STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES BUREAU OF CHILDREN AND ADULT LICENSING JENNIFER M. GRANHOLM

ISMAEL AHMED

GOVERNOR

DIRECTOR

April 19, 2010

Tonia Hamel P.O. Box 424 Mesick, MI 49668

RE: Registration #: DF830281099 Investigation #: 2010D0785009 Hamel, Tonia

Dear Ms. Hamel: Attached is the Special Investigation Report for the above referenced facility. Due to the violations identified in the report, a written corrective action plan was required. On April 16, 2010, you submitted an acceptable written corrective action plan. It is expected that the corrective action plan be implemented within the specified time frames as outlined in the approved plan. Please review the enclosed documentation for accuracy and feel free to contact me with any questions. In the event that I am not available and you need to speak to someone immediately, please feel free to contact the local office at (231) 922-5309.

Sincerely,

Beverly McSauby, Licensing Consultant Bureau of Children and Adult Licensing Suite 11 701 S. Elmwood Traverse City, MI 49684 (231) 922-5303 enclosure

P.O. BOX 30650 • LANSING, MICHIGAN 48909-8150 www.michigan.gov • (517) 335-6124

MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES BUREAU OF CHILDREN AND ADULT LICENSING SPECIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT

I. IDENTIFYING INFORMATION Registration #:

DF830281099

Investigation #:

2010D0785009

Complaint Receipt Date:

04/15/2010

Investigation Initiation Date:

04/15/2010

Report Due Date:

06/14/2010

Registrant Name:

Tonia Hamel

Registrant Address:

125 E. John St. Mesick, MI 49668

Registrant Telephone #:

(231) 885-3253

Administrator:

N/A

Licensee Designee: Name of Facility:

Hamel, Tonia

Facility Address:

125 E. John Street Mesick, MI 49668

Facility Telephone #:

(231) 885-3253

Original Issuance Date:

02/08/2006

Registration Status:

REGISTERED

Effective Date:

02/08/2009

Expiration Date:

02/07/2012

Capacity:

6

Program Type:

CHILD DAY CARE FAMILY HOME (CAPACITY 16) 1

II.

ALLEGATION(S) • •

III.

Child A’s parent reported that Ms. Hamel reported to her that she took a bath with her 2 year old son. Child A’s parent observed more than 6 unrelated children in care at one time. Ms. Hamel would be by herself.

METHODOLOGY 04/15/2010

Special Investigation Intake 2010D0785009

04/15/2010

Special Investigation Initiated - Telephone

04/15/2010

Contact – Telephone call received From Ms. Hamel – left message Inspection Completed On-site

04/16/2010 04/16/2010

Contact - Telephone call made Interview Witness 1

04/16/2010

Contact - Telephone call made Interview Household Member 1

04/16/2010

Inspection Completed-BCAL Sub. Compliance

04/16/2010

Exit Conference

04/16/2010

Corrective Action Plan Received

04/16/2010

Corrective Action Plan Approved

04/19/2010

Corrective Action Plan Requested and Due on 04/16/2010

ALLEGATION: •

Child A’s parent reported that Ms. Hamel reported to her that she took a bath with her 2 year old son.

INVESTIGATION: On 04/15/2010, I conducted a telephone interview of Child A’s (DOB 04/12/2008) mother. Child A’s mother reported that she had recently asked Ms. Hamel to watch 2

