complaint·December 20, 2024

During staff interviews, Director stated that when a child sustains an injury that an Ouchy report is created, and the report is provided to the parents. Per Staff #1-6 they communicate with parents via Himama app and notify the parents if their child was injured or their child caused injury. Parent #3 and #5 disclosed that they have noticed several marks and scratches on their children's face and arms within the last year when picking their child up from school and there has been no Ouch report provided to them at the time of pick up. According to Parent #3 and #5 they had to ask their child’s teacher for clarification on their child’s injuries. Parent #5 stated “sometimes I would have to ask because I would get home and see marks”, and " sometimes I have to asked and they would tell me, but they would give me the same story". Parent #3 stated that they “would have to ask the school what happened”. According to the allegations, staff left daycare child in soiled diapers resulting in a diaper rash. During the investigation, LPA conducted interviews with staff and parents. Staff #2 and Staff #6 stated that children who wear diapers are changed every two hours or when necessary. According to Staff #6, they are "not exactly sure" if there is a diaper policy in place. According to Director and staff, diaper changes are documented on the Himama app and parents are notified of any bowel movement that the child has had during their time at school. Parents #4 corroborated with the allegation that their child had a “full diaper” during pick up time, and that this occurred “5 times” during a two-month period that resulted in the child having a rash. During record review, LPA observed the diaper log that on August 2,2024 diaper changes were occurring every 2 to 3 hours and Child #4 diaper changes were occurring every 3 to 5 hours. According to the allegations, facility is operating beyond the scope of their license. During the investigation, LPA reviewed children’s files and observed that Child #1 (C1) was enrolled and present in the school prior to their 2nd birthday. C1’s Identification and Emergency Information Card (LIC 700) corroborated that C1 was under the age of two at the time of enrollment. LPA requested to see sign in and sign out sheets for the month of August and September and noted that C1 was attending the school prior to their 2nd birthday and was amongst children that were above the age of 2 in the classroom. C1 was attending the preschool for a week prior to turning 2 years old. According to facility license it stipulates “age range 2 thru Kindergarten”, and LPA observed no Toddler component attached to their license that allows clients to be serve from the ages of 18 to 36 months. LPA notified Director Veronica Palomera of C1’s age at the time of investigation. According to the Director that C1 was enrolled to the school prior to her being hired as a director and was unaware of the age of C1. --------------------------------------------------------------P.g. 2 out of 3--------------------------------------------------------------- According to the allegations, staff did not ensure that the facility is free from pests. During the facility tour, LPA observed mosquitoes in the Busy Bees and Caterpillars classroom. LPA asked if mosquitoes are prevalent in the school and Director stated that mosquitoes are “seasonal from July to August”, and that they have contacted a pest control company to obtain a quote. LPA observed that there were several puddles of stagnant water in the outdoor play area. LPA asked the Director the if they knew how long the standing water was there. Per Director, staff cleans the outdoor play area on a daily basis with a water hose. LPA observed a fish tank in the Caterpillars classroom that was filled with stagnant water, and a thin layer of algae growing on the side of the fish tank. During staff interviews, Staff #6 stated that there are children in the school that have had allergic reaction to mosquito bites. Per Staff #6 that there was a child in the Turtles classroom that would experience redness and swelling when bitten by mosquitoes. Staff #2 and Staff #3 corroborated that the school has mosquitoes primarily near the front office where the children and parents must sign in and out in front of the main office. According to Staff #1 – 6 that staff will apply mosquito repellant spray to children before and after outdoor play time. Per Director, they obtained parent permission to spray the children with bug repellant, and the permission forms are kept in the classrooms. During parent interviews, Parent #4 disclosed that their child would get “9 to 10 bites a day” during the summer and that the school would apply bug repellant spray to children. Based on interviews conducted by the LPA and the staffs’ own statements, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met, therefore the above allegations are found to be SUBSTANTIATED. California Code of Regulations, (Title 22, Division 12 & chapter 1), are being cited on the attached LIC 9099D. 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. An exit interview conducted, and the report was reviewed with Administrator. --------------------------------------------------------------P.g. 3 out of 3---------------------------------------------------------------