets. Child A and B's Mother stated that she implemented this new rule despite her knowing that it would upset Child B. She was told that Ms. Bullinger took Child B's blanket from his crib while he slept. Child A was not injured, but he woke up from sleeping when the blanket was quickly removed. In addition, while speaking with Child A and B's Mother, she expressed concern that Child B was not allowed to attend the center due to him having an outdated immunization. Once his immunization was updated, he was allowed to return to care. I explained to Child A's Mother that current immunization documentation is required. As such, not allowing a child to attend the center until that documentation is received would not be considered a rule violation. I interviewed program director Ms. Bullinger. She denied that she ever took a blanket from Child B. She stated that the center originally allowed children under one year old to have a blanket as a source of comfort only and not for sleeping. For example, they could use the blankets for playing or to assist the children to fall asleep, but the blankets were supposed to be removed when the child was moved into the crib to sleep. She stated that the center recently decided to not allow children under one years old to have blankets for any reason after it was found that the new CCSMs were allowing infants to have blankets in their crib while they slept. This was immediately addressed to stop the practice from happening. This last occurred the beginning of December 2022, when she too observed it occurring with a child under one years old. She did not remember the specifics but knew that they CCSMs in the room addressed it immediately. Ms. Bullinger stated that she did not retrieve any blankets from the children on 12/9/22, or any other day. Assistant director CCSM 6 went into the room and got the blankets on 12/9/22. The infant room also had the infant swings, but those too have been removed. I interviewed Ms. Bullinger a second time. She stated that the infant room is now planning to remove all blankets regardless of the age of children in the room. In addition, she stated that she visits the infant room twice a day and has not witnessed any further infant safe sleep concerns. I interviewed CCSM 4. She reported that blankets have been removed from children under one years of age in the infant room. She stated that from the time Child B started care until the beginning of December 2022, it was common practice for Child B to be allowed to fall asleep in the infant swing with his blanket. He was allowed to do this because he would not fall asleep any other way. He would be moved into a crib without the blanket once he was fully asleep. The other infants in the room did not fall asleep in the swing as they would be rocked or placed right into their crib. For the infants placed directly in the cribs, they would be allowed to have their blankets with them as a source of comfort, but the blankets would be removed once the infants fully fell asleep. At the beginning of December 2022, assistant director CCSM 6 came into the room and observed an infant other than Child B sleeping in a crib with a light blanket covering the lower half of his body. CCSM 6 took the blanket out of the crib carefully and it did not walk up the child. CCSM 6 did not take a blanket away from Child B, as he did not have one at that time. CCSM 6 told them that there would be no more blankets for children under one years old for any reason. Infants under one years old are now allowed to use sleep sacks. In addition, the infant swings
- Violation
I interviewed Child A and B's mother. She stated that on 12/12/22, she picked up Child B from care. CCSM 2 told her that CCSM 4 instructed her to not pickup Child B if he was crying and that she was to let him cry it out for 30 minutes. CCSM 2 told her that she asked CCSM 4 to allow her to pick up Child B, but that she was told "no". I interviewed program director Ms. Bullinger. She did not believe the allegations, saying that the children in the infant room are well taken care of by the CCSMs. She had not been informed by CCSMs or parents that children are allowed to cry it out. She stated that sometimes infants and young toddlers do cry. As the ratio is one CCSM to four children, children may have to wait for a few minutes and self-comfort, but they are attended to quickly. I interviewed CCSM 4. She denied the allegations. She denied that any child is allowed to cry it out. She never told any CCSM to not care for an upset child. CCSM 4 stated that the children are well cared for in the room. If a child cries, the CCSMs will "go down the list" to see what is wrong to include, diaper change, hungry, tired, wanting play, wanting to be held, etc. She stated that at times the children practice "self-regulation" for a few minutes if they waiting to be changed, fed, etc. During that time the CCSMs talk to the children for a few moments until they are able to attend to them directly. I interviewed CCSM 2. She denied the allegations. She denied telling Child A and B's Mother that Child B had to it out or that she was not able to care for him. cry She stated that if a child cries in the room, they are quickly responded to, held, and they help the children calm down. She believes the