complaint·March 10, 2026

Director stated after LPAs initial inspection, Director started thinking, “oh, parents don’t know the difference especially on camera. So that’s why we decided to have spray bottles specifically labeled for water only.” The facility actively addressed the concern. LPA discussed best practices and the perceptions of parents and/or authorized representatives. Director stated she understood and will ensure compliance. Although, the facility is spraying children with water, it cannot be determined if staff are spraying children with toxic substances; therefore, although the above allegation may have happened or are valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence at this time to prove the alleged violation did or did not occur, therefore the allegation is UNSUBSTANTIATED. This agency investigated the allegation; staff are not ensuring that sleeping cots are equipped with a sheet or cover. During the course of the investigation, LPA conducted observations, interviews, obtained and reviewed records. The investigation revealed through interviews that the facility has protocols in place when a child does not have a sheet or cover for their cot. Interviews revealed that parents or authorized representatives are responsible for providing their own child with a sheet or cover for the cot. Interviews also revealed that each classroom stores extra sheets and are provided for children. If there are no sheets in the classrooms, protocol is to ask the adjoining classrooms then contact Director. However, when the facility cannot provide extras for children parents are contacted to bring extras for their child. Though the facility is taking measures to ensure children are provided with a sheet or cover for the child’s cot. LPA advised Director to have more than enough sheets or covers on site to ensure a child is never left without one per regulation 101239.1(c) Napping Equipment, when parent or authorized representative cannot be reached. Director stated she understood and will ensure compliance moving forward. Although the above allegation may have happened or are valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence at this time to prove the alleged violation did or did not occur, therefore the allegation is UNSUBSTANTIATED. Exit interview conducted and report was reviewed with Director Dealma Ford. Per Title 22, Division 12, Chapter 1 of the California Code of Regulations, no deficiencies are cited. Director Dealma Ford was provided with appeal rights. This report shall be made available to the public upon request. LIC 9213 A Notice of Site Visit is provided and required to be posted for 30 days. Failure to comply with posting requirements shall result in an immediate civil penalty of $100.