Complaint·June 18, 2024

Since the cameras were not yet in use, the facility decided to disconnect the internet until further notice. Staff initially believed R1 was accessing the internet through R1’s mobile device, and only discovered R1 had been connecting to the facility’s internet when it was disconnected. It was relayed to R1 that R1 could access the internet through R1's mobile device, if that was what R1 desired. An interview with an external source revealed conflicting statements regarding why the internet service was disconnected. This source corroborated R1 had internet access since R1’s admission, but that the internet service was disconnected due to R1 mismanaging R1’s money. This source confirmed R1 had a history of mismanaging money. A review of R1’s admission agreement confirmed there was no mention of internet service provided at the facility, nor any additional charge for such service. Although Title 22 indicates facilities must afford privacy when a resident uses the internet, and ensure a device is available for all residents during reasonable hours, if the facility offers internet service, there is no regulation that requires the facility to provide internet service. Based on the evidence obtained, the allegation was unsubstantiated. An exit interview was conducted with Owner Patricia Tapia and Administrator Christine Tapia, to whom a copy of this report, and Licensee/Appeals Rights (LIC 9058), were provided.