children receive good care while in the room. I interviewed CCSM 5. She denied the allegations. She stated that children are not allowed to it out. If a child cries, the CCSMs quickly respond and are attentive to cry the children's needs. I interviewed CCSM 7. She denied the allegations, saying that the children in the room do not cry it out. She stated that if children cry, they are quickly taken care of to help them calm down. I interviewed assistant director CCSM 6. She denied the allegations. She has never been told that children cry it out. She has observed in the room and has never observed the children cry without a CCSM trying to calm the child. She stated that she would not condone CCSMs having children cry for extended periods of time. I interviewed licensee designee Ms. Mentink. She does not believe that the children in the room are allowed to it out. She believes that the children are attended to cry quickly and receive good care. I also interviewed CCSMs 4 and 1. Neither had firsthand information, as they do not work in the infant rooms. During the investigation, I observed the infant room on two occasions including 12/19/22 and 1/11/23. On 12/19/22, I observed three CCCMS with 10 infants and young toddlers. On 12/19/22, one child was awake. On 1/11/23, I observed the infant room with two CCSMs and eight infants and young toddlers. On 1/11/23, five infants and young toddlers were awake. I observed the CCSMs actively involved in the care and supervision of the children. I observed the CCSM quickly respond to the children if they expressed a need for attention. I did not observe any children placed in an area to cry it out. I separately interviewed three additional parents to include Child C's Mother; Child D, Child E, and Child F's Mother; and Child G and Child H's Mother. The three parents are happy with the center and have no concerns. They believe that the children in the infant and young toddler rooms are cared for when upset, that the CCSMs are attentive to the children's needs, and the CCSMs quickly provide comfort to the children. I attempted contact with Child I's Mother but was not successful.
- Violation
The children in the infant and young toddler room receive appropriate care and supervision. The children are cared for quickly when upset. The children do not cry it out.
- Violation
On 12/6/2022, two CCSMs were left to care for 10 infants and young toddlers for approximately five minutes when the third CCSM in the room left to make copies of handouts in the office.
- Violation
There is insufficient evidence to support that Child A choked on wood chips, and appropriate supervision was not provided. There is also insufficient evidence to support that child care staff members did not provide appropriate care and supervision when Child A placed his hand in the door. Child care staff member immediately intervened and prevented the door from fully closing on his finger.
- Violation
On August 24, 2022, 1 participated in a three-way call. " Child A's Mother, and I were present on the telephone interview, i d A's Oe. - stated that Child A had frequent diaper rashes due to his diapers not being changed. She also stated that he would not have a diaper rash in the morning when she dropped him off at the child care center but would have one when she picked him up. On August 24 2022, 1 completed an unannounced on-site inspection at the child care center nterviewed program director Erica Bullinger and child care staff members Joseph Finley and Becky Todd. Ms. Builinger stated that Child A had a diaper rash when he initially came to the child care center.. She denied having knowledge of Child A having other diaper rashes. Ms. Bullinger stated that diapers in Child A's classroom are checked every two hours. Diaper checks and changes are documented in Procare, an electronic application system which are available for parents to review. Child care staff member Joseph Finley stated that diaper checks are completed every two hours, Mr. Finley never observed Child A to have a diaper rash when he changed his diaper. 1 Child care staff member Becky Todd stated that diaper checks are completed every two hours. Ms. Todd stated that she never observed Child A to have a diaper rash when she changed his diaper. However, she did apply diaper cream once to the crease area of his leg, as she observed some redness. On August 24. 2022, 1 completed to child care staff member Kaylee Hall's home I interviewed Ms. Hall. Ms. Hall stated that diaper checks are completed every two hours. Ms. Hall stated that she observed Child A to have a slight diaper rash once. Diaper rash cream was applied, and no subsequent rashes were observed. During my on-site inspection Ms. Bullinger printed out the daily written records. I observed diaper checks and changes including Child A's to be completed every 1 2 hours. On August 25, 2022, 1 spoke to Child B's Mother. Child C's Mother and Child D's Mother. They all stated not having concerns about the frequency of diaper changes. They all stated their children never had diaper rashes. On September 16, 2022, 1 participated in a telephone case conference with Darlese McConnell, Child Care Licensing Manager and There is insufficient any child care staff members are not conducive to the welfare of children.