Child A on Monday evening’s. Ms. Hamel agreed so she dropped Child A off on Monday, 04/12/2010. Upon picking Child A up that night, Ms. Hamel told Child A’s mother that she had taken a bath with Child A. Child A’s mother stated that she did not feel that Ms. Hamel did anything inappropriate with Child A but that bathing with her child was wrong. Child A’s mother stated that she felt that bathing with a child was an intimacy that only a parent should have with her child. Child A’s parent did not confront Ms. Hamel that evening as she was unsure of how she felt. She went home and thought about it. She went on to report that she dropped Child A off at Ms. Hamel’s for care again on Wednesday. At that time, she told Ms. Hamel that she did not want her to take baths with Child A. That afternoon she walked over to Ms. Hamel’s home to pick Child A up. Upon arrival she observed Child A playing outside with another child. Ms. Hamel was present along with the other child’s mom and Household Member 1 (DOB 07/09/1965) (HM 1). Child A’s mother felt that Ms. Hamel was upset about something so she asked her what was wrong. At that point Ms. Hamel stated to her that she did not like being accused of inappropriate behavior. The discussion escalated to the point that Ms. Hamel and HM 1 were both yelling and swearing at her and they kicked her off their property. On 04/16/2010 I conducted an unannounced on site inspection. Upon interview, Ms. Hamel stated that she is normally not open in the evenings. Recently she had made an exception for Child A’s mother. The first evening was Monday 04/12/2010. Ms. Hamel went on to report that that evening she took her customary bath to prepare for going to bed. Child A was in the living room with HM 1. Upon finishing her bath, Ms. Hamel reported that she dried off with a large bath towel then she wrapped the towel around herself. While still standing in the bath tub, she asked HM 1 to bring Child A into the bathroom so that she could give him a bath as he was very dirty. HM 1 brought Child A into the bathroom and handed him to Ms. Hamel while she was standing in the bath tub. Ms. Hamel stated she undressed Child A and took off his diaper. She put Child A into the bath tub at her feet and, while standing with the towel wrapped around her, bathed him. Upon rinsing Child A she picked him up and handed him back to HM 1. HM 1 was present the entire time. HM 1 then took Child A back into the living room. Ms. Hamel stated she put on her pajamas then went into the living room and got Child A dressed. Ms. Hamel stated that upon pick up she told Child A’s mother that she had bathed Child A so that she wouldn’t have to do it so late at night. Ms. Hamel said that she did not know anything was wrong but when Child A’s mother dropped him off on Wednesday she did tell Ms. Hamel that she did not want her to take baths with her son. Ms. Hamel stated that she tried to clarify with Child A’s mother that she didn’t take a bath with him but rather she took a bath then gave Child A a bath. Child A’s mother left him in Ms. Hamel’s care on Wednesday. During the day on Wednesday Ms. Hamel stated that she began to hear from people in the community that Child A’s mother was talking about her saying that she was naked with Child A in the bath tub and questioning what she had done. Ms. Hamel reported

3

that this was very upsetting to her as she has never been accused of anything inappropriate. Also, the community is very small and she did not want her reputation damaged. Upon Child A’s mother picking him up that afternoon she sensed that something was wrong so she asked Ms. Hamel what was wrong. Ms. Hamel stated that she confronted Child A’s mother about what she was saying about her to others. Ms. Hamel said that Child A’s mother then asked her if she touched Child A inappropriately, Ms. Hamel stated she denied any such thing and then she told Child A’s mother that she would no longer care for Child A and that she wanted her to leave. Ms Hamel stated that Child A’s mother got very angry at this point and started yelling at her. She went on to state that the situation escalated to the point where Child A’s mother was shouting and swearing at her and she began to shout back at Child A’s mother. Ms. Hamel said that she and HM 1 repeatedly told Child A’s mother to leave the premises but she was refusing to leave. At this point HM 1 called the police. Upon hearing HM 1 talking to the police Child A’s mother left the premises. Ms. Hamel stated that Child A’s mother then walked past her house, up and down the street, shouting obscenities and calling her names. Eventually Child A’s mother stopped walking past the home. On 04/16/2010 I conducted a telephone interview of Witness 1. Witness 1 stated that she was present at the time of the above incident. Witness 1 reported that she heard Ms. Hamel confront Child A’s mother about what she had been saying to others about her. At that point she heard Child A’s mother accuse Ms. Hamel of inappropriately touching Child A. Ms. Hamel denied ever being inappropriate with any child. The situation escalated to the point Child A’s mother was swearing at Ms. Hamel. Witness 1 heard Ms. Hamel ask Child A’s mother to leave. Witness 1 reported that she observed Child A’s mother walk past the house numerous times screaming obscenities and making accusations about Ms. Hamel. Witness 1 stated that Ms. Hamel has watched her 2 year old son since he was 6 weeks old and that she has never had a problem with her. Since that time she has also become friends with Ms. Hamel and has had the opportunity to observe Ms. Hamel with children. She stated she does not believe Ms. Hamel would inappropriately touch a child and that she has no reservations about leaving her child with Ms. Hamel. On 04/16/2010 I conducted a telephone interview with HM 1. HM 1 reported that he arrives home from work at approximately 3:30 pm. He reported that Ms. Hamel does not normally care for children in the evenings but that she had made an exception for Monday night. HM 1 stated that at about 8:00 pm on Monday night Ms. Hamel went into the bathroom to take a bath. Upon finishing, she called out to him to bring Child A into the bathroom so that she could give him a bath. Upon entering the bathroom with Child A he observed Ms. Hamel wrapped in a towel and standing in the bath tub. He handed her Child A. He observed her undress him, give him a quick bath then dry him off. She handed Child A back to him. He reported that she got dressed then she dressed Child A. He stated that he has never observed Ms. Hamel inappropriately touch a child. He denied seeing her taking a bath with Child A.

