complaint·April 23, 2025

On 4/19/23, LPA Kelly Nguyen interviewed S1, who stated not having knowledge of the incident until receiving a telephone call from S2, stating that S2 was being interviewed by the local Police Department regarding a report received pertaining to S3. S1 stated having immediately contacted the third-party agency from which S3 came from and informed that agency that S3 could not come back to the facility. S1 stated having then contacted family to discuss the situation. On 4/19/23, LPA KN also spoke to S2, who stated that S2 was interviewed by local police pertaining to a report they received alleging that S3 had sexually assaulted a resident. S2 had no knowledge of the incident and informed S1 of the police interview. S2 was aware that S1 contacted the third-party agency and instructed them that S3 could not return to the facility. On 4/22/23 and 4/24/23, LPA KN attempted to contact S3 but found the only known number was not in operation. At case filing, there was information pertaining to S4, but S4 had already been found to have left the United States, prior to CCLD receiving the case. LPA KN found no contact information for S4. On 4/26/24, the Department received a copy of the police report pertaining to the incident. It was observed that an officer responded on 1/3/23; and found that S3 had been terminated on that same day. PD interviewed R1 who provided a corroborating statement, and was able to interview S4 who stated having requested S3 to assist with R1 as S3 was escorting 2 residents from the dining room to their rooms. After being in the other resident’s room for approximately 4 minutes, S4 heard a yell come from R1s room. Upon responding, R1 was looking outside of R1’s door but did not disclose any issued to S4. W1 also provided a corroborating statement for the sequence of events. Following a CALICO interview and meeting with S3 on 1/19/23 – whereby S3 admitted to kissing R1’s chest area, the PD believed that S4 had committed sexual battery upon R1. S4 was taken into custody that day. Based upon information obtained, the Department has investigated this complaint determined that the preponderance of evidence standard has been met. Therefore, the allegation is found to be Substantiated. Deficiency cited per Title 22, California Code of Regulations and listed on the attached LIC9099D. Failure to submit proof of correction by the due date may result in civil penalties. Exit interview conducted and a copy of this report and appeal rights were provided.