- Violation
The child care center is in non-compliance of not having a written plan for how and when a parent is notified when a child experiences an incident.
- Violation
On November 15, 2021 I called Child A's Mother. Child A's Mother and Child A's Father were both on the call and provided additional information regarding the allegations in the complaint. Child A (male, age 2 '/2 years) started attending the child care center on September 24, 2021, since attending the center Child A has been bitten on multiple occasions by another child in the classroom. The first time Child A was bitten on the back of the head and there were visible teeth marks. The second time he was bitten on the back of his shoulder. On the second occasion Child A had multiple bruises as well as a scratch mark caused by the same child. I asked if they knew which child care staff members were present during these incidents? Child A's Father indicated, "Ones name is Mary and the other one has orangish curly hair." Child A's Mother and Child A's Father stated, "We don't understand how this child can remain in the program and assault other children without getting kicked out of the program, because we are not the only parents receiving notes about their child being bitten by this child." On November 17, 2021 I made an unannounced onsite visit to the child care center and discussed the allegations in the complaint with the program director Erica Bullinger. Ms. Bullinger stated that Child B is a frequent bitter and has bitten several of the children in the classroom. They have developed a biting action plan for him; however, he continues to bite. They are trying to work with him so that he can remain in the program. She has met with Child B's Mother to discuss alternate planning for Child B. Ms. Bullinger is considering moving him to half days, so the day isn't as long for him, however they are not sure this will work for Child B's family. Ms. Bullinger is also working with the child care staff members to change the classroom programming to include more sensory activities. I asked how many times Child B has bitten other children? Ms. Bullinger was not sure of the exact number of times but stated he has bitten more than ten times. I spoke to child care staff member Melissa Tooker. I asked her about Child B and what causes his biting. Ms. Tooker stated there does not always appear to be a cause, but sometimes Child B gets upset over toys and not wanting to share the toys. He can see a child playing with something and will bite the child, other times he can be sitting, and he will get up and just go bite another child. On one occasion, Child B was upset and sitting on the lap of child care staff member, as soon as he was put down, he went and bit another child. Ms. Tooker stated that Child B bites one to two times per week. She shadows him to try and prevent the biting, however if she is attending to another child, he may still bite. When Child B bit Child A she was changing another child's diaper. Child A was sitting on the mate and Child B just went over and bit him in the head for no reason. Child A had teeth marks in his head from the bite. Ms. Tooker also stated there have been occasions where Child B has broken the skin when biting children. 3 During the onsite inspection I interviewed child care staff member Mary Hilder regarding the allegations in the complaint. Ms. Hilder stated Child B bites often, he will sometimes bite if a child has a toy and he wants the toy, he will go up to the child and bite them. She went on to say the child care staff members do their best to supervise and shadow him, but there are not always enough child care member for him to have one on one supervision. On Friday November 12, 2021, Child B bit another child on the cheek. She stated that the other child was just sitting sucking his own thumb when Child B dove at him and bit him on the shoulder. She along with the other child care staff members responded immediately, however it appeared unprovoked. During the onsite inspection on November 17, 2021, I interviewed child care staff member Alexcia Neely. Ms. Neely is aware of Child B and his biting
Questions to ask on your tour
Generated from this facility's specific inspection record
- 1The Jun 25, 2026 inspection noted: “Teacher 1 restricted the ability for Child A to move away from the table by placing her foot behind the chair leg of Child A's chair and moving her body closer…” — what has changed since then?
- 2The Apr 25, 2023 inspection noted: “On 4/2512023, 1 completed an unannounced on-site inspection at the child care center accompanied by and i interviewee program director was aware of the allegati…” — what has changed since then?
- 3The Apr 21, 2023 inspection noted: “The allegations of were reported to the department within the required 24 hour an -our timeframes as required by the child care licensing rules. On 4/21/2023, 1…” — what has changed since then?
Data synced from Michigan MiLEAP, Child Care Licensing Bureau · Source records · Report an error