4

HM 1 reported that he was present at the time Child A’s mother picked him up on Wednesday. HM 1 stated that he was in the back yard of the home when Child A’s mother arrived. He stated that there were other adults present as well. He went on to report that he heard Ms. Hamel ask Child A’s mother to go into the house so that they could talk. Child A’s mother didn’t want to talk in the house she wanted to talk in front of the others outside. At this point he heard Ms. Hamel “fire” Child A’s mother. Child A’s mother began to get very angry and started screaming at Ms. Hamel, calling her names. HM 1 stated that he then told Child A’s mother to leave the premises. HM 1 stated that Child A’s mother would not leave the premises. She stayed and continued to yell at Ms. Hamel. HM 1 stated that he then went and called the police. While he was talking to the police Child A’s mother left the premises. HM 1 stated that he observed Child A’s mother walk up and down the street past their house. He heard her screaming obscenities while she was walking. She had Child A with her the entire time.

APPLICABLE RULE R 400.1911 Supervision. (1) The caregiver shall assure appropriate care and supervision of children at all times. ANALYSIS:

Witness testimony shows that Ms. Hamel has provided appropriate care and supervision to children in her care.

CONCLUSION:

VIOLATION NOT ESTABLISHED

ALLEGATION: •

Child A’s parent observed more than 6 unrelated children in care at one time. Ms. Hamel would be by herself.

INVESTIGATION: At the time of the on site inspection, I asked Ms Hamel to present her daily attendance log for inspection. The daily attendance log showed that there were days that there were more than 6 unrelated children present at the same time. Ms. Hamel admitted that she has, at times, gone over her registered capacity of 6. She stated that because her enrollment was increasing she was planning on applying for a Group Child Care Home license. Ms. Hamel presented a completed Group Child

5

Care Home application. Ms. Hamel said that HM 1 was present and assisting her when he would arrive home from work but she admitted that she would be present by herself during the day with more than 6 children. APPLICABLE RULE R 400.1908 Capacity. (1) The family child care registrant shall assure that the actual number of unrelated children in care at any 1 time does not exceed the number of children for which the home is registered, not to exceed a total of 6. ANALYSIS:

Ms. Hamel’s daily attendance log showed that, at times, she had more than a total of 6 unrelated children in care. Ms. Hamel admitted that she would exceed the number of children for which her home is registered.

CONCLUSION:

VIOLATION ESTABLISHED

APPLICABLE RULE R 400.1910 Ratio of caregiving staff to children. (1) The ratio of caregiving staff to children present in the home at any 1 time shall be not less than 1 caregiving staff person to 6 children. The ratio shall include all unrelated children in care and any of the following children who are less than 7 years of age: (a) Children of the caregiver. (b) Children of the assistant caregiver. (c) Children related to any member of the child care home family by blood, marriage, or adoption. ANALYSIS:

While exceeding the number of children she is registered for, Ms. Hamel would be present by herself with more than 6 children.

