Childrens Lighthouse Learning Center

Ms***: I just received the above referenced/attached complaint While I will take the time to respond, as it appears it requires a response, I must first inform you that the statements contained in the former customer’s complaint are and rise to the level of actionable defamation The statements made by [redacted] are false, are know to be by her and are made to a third person/entity (Revdex.com) with the intent to harm our business and business reputation I want to make sure there is no question that the Revdex.com has been informed of the libelous nature of the complaint and the possible legal action against the complainant Let me go over the complaint in detail: Product Service: Childcare – this is correct Purchase date: This customer started with us June 27, with one child They added their second new born child to our school on June 13, They continued to allow us to care for and teach their children until WE had no choice but to ask them to withdraw from our school due to Ms [redacted] ’s behavior which was disrupting our school’s operationsWe did this April 11, Problem Occurred: March 6, – not sure what she is talking about, if there was a problem so serious that she now feels the need to file a complaint over years later, I am sure we would have known about it and corrected it, if one existed Please note, Ms [redacted] enrolled her new born child with us approximately one year ago, after having her other child in our school since Again, we ultimately had to ask her to leave in April after enduring months and months of insensitive, rude and sarcastic comments It was almost like she enjoyed berating our staff By getting her out of our school, we were losing over $21,a year in revenue, but for the safety and morale of our staff and the children in our care, we felt it necessary That is hardly an owner simply “wanting to put more money in their pockets”, as Ms [redacted] suggests We do provide a safe, caring learning environment for the children in our care We have done this for many years and continue to do so today We do not allow the children in our care to watch TV The only television watched in our school during school hours is programing related to the current curriculum Only out of the preschool classrooms in our facility have televisionsHer statement about “learning for a few hours a day and then watching TV the rest of the day” is 100% and libelous We must also note that each parent is able to watch their children all day through secure internet video monitoring which we provide to the parents at no cost, we pay the fee for the parents We do not have a “contract” with the customer, it is a Tuition Agreement We did change curriculum for the fall of 2013; however, Ms [redacted] statement “Turns out it was a financial decision for the franchise owners to place more money in their pockets vsthe child’s development” is 100% and libelous and she has absolutely no basis for or facts to substantiate her statement First, we were forced to change the curriculum by the Federal Small Business Administration We fought this change with lawyers and had various meetings with the Deputy Director of the SBA, but lost the battle It cost our organization thousands of dollars to try to allow us to keep the ABEKA program; however, because there is a religious module to the ABEKA program, the SBA refused to continue to fund the Children's Lighthouse organization and we were forced to make a change This change actually cost us a great deal more money than did the ABEKA program So again, her statements are unfounded and absolutely intentionally false We have now hired a Ph.Dthat has almost completed our new proprietary curriculum for ages infant through We have spent a lot of money in hiring and research to develop a curriculum which far surpasses the benefits of the former ABEKA curriculum It is unfortunate for the [redacted] children that, because of the actions of their mother, they will not have the benefit of this invaluable learning experience It is actually very sad Our menus are meticulously developed by a team of people and approved by the State No child EVER, I mean EVER will eat a cereal bar for a meal and Ms [redacted] knows this Cereal bars are given as snack throughout the day, not as a meal We have a full commercial kitchen and a full time cook that prepares the meals for the children every day We spend over $100,annually on food to be prepared for meals for the childrenHer statements are libelous, and done with the intent to harm our reputation and business NOW THE FOLLOWING IS THE STATEMENT THAT IS THE MOST LIBELOUS AND WARRANTS LEGAL ACTION: ...”rather, they hire most unqualified employees and don’t even run background checks because it costs them money At one point they had some employees working there that had background issues and they were never addressed” This statement is 100% false, can be proven to be from our State background check and FBI fingerprint records (which is maintained by the State of Texas and on file) Ms [redacted] would not even know if we did or did not do background check on an employee, she has no access to our employee files So, her statement, while being libelous and actionable, is also reckless, negligent and made with the sole purpose of harming our reputation As I said, we have never been cited for not having a background check and there is and has never been a single employee in our employ with a background warranting removal from our school We repair things in our facility as they arise No one yells at children, this just does not happen We are a private pre-school and have received many accolades through out the years for our leadership as well as the cleanliness of our facility At this point, I really do not want to waste any more of my time responding to these and libelous and reckless allegations As I stated before, we did not “let her out of her contract”, we made her leave, it was too much to bare I would encourage the Revdex.com to not publish, comment or otherwise give any further consideration to Ms [redacted] commentsThis will most likely end up in litigation if it is published further or is considered/referenced in any type of rating viewable by the public Rather, I would welcome the Revdex.com, at anytime, to come and tour our $million facility and make your own decision on how we do business I feel, at this point, with the libelous comments in this complaint, I need to copy our attorney on this response so he has a full understanding of what has been published to this point by Ms [redacted] Thanks you [redacted] [redacted] A [redacted] , Attorney, CPA President Educational Childcare with a Purpose Children’s Lighthouse Learning Center at Alamo Ranch Lone Star Pkwy San Antonio, Texas [redacted] ###-###-#### Fax www.childrenslighthouseAR.com

Ms. [redacted]:
 
I just received the above referenced/attached complaint.  While I will take the time to respond, as it appears it requires a response, I must first inform you that the statements contained in the former customer’s complaint are false and rise to the level of...

actionable defamation.  The statements made by [redacted] are false, are know to be false by her and are made to a third person/entity (Revdex.com) with the intent to harm our business and business reputation.  I want to make sure there is no question that the Revdex.com has been informed of the libelous nature of the complaint and the possible legal action against the complainant.
 
