Complaint·September 20, 2024

(Continued from LIC 809) LS further stated that if an unfamiliar person arrives and provides proof of their identification showing they are an authorized representative, LS would allow them entry to the facility. LS stated on the alleged incident when an unknown individual arrived requesting entry to the home LS declined the individual due to not providing identification and not previously seeing the individual or \342\200\234not recognizing the individual\342\200\235 or being on the list of authorized representatives. LS also stated it was for the safely of the children. From further investigation, it was determined that the unknown individual was the child\342\200\231s authorized representative, but no proof of identification or court order was submitted. LS stated she allowed the older children to be on the upper platform in front of the facility's entrance door but always had the front door open to supervise them at all times while she and/or the assistant was inside. Furthermore, LS stated the children would be on the platform for roughly 30 minutes and the younger children were not allowed on the platform. Interviews from Adults (A2 & A3) stated that they were allowed entry to the facility, with A3 stating to have done a walkthrough inside the home. Interviews conducted by children had no concerns with the facility at this time. But an interview from C2 stated that LS would have the front door open to supervise them when on the upper platform, corroborating LS's statement. Based on the information gathered during this investigation, although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove that the allegations occurred and therefore are determined to be unsubstantiated. There were no Title 22 deficiencies cited. This report was reviewed and discussed with the Licensee, Norma Hernandez. Appeal rights were provided. Notice of Site Visit shall be posted for 30 days from today's visit.