CONCLUSION:

VIOLATION ESTABLISHED

6

ADDITIONAL FINDINGS: INVESTIGATION: Ms. Hamel stated that HM 1 would act as her substitute caregiver when she needed to leave for appointments. I requested that she present the assistant caregiver file for HM 1. Ms. Hamel stated that she did not have a file for HM 1. She did think that he had taken CPR and first aid training for his employment but she did not know how long ago or if it was current. APPLICABLE RULE R 400.1903 Caregiver Responsibilities. (1) A caregiver shall be responsible for all of the following provisions: (c) Provide an adult assistant caregiver with valid cpr and first aid to act as the caregiver when the caregiver is unable or unavailable to provide direct care. ANALYSIS:

Ms. Hamel’s substitute caregiver did not have current CPR and First Aid training.

CONCLUSION:

VIOLATION ESTABLISHED

APPLICABLE RULE R 400.1905 Training. (2) Each assistant caregiver shall complete not less than 5 clock hours of training each year related to child development and caring for children, not including CPR, first aid, and bloodborne pathogen training. ANALYSIS:

HM 1, an assistant caregiver, did not have 5 clock hours of training, CPR, first aid or blood borne pathogen training.

CONCLUSION:

VIOLATION ESTABLISHED

APPLICABLE RULE R 400.1905 Training. (3) The caregiver shall assure that assistant caregivers have training that includes information regarding safe sleep practices (sudden infant death syndrome) and shaken baby syndrome prior to caring for children.

7

ANALYSIS:

Ms. Hamel did not assure that HM 1, an assistant caregiver, had training regarding safe sleep practices or shaken baby syndrome.

CONCLUSION:

VIOLATION ESTABLISHED

APPLICABLE RULE R 400.1906 Records of caregiving staff and child care home family; record maintenance. (1) The caregiver shall maintain a file for the caregiver and each assistant caregiver including all of the following: (b) A statement signed by a licensed physician or his or her designee and which attests to the individual's mental and physical health. (i) For the caregiver, within 1 year before issuance of the certificate of registration or initial license and at the time of subsequent renewals. (ii) For the assistant caregivers, within 1 year prior to caring for children and at the time of subsequent renewals. ANALYSIS:

There was no medical statement as required above for HM 1, an assistant caregiver.

CONCLUSION:

VIOLATION ESTABLISHED

APPLICABLE RULE R 400.1906 Records of caregiving staff and child care home family; record maintenance. (1) The caregiver shall maintain a file for the caregiver and each assistant caregiver including all of the following: (e) A statement signed by each assistant caregiver that he or she has not been convicted of either of the following: (i) Child abuse or child neglect. (ii) A felony involving harm or threatened harm to an individual within the 10 years immediately preceding the date of hire. ANALYSIS:

Ms. Hamel did not have a signed statement on file for HM 1 as required by the above rule.

CONCLUSION:

VIOLATION ESTABLISHED

8

APPLICABLE RULE R 400.1906 Records of caregiving staff and child care home family; record maintenance. (1) The caregiver shall maintain a file for the caregiver and each assistant caregiver including all of the following: (g) A written statement signed and dated by the assistant caregiver at the time of hiring indicating all of the following information: (i) The individual is aware that abuse and neglect of children is unlawful. (ii) The individual knows that he or she is mandated by law to report child abuse and neglect. (iii) The individual has received a copy of the discipline policy.

IV.

ANALYSIS:

Ms. Hamel did not have a signed statement on file for HM 1 as required by the above rule.

CONCLUSION:

VIOLATION ESTABLISHED

RECOMMENDATION I recommend that the status of the Certificate of Registration remains the same.

________________________________________ Beverly McSauby Date Licensing Consultant

Approved By:

________________________________________ Jackie Horton 04/19/2010 Area Manager

9