complaint·April 16, 2025

On 1/10/2025 While interviewing the Administrator/Licensee Gina Licup, they confirmed that they along with backup administrator Marjorie Osia were made of aware of S1 having married R1 while on an outing on 2/9/2024. Licensee states that they advised S1 and R1 to not disclose the marriage to other residents and staff. On 7/25/2024 LPA interviewed both R1 and S1. R1 disclosed that S1 asked them to marry them multiple times and that they initially said no but later changed their mind. R1 told LPA that the first time S1 asked them to marry it was after living at the facility for a few months and after they said no S1 asked again a few months later. S1 confirmed that they did ask R1 to marry them and they were initially hesitant but later agreed when they asked again. On 7/25/2024 LPA interviewed the Assistant Administrator Marjorie Osia who stated that they were aware of the relationship between R1 and S1. Licensee and Assistant Administrator found out about the marriage approximately a month after R1 and S1 were married. Assistant Administrator stated that they were going to make an abuse report but decided not to so that the Licensee/Administrator could handle the situation. Livensee/Administrator states that they never reported the relationship because R1 does not have a dementia diagnosis however Administrator also disclosed that R1 had recently been financially abused by their previous responsible party which is also why the administrator states that they did not inform R1’s responsible party/emergency contact. LPA also obtained copies of the Employee handbook and reviewed that it instructed employees to not use their position for personal gain. On 1/10/2025 Administrator stated that they fired S1 on 10/31/2024 because of the ongoing investigation of the allegation “Facility staff engaging in inappropriate relationship with resident” on 11/31/2024 R1 left the facility. Administrator states that S1 and R1 now live together at R1’s home. Based on LPAs observations and interviews which were conducted, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met, therefore the above allegations are found to be SUBSTANTIATED. California Code of Regulations (Title 22, Division 6, Chapter 8), are being cited on the attached LIC 9099D Exit interview conducted. Appeal Rights and a copy of this report provided