Angels Playland Educational Childcare Center: Prairieville, LA

VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
Location: 16026 Airline Hwy, Prairieville, LA 70769
Phone: (617) 332-0886

View Larger Map

Angels Playland Educational Childcare Center: Prairieville, LA, 5.0 out of 5 based on 1 rating


  1. Parent says:

    My husband and I recently gave birth to a son. After exhausting my FMLA leave, I reluctantly returned to work. Prior to the birth of our son, we had researched and visited several sites. Unfortunately, many of our top choices had exceptionally long waiting lists and/or fees that were cost prohibitive, at least as it pertained to our family’s budget. Eventually, we arrived at Angel’s Playland Educational Child Center as the proper facility for the care of our child. At the time we looked into the facility, there were not any deficiencies cited by Louisiana Department of Social Services (DSS), the state oversight agency. I visited and spoke with the Sally Buckland, the owner/operator of Angel’s Playland Educational Child Center, for a reasonable period of time. At the end of that discussion, I felt comfortable with leaving my child in Ms. Buckland’s care and it was agreed that my son would be admitted to Ms. Buckland’s daycare center in exchange for an initial application/enrollment fee and payment for the first week’s tuition.

    My husband and I brought our son to Angel’s Playland Educational Child Center for his first day at daycare. Leaving your child with a stranger for the first time is difficult is always difficult, and it was certainly no different for us. At that time, we noticed several ceiling panels that were drooping with one drooping over the main walkway, and another, in particular, hanging directly over the area containing cribs where the infants were kept. We were very reluctant, but felt that these reservations were most likely normal, so we both left for work.

    We were consoled by the fact that the facility does provide an internet camera to allow parents to see the facility while at work. While at work, I checked the website to see how my son was doing. I was perplexed and concerned to see that older children (none younger than 18 months of age, in my opinion) were allowed admittance and playing in the area reserved explicitly for infants. At times the children were allowed in the area unattended and had direct access to infants who were placed in bouncy-seats on the floor. I feel strongly that this hazardous negligence poses a safety issue and could result in the injury of one or more of the infants.

    That morning we needed to get the contact information for the facility to put in our cell phones, so I went to the Licensing web site maintained by the Department of Social Services (

    I noticed that after we had initially signed up for the facility, there were two inspections by Licensing, both of which had noted existing deficiencies during their inspection of Angel’s Playland Educational Child Center. We obtained the Statements of Deficiency dated 4/10/2008 and 7/22/2008, respectively. Upon obtaining a copy of the findings, the finding of the oversight agency (DSS) from the 7/22/2008 inspection which gave me a cause for concern was one categorized a “Clean of Hazards” finding. I do not know what comprehensive hazards were discovered by the inspector on the site but we could clearly see where several hazards existed and were obvious to the untrained eye.

    We picked up our son Monday afternoon, and we decided to ask Ms. Buckland about these cited deficiencies the following day. We brought our son to the facility on Tuesday, August 12. My husband and I asked Ms. Buckland about the tiles and inquired into the cause of the damage. Ms. Buckland explained that they bend because they (center staff) hang items from the tiles, and that they just push them back up into place. I then asked if they had any plans to replace the tiles, or if she knew what they were made from; she replied that she did not know and that at that time she had no plans to replace them. I then stated to her that while looking for contact information for the facility on the internet, I noticed the that there were deficiencies cited by the state Licensing Department and after obtaining copies saw findings that the facility was not “Clean of Hazards” in the latest statement of deficiency, from three weeks prior. I did not intend to nor do I believe I acted in an aggressive or combative manner in bringing these matters to her attention, but from then on, in my opinion, her answers became defensive and questionable. She discounted the validity of DSS Licensing inspections, implying that inspectors are over-zealous and could not leave a facility without marking a deficiency (this is obviously not the case, especially as her inspection on 9/20/2007 contained none). She said that she would switch the cribs in the infants area (put our son in another crib not underneath the falling tile and put another child in the crib that our son had been in). Our opinion was that she missed the point of the conversation. It was our belief that the condition of these tiles presented a potential hazard and that Ms. Buckland as owner of the facility, would want to remedy this situation. After our exchange with Ms. Buckland, we were troubled by her responses to our inquiries and by what we believed to be her indifference. We left in doubt as to whether our voiced concerns made any impact.

