complaint·December 3, 2025

Allegation- Staff did not provide food in the quantity necessary to meet child's needs. According to the RP, teachers denied breakfast to a child. The RP did not provide a child\342\200\231s name or date, only S11 was identified. No additional information was provided by the RP. Interviews conducted with S11 revealed P1 contacted them on 09/05 and stated that staff denied C1 breakfast because the child arrived after 08:30am which is after the breakfast cutoff. Per S11, the facility would save breakfast if there were arrangements made prior; however, P1 did not make any arrangements to save breakfast for C1 on 09/05. S11 corroborated that S12 spoke with P1, denied breakfast to the child due to arriving after 8:30am, asked P1 to take C1 to have breakfast outside of the premises and then return to the facility. Interviews conducted with S1 revealed that they know C1; however, they don\342\200\231t have any recollection of any incidents that may have occurred on 09/05. Per S1, breakfast is offered from 08:00am through 08:30am and breakfast cut off is at 8:30am. S1 also revealed that C1 would arrive late; however, arrangements were made between the parent and administration to save breakfast for the child. Per S1, they recall writing the breakfast schedule on the child\342\200\231s daily report and notifying the parent or authorized representative during pick up as well. According to S1, parents are advised that if they are running late and want to save breakfast for their children, they must call administration. Interviews conducted with S2 revealed that they know C1 and recall what occurred on 09/05; however, they deny that the facility denied breakfast to C1. According to S2, C1 arrived at approximately 08:45am after the breakfast cut off and all children were done eating and were washing their hands. Per S2, the food tray was still in the classroom and remembers that on that day the facility offered either oatmeal, porridge, or cream of wheat. S2 stated that they were about to start cleaning up when P1 asked if C1 could be fed and S2 asked the parent if they spoke with S12 because they didn\342\200\231t want to get in trouble. According to S2, P1 replied \342\200\234no because I was driving.\342\200\235 S2 then called S12 over the walkie talkie to let them know that P1 was headed to the office. Per S2, P1 left with C1 to speak with S12, and recall that C1 returned to the classroom between 09:45am-10:00am. S2 also disclosed that C1s schedule varied throughout the week therefore sometimes P1 would call administration to save breakfast. Interviews conducted S3 thru S10 did not reveal any information that corroborate the allegation. LPA couldn\342\200\231t interview children as they are infant/toddlers. LPA conducted interviews with P1 thru 6 who made disclosures. Interviews conducted with P1 revealed that on 09/05 they arrived at the facility at 08:32am and observed children having breakfast. Page 2 of 3 P1 also observed food trays in the classroom and asked S1 and S2 if they could feed C1. Per P1, staff advised the parent to speak with S12 since it was past the breakfast schedule. P1 spoke with S12 and asked if C1 could be fed breakfast since all children were still eating, and the food trays were in the classroom. According to P1, S12 stated that due the facility protocol it was not possible to feed C1 and that P1 had to sign C1 out of the facility, take the child to Denny\342\200\231s, and bring/sign in the child back to the facility. P1 did not agree with signing out C1, having to take the child for breakfast somewhere else, or that S12 was not willing to accommodate the child due to unforeseen circumstances. P1 left the facility to feed C1 breakfast, found out that S12 deleted the sign in on the Procare app, and had to sign in C1 again. P1 stated that the facility procedure is to call or email the staff so that arrangements can be made to save breakfast; however, on 09/05 it was not possible to contact the facility which was explained to S12. Interviews conducted with P2 and P3 did not reveal any information that corroborate the allegation. P2 and P3 do not have any issues or concerns regarding the meals/services being provided by the facility. LPA attempted to interviews with P4, P5, and P6; however, P5 declined LPAs interview. P4 and P6 did not return LPAs call. LPA reviewed the facility breakfast policy in the parent handbook. The facility listed the schedules for breakfast, lunch, and snack; however, it does not have a policy regarding parents/authorized representatives having to make any arrangements to save breakfast if they are running late. Also, the parent handbook does not state that breakfast will not be provided to children if they arrive after the scheduled breakfast. LPA reviewed the sign in/out for C1 dated 09/05; however, the Procare app did not capture the sign in at 8:32am. S11 corroborated that C1\342\200\231s initial sign in was deleted by S12. LPA reviewed the daily report for C1 dated 09/05 and did not observe a sign in time. According to the facility staff, the Procare app does not save the deleted sign in. Per P1, they received notification of the sign in on 09/05; however, they couldn\342\200\231t locate the notification. This agency has investigated the complaint alleging \342\200\234Staff did not provide food in the quantity necessary to meet child's needs.\342\200\235 Based on interviews and records reviewed, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met, therefore the above allegation is found to be SUBSTANTIATED. California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 12, Chapter 1, the following deficiencies are being cited (see attached 9099D). A notice of site visit was given and must remain posted for 30 days. An exit interview was conducted, and a copy of this report was provided to the facility representative Stephanie Garcia. Page 3 of 3