Complaint·May 14, 2026

Two staff were interviewed on 2/12/26 and 5/8/26. One staff member, (S1) shared that the center’s policy is to make the time out period is 1 minute per age of child. One staff member, (S2) stated they had been coached on their delivery of a time out after a witness observed a child being put in a 10-minute time out. S2 stated they were corrected on that action by the licensee and understood that was inappropriate for the developmental age of the child. S2 ensured this disciplinary action would not be repeated moving forward. Three children (C1-C3) were interviewed on 2/12/26. All children interviewed stated that kids get time out when they are not listening or making bad choices. One child, C2 stated that children are in time out for “a long time” but they could not articulate how long. Another child, C3 stated children get put in time out when they don’t make good choices but they could not share the amount of time they spend. None of the kids interviewed shared any concerns or fears with regards to staff discipline. Eight parents were interviewed on 5/8/26 and 5/11/26. All parents interviewed disclosed they are aware of the disciplinary policy and have witnessed staff using appropriate forms of discipline. Parents interviewed indicated that the staff policy is to put children in time out for a period of a minute per age. All parents shared they have observed the disciplinary actions and believe they were appropriate for their child and none had concerns regarding the safety or personal rights of children in care. On 2/12/26 LPA received copies of the facility roster, the parent handbook with discipline policy and the staff handbook with the discipline policy. Documentation showed the facility’s discipline policy is to administer a time out which includes one minute per age for children in care. Based on interviews LPA determined that S2 did administer a 10-minute time out and licensee coached and corrected the behavior. LPA determined that the staff did use an inappropriate form of discipline. Based on the evidence obtained, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met, therefore the above allegation is found to be substantiated. California Code of Regulations, (Title 22), is being cited on the attached LIC 9099D. CCR 101223.2 (a) Exit interview conducted and report was reviewed with the licensee Michelle Nitzen. Appeal rights were provided. A notice of site visit was given and must remain posted for 30 days. Failure to comply with posting requirements shall result in an immediate civil penalty of $100.