    I phoned Ms. Buckland during the middle of the day on Tuesday to obtain Tax ID information from her so that we could set up reimbursement from our Flexible Spending Account. At that time, Ms. Buckland informed me that we were in arrears for our son’s attendance. I did reiterate that we had agreed on a payment in March, which had been provided by check and subsequently cashed three days thereafter. I offered to provide a copy of the canceled check from our financial institution showing that payment was indeed received. Ms. Buckland responded in a tone that I found hostile that she didn’t need a copy of the check, that she keeps copies of everything, and that the parents do not pay tuition in advance. I assured her that the payment had already been made and that she would get a copy of the canceled check to clear up any confusion. I then contacted our financial institution, and did obtain a copy of the canceled check, which indicated that it had been deposited at Keypoint Federal Credit Union in Prairieville, LA.

    At this point, we deemed we were no longer comfortable with having our son at Angel’s Playland past Tuesday afternoon. The answers we received to our queries were insufficient, and we perceived the attitude of Sally Buckland to be counter to our intentions and the environment in which we wish to raise our son. We were very fortunate enough to find another childcare facility that happened to have an immediate opening and incidentally was one of our first choices initially. We enrolled our son at this new daycare center on the morning of Wednesday, August 13. On Tuesday evening, we went to Angel’s Playland to pick up our son, retrieve his supplies and inform Ms. Buckland that we would not be returning. Unfortunately, our troubles with Angel’s Playland did not end there.

    Tuesday evening, upon giving our son a bath, we noticed severe diaper rash, unlike any he had had previously. (He had a very minor diaper rash upon coming home from the hospital, but that was cleared up quickly and had not returned). Upon further inspection we also noticed a thick paste that was composed of baby powder and urine on our son’s genital region, where it remained caked from the lackadaisically executed cleaning that he had received earlier at Angel’s Playland. Given the consistence and amount of the paste and the severity of his diaper rash it would seem that when changing his diaper there was a failure to clean his bottom at all and instead only a new diaper was put on and more baby powder applied on top of the existing soiling.

    While we had requested the use of some powder when changing our son, we never asked that the powder be applied in lieu of properly cleaning him at each diaper change. It was and is our opinion that the cause of this diaper rash was either neglect or careless inattention. The cause of the rash could not be attributed to the use of inferior products, as we had provided Angel’s Playland with the quality products that we use regularly at home and had never seen a rash of our child, as a result of the use of these products. We deemed this diaper rash to be a result of unacceptable practices.

    On the morning of August 14th, we noticed a bruise on the right leg of our son’s upper shin. While we make no claim to be any sort of medical expert, we believed this to be a bruise in the later (36-48 hours after injury) stages. We took pictures of this bruise, which covered the area roughly the size and shape of an adult thumb. While I am well aware this is circumstantial and presumptive, we are of the belief that this bruise had to have been acquired at Angel’s Playland Educational Child Center. This is our first child, and like most parents we are certainly gentle to a fault with our son. No one in our household handles our son with the force necessary to cause the bruise sustained by my son. Given the chain of custody of our child, if it wasn’t us that caused the injury, then it must be them. Additionally in our experience with the new facility our son currently attends, both my husband and I have witnessed the method the staff uses to change infants where the caregiver gently lifts the child’s legs by the ankles during the process of changing the diapers. Lastly, the nature of a bruise would indicate that the injury occurred prior to Wednesday and could not be the result of any conduct of the new daycare facility.

    We are of the opinion that the caregivers at Angel’s Playland Educational Child Center failed to use the necessary care required for a child caregiver when handling a child, which resulted in the rash and bruise sustained by my son. My husband and I are of the firm belief that the caregivers’ at Angel’s Playland Educational Child Center neglected to exercise the minimum compulsory standard of care for individuals in their position and that allowing him to stay there longer would expose our son to other incidents and potential harm.

