complaint·October 23, 2025

(Continued from LIC 9099) According to evidence received by the department, children initially described themselves as being encouraged to smoke by T1 and S2. Furthermore, interview with Adult (A5) revealed they observed LS smoking in the facility. In accordance with California Code of Regulations 102424 Smoking Prohibition, Smoking is prohibited on the premises of a family child care home as specified in Health and Safety Code Section 1596.795(a). Based on the information gathered during this investigation, the preponderance of the evidence standard has been met. Therefore, the allegation are determined to be substantiated. California Code of Regulations, Title 22, is being cited on the attached LIC 9099-D. Appeal rights were provided. An exit interview was conducted, and this report was read and discussed with the facility’s Licensee, Michelle McBrayer. The Notice of Site Visit shall be posted for 30 days. Continued from LIC 9099-A. However, LS stated that T1 does reside at the facility and does interact with the older children under LS or S1’s supervision. LS stated that children do not get hit at the facility and if a child misbehaves, the child would be sent to time out and would write a statement as a way of discipline. Interviews from Staff (S1 & S2) stated T1 does not assist with the daycare and is never alone with the children. Staff (S1 & S2) did state that T1 does play with the older children and S2 further stated that T1 is around children when S2 is assisting with the daycare. Furthermore, Staff (S1 & S2) stated that if a child misbehaves, they must take time out, corroborating with LS’s statement. A statement from T1 stated to have assisted LS’s daycare by doing tasks including cleaning and setting up lunches, however, they are never alone with the children. T1 also stated to have never hit any children. According to evidence received by the department, children initially described that T1 was given permission by LS to hit children and T1 had previously hit children in care. LPA interviews did not provide any verifying information about the incident; no corroborating evidence was revealed. Children interviews (C4 & C5) stated there was a previous time when Staff member was observed spanking child at the facility. Interviews conducted by Children (C1 – C3) and Adults (A3 – A6) did not have any current concerns with the facility at this time. Based on the information gathered during this investigation, although the allegations may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove that the allegation occurred and therefore are determined to be unsubstantiated. There were no Title 22 deficiencies cited. This report was reviewed and discussed with the Licensee, Michelle McBrayer. Appeal rights were provided. Notice of Site Visit shall be posted for 30 days from today's visit.