Complaint Investigation Report

Interviews with S#2, she stated that C#1 was mad at C#2 because C#2 kept talking to C#1 and C#1 got mad at C#2 and kicked the bathroom door several times and cracked the bathroom door. S#2 also stated that C#1 has never done this before. S#2 did not know who or what made the door knob hole. Interviews with C#1 - C#4, they could not tell LPA, who or what made the hole in C#1 room or hit the bathroom door. LPA Soto observed the bathroom door cracked at the bottom right side and the hole in the wall made by the door knob in C#1 room. Interviews conducted and LPA observations concur with the above allegation.

Based on LPA’s observations and interviews which were conducted and records review, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met, therefore the above allegation is found to be substantiated.

A ccording to the California Code of Regulations (Title 22, Division 6, Chapter 8), LPA observed the following deficiency and issued a citation.

An exit interview was conducted with Thana Theng, and a hard copy was provided with the Appeal Rights.