    Report this review

    VA:F [1.9.20_1166]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  2. Sally says:

    Sometimes in life it is best to say nothing and sometimes it is best to respond. I have said nothing to this review for a while now, but since the author of this review has seen fit to submit the review on several sites, with several different versions I have decided to answer their claims.
    I am Sally Buckland-the owner of the daycare that is talked about in this review. I am well aware of the claims that the Kupermans are making against my facility, so here is my side of the story.
    The family enrolled their son in my center in March of 2008. They reserved a spot for August of 2008. At that time they paid the registration fee and the first week’s tuition. The supply fee is due when the child actually starts so it was not paid in March.
    When the time got close for their child to start at the center, the week before, I received a call from them asking if I would hold the spot for a while longer because Mom wanted to stay home a little longer. While I certainly understand this feeling, I cannot hold empty spots for an indefinite period of time, so my response was no. They then asked if I would refund their money. Again, the response was no. We had a contract signed by both parents that clearly explains this. So they decided to go ahead and start on the agreed upon date.
    When they arrived for the first day, it was pointed out to them that they still owed the supply fee which had not been paid in March. They insisted it had been paid, so I had to produce a copy of their check that showed a payment of only $225 which is $100 registration and $125 first week’s tuition. Supply fees are not required to be paid in advance and it was due upon entry into the center.
    She states that they went to the website of the state of Louisiana to obtain contact information. What she neglected to write was how she obtained information. Her husband works for the company (Northrop Grumman) that maintains the computer systems for the Department of Social Services. He is a Network Administrator with this company and is assigned to work for the Department of Social Services which is the agency that controls and inspects daycares. The inspection report that she referenced was not yet available on the internet. He used his access to the computer system to view this report- he readily admitted this to me. While I really don’t have a problem with him viewing the report (all reports are eventually made public), I do have a problem with him viewing private information that is in my file with the state. This includes my SS number, DL number, criminal background checks, etc… I became aware of his knowledge of my files because he admitted to me that he had gone into the system to look at the file. On each inspection report there are comments that the inspector writes for various reasons that are not on the document that is made public. He was aware of these comments that were not public (nothing of any consequence-these notes are usually just reminders of very specific things to look for next time-for instance if a certain employee does not have the proper paper work in their folder, the inspector will write the name or initials so that they are reminded which folder to check first-these notes are the private notes of the inspector and if the state wanted them to be public they would be included). I was a little upset because I felt he had invaded my privacy using his position with the computer company. This was what I had become defensive about. Not his concerns about the baby.
    As far as the “bruise” that they say was on their baby-One posting says they noticed the bruise on the morning of August 14th. Another post says they noticed it on the previous day. . The baby left our care early in the afternoon on August 12th. This bruise appeared after the baby had spent a whole day at another center-yet they are sure it was caused by us. If they are so sure, have pictures, and are concerned enough about their child to ask about ceiling tiles, then why did they not follow up on this with a complaint with the state? Mom works for the state of Louisiana and Dad works in the very department that would handle the complaint. Yet not a single complaint was filed by either parent. If your newborn infant was really bruised by someone and all you had to do was file a piece of paper in your own office to handle the matter, don’t you think you would do it? I think that the reason they did not do anything is because they knew it was not true. A bruise on a newborn would probably appear very shortly after the injury –not 2 days later.
    My center is the only center in Ascension parish that has internet access for the parents to watch their children. I truly believe that if abusive or neglectful things were happening, I would have had many complaints with the state over the years because someone would have seen it. There are no complaints filed. Ask the state. They will gladly tell you.
    I understand that people are entitled to their own opinion. I also understand that my services will not 100% please every family. However, I wish that people with a vendetta would grow up and not be so childish by writing a huge essay on their displeasure with my center.
    As far as the family involved here, I have enough evidence to probably get him fired from his job. I maybe should have done that, but I am not that kind of a person. I am posting this response on both of the websites that they have previously posted things on. (The two postings by this family are similar but not exactly alike-in fact notice that the posting from April 2009 where they state that they noticed the bruise on Wednesday morning but the post dated August 2009 clearly states that they noticed the bruise on Thursday morning-which is it??? They can’t even get the lie straight.)
    So take what you read on the internet and remember that things are not always what they seem to be.

    Report this review

    VA:F [1.9.20_1166]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  3. Anonymous says:

    this center is …

    Report this review

    VA:F [1.9.20_1166]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  4. Anonymous says:

    Our child has been at Angels Playland since she was only about 10 months old. She is now 3 years old and loves her “school”! Sally Buckland is accomadating to all parents and family members that come into her center. The staff at Angels Playland are very sweet and truly care about the children.

    Of course there has been a not so good day here and there, but I can’t name one center that is perfect. If you are to find a day care facility that is 100% perfect every day and your child never has a bad day, please list it here.

    As for our family we will continue to go to Angels Playland and recommend it to all friends and family.

    Report this review

    VA:F [1.9.20_1166]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)