Let me go over the complaint in detail:
 
Product Service: Childcare – this is correct
 
Purchase date: This customer started with us  June 27, 2010 with one child.  
They added their second new born child to our school on June 13, 2013.  
They continued to allow us to care for and teach their children until WE had no choice but to ask them to withdraw from our school due to Ms. [redacted]’s behavior which was disrupting our school’s operations. We did this April 11, 2014.
 
Problem Occurred: March 6, 2011 – not sure what she is talking about, if there was a problem so serious that she now feels the need to file a complaint over 3 years later, I am sure we would have known about it and corrected it, if one existed.  Please note, Ms. [redacted] enrolled her new born child with us approximately one year ago, after having her other child in our school since 2010.
 
Again, we ultimately had to ask her to leave in April 2014 after enduring months and months of insensitive, rude and sarcastic comments.  It was almost like she enjoyed berating our staff.  By getting her out of our school, we were losing over $21,000 a year in revenue, but for the safety and morale of our staff and the children in our care, we felt it necessary.  That is hardly an owner simply “wanting to put more money in their pockets”, as Ms. [redacted] suggests.
 
 
We do provide a safe, caring learning environment for the children in our care.  We have done this for many years and continue to do so today.
 
We do not allow the children in our care to watch TV.  The only television watched in our school during school hours is programing related to the current curriculum.  Only 2 out of the 10 preschool classrooms in our facility have televisions. Her statement about “learning for a few hours a day and then watching TV the rest of the day” is 100% false and libelous.
 
We must also note that each parent is able to watch their children all day through secure internet video monitoring which we provide to the parents at no cost, we pay the fee for the parents. 
 
We do not have a “contract” with the customer, it is a Tuition Agreement.
 
We did change curriculum for the fall of 2013; however, Ms. [redacted] statement “Turns out it was a financial decision for the franchise owners to place more money in their pockets vs. the child’s development” is 100% false and libelous and she has absolutely no basis for or facts to substantiate her statement.  First, we were forced to change the curriculum by the Federal Small Business Administration.  We fought this change with lawyers and had various meetings with the Deputy Director of the SBA, but lost the battle.  It cost our organization thousands of dollars to try to allow us to keep the ABEKA program; however, because there is a religious module to the ABEKA program, the SBA refused to continue to fund the Children's Lighthouse organization and we were forced to make a change.  This change actually cost us a great deal more money than did the ABEKA program.  So again, her statements are unfounded and absolutely intentionally false.
 
We have now hired a Ph.D. that has almost completed our new proprietary curriculum for ages infant through 5.  We have spent a lot of money in hiring and research to develop a curriculum which far surpasses the benefits of the former ABEKA curriculum.  It is unfortunate for the [redacted] children that, because of the actions of their mother, they will not have the benefit of this invaluable learning experience.  It is actually very sad.
 
Our menus are meticulously developed by a team of people and approved by the State.  No child EVER, I mean EVER will eat a cereal bar for a meal and Ms. [redacted] knows this.  Cereal bars are given as snack throughout the day, not as a meal.  We have a full commercial kitchen and a full time cook that prepares the meals for the children every day.  We spend over $100,000 annually on food to be prepared for meals for the children. Her statements are libelous, false and done with the intent to harm our reputation and business.
 
NOW THE FOLLOWING IS THE STATEMENT THAT IS THE MOST LIBELOUS AND WARRANTS LEGAL ACTION:
...”rather, they hire most unqualified employees and don’t even run background checks because it costs them money.  At one point they had some employees working there that had background issues and they were never addressed”
This statement is 100% false, can be proven to be false from our State background check and FBI fingerprint records (which is maintained by the State of Texas and on file).  Ms. [redacted] would not even know if we did or did not do background check on an employee, she has no access to our employee files.  So, her statement, while being libelous and actionable, is also reckless, negligent and made with the sole purpose of harming our reputation.
 
As I said, we have never been cited for not having a background check and there is and has never been a single employee in our employ with a background warranting removal from our school.
 
We repair things in our facility as they arise.  No one yells at children, this just does not happen.  We are a private pre-school and have received many accolades through out the years for our leadership as well as the cleanliness of our facility.
 
At this point, I really do not want to waste any more of my time responding to these false and libelous and reckless allegations.  As I stated before, we did not “let her out of her contract”, we made her leave, it was too much to bare.
 
I would encourage the Revdex.com to not publish, comment or otherwise give any further consideration to Ms. [redacted] false comments. This will most likely end up in litigation if it is published further or is considered/referenced in any type of rating viewable by the public.   Rather, I would welcome the Revdex.com, at anytime, to come and tour our $2 million facility and make your own decision on how we do business. 
 
I feel, at this point, with the libelous comments in this complaint, I need to copy our attorney on this response so he has a full understanding of what has been published to this point by Ms. [redacted].
 
Thanks you
 
[redacted] 
[redacted] A. [redacted], Attorney, CPA
President
Educational Childcare with a Purpose
 
Children’s Lighthouse
Learning Center at Alamo Ranch
5610 Lone Star Pkwy
San Antonio, Texas 78253
[redacted]
###-###-#### Fax
www.childrenslighthouseAR.com