The Country Playhouse Club

Observation

0475(2) During the course of the complaint assessment, Licensor Champney concluded there was enough information available to determine more likely than not a licensing violation occurred. Licensor concluded based on the information gathered the parent had shared her concern to the Afterschool Director that the child had been scratched in the private area by another child. Therefore, the Afterschool Director had knowledge of the incident and did not report by telephone to the department a child's disclosure of inappropriate sexual contact between two children nor did the After school director complete an incident report to the parent on the occurred incident. 0475(3) During the course of the complaint assessment, Licensor Champney concluded there was enough information available to determine more likely than not a licensing violation occurred. Licensor concluded based on the information gathered the parent had shared her concern to the Afterschool Director that the child had been scratched in the private area by another child. Therefore, the Afterschool Director had knowledge of the incident and did not submit a written incident report of the following on a department form within 24 hours. Dispute Description: My name is Tara Stivers and I am the owner of The Country Playhouse Club in Enumclaw, and I am writing to you today to dispute this additional violation for an alleged incident, which was unfounded, regarding WAC110-301-0475(3), for not writing up an incident report for the alleged incident when the parent brought it to my staff’s attention. The wording in the WAC below highlighted in yellow is very subjective. As a Teacher, Director and owner, I perceive this wording to mean that if an incident occurs at the facility, and an employee witnesses the incident, or is immediately made aware of the incident to be able to intervene at that time to determine the nature and cause of an incident, then a report is filled out and presented to the parent at pick-up. This particular alleged incident was brought to our attention by a parent days after the fact, it is not an incident we or any other adult, employee or child witnessed at the facility. Therefore, we would not fill out an incident report. To add this as a violation is not acceptable due to the fact that, (A) the alleged incident was unfounded, (B) it was not witnessed by any adult, employee or child at the facility, and (C) the wording in the WAC is too subjective and can be interpreted in a few different ways. For these reasons, I am disputing this violation. I can understand if this was a founded incident, but it’s not. Quite frankly, my staff had several discussions with the parent of the accusing child, including a conference with the mother, and also had a conversation with the other child’s mother as well. Furthermore, my staff had and continues to have ongoing communication with the accusing child’s mother about what could have caused the scratches, that she has a skin condition, and that my staff witnesses the accusing child of constantly itching her own private areas while in attendance. My staff worked for several days to investigate what had allegedly happened, before Ms. Champney visited to discuss the alleged incident. This is not a case of us trying to cover something up, or not telling anyone, but simply a case of my staff trying to get to the bottom of what happened. The fact of the matter is that the accusing child could not tell anyone how it happened (changed her story a couple of times), who did it to her (pointed out a few different children), or when it happened (inside or outside). So to now have this added violation for an alleged incident that never happened and was unfounded, is like pouring salt into a wound. We are not disputing contacting DCYF, we just didn’t know we needed to until we found out what, or if anything, had happened. I am disputing the additional violation of writing it up. In the 17 years I have worked in this industry, I have never once disputed anything on an inspection report. I also have never written up an incident report for something that did not happen at one of my locations. Incident reports are for witnessed accidents or incidents, or for incidences that occur and are immediately reported to an adult, not something that is reported days later when there is no evidence of incident even occurring. Thank you for your time, and I hope we can get this resolved as like I previously stated, the wording in this WAC can be interpreted in a variety of ways and should not be used as a blanket policy across the board. My name is Tara Stivers and I am the owner of The Country Playhouse Club in Enumclaw, and I am writing to you today to dispute this additional violation for an alleged incident, which was unfounded, regarding WAC110-301-0475(3), for not writing up an incident report for the alleged incident when the parent brought it to my staff’s attention. The wording in the WAC below highlighted in yellow is very subjective. As a Teacher, Director and owner, I perceive this wording to mean that if an incident occurs at the facility, and an employee witnesses the incident, or is immediately made aware of the incident to be able to intervene at that time to determine the nature and cause of an incident, then a report is filled out and presented to the parent at pick-up. This particular alleged incident was brought to our attention by a parent days after the fact, it is not an incident we or any other adult, employee or child witnessed at the facility. Therefore, we would not fill out an incident report. To add this as a violation is not acceptable due to the fact that, (A) the alleged incident was unfounded, (B) it was not witnessed by any adult, employee or child at the facility, and (C) the wording in the WAC is too subjective and can be interpreted in a few different ways. For these reasons, I am disputing this violation. I can understand if this was a founded incident, but it’s not. Quite frankly, my staff had several discussions with the parent of the accusing child, including a conference with the mother, and also had a conversation with the other child’s mother as well. Furthermore, my staff had and continues to have ongoing communication with the accusing child’s mother about what could have caused the scratches, that she has a skin condition, and that my staff witnesses the accusing child of constantly itching her own private areas while in attendance. My staff worked for several days to investigate what had allegedly happened, before Ms. Champney visited to discuss the alleged incident. This is not a case of us trying to cover something up, or not telling anyone, but simply a case of my staff trying to get to the bottom of what happened. The fact of the matter is that the accusing child could not tell anyone how it happened (changed her story a couple of times), who did it to her (pointed out a few different children), or when it happened (inside or outside). So to now have this added violation for an alleged incident that never happened and was unfounded, is like pouring salt into a wound. We are not disputing contacting DCYF, we just didn’t know we needed to until we found out what, or if anything, had happened. I am disputing the additional violation of writing it up. In the 17 years I have worked in this industry, I have never once disputed anything on an inspection report. I also have never written up an incident report for something that did not happen at one of my locations. Incident reports are for witnessed accidents or incidents, or for incidences that occur and are immediately reported to an adult, not something that is reported days later when there is no evidence of incident even occurring. Thank you for your time, and I hope we can get this resolved as like I previously stated, the wording in this WAC can be interpreted in a variety of ways and should not be used as a blanket policy across the board.