Skip to main content

Inspection visit

Follow-up

Clean visit · 0 citations

Inspector’s narrative

What the inspector wrote

Licensing Program Analysts (LPAs) Tatiana Bickham and Decondia Ferguson conducted an unannounced Case Management Inspection on 2/17/2026 at 11:40 am. The purpose of this inspection is to follow up on an incident reported to the Department regarding the Licensee's dog. Per the Reporting Party, there have been incidents involving the Licensee's dog and other dogs and residents in the area, raising concerns that the dog could pose a potential risk to the children in care. LPAs reviewed documentation from the Licensee's insurance company and animal control, which indicated that the Licensee was not found at fault for any incidents. LPAs also reviewed a video from the reported day and did not observe the Licensee's dog causing harm to any person or animal. Per Licensee, there was an incident in 2024 where their dog got out of the yard and bit a mail carrier. Since that incident, the Licensee no longer allows the dog in the front yard and has added additional padlocks to the two front gates leading to the driveway. LPAs toured the home and observed the Licensee's dog in the backyard. Per Licensee, the dog does not interact with the daycare children. If the children are in the backyard, the dog is secured behind another gate within the yard. There are two entrances from the driveway to the backyard, and both are padlocked. LPAs reviewed the vaccination record for the Licensee's dog. Based on observations and documentation, LPAs do not deem the Licensee's dog to pose a risk to the children in care. Exit interview was conducted with Licensee and appeal rights were provided.

Citations

3 citations recorded*CCLD

What does Type A vs Type B mean?

Type A. Serious citation. Imminent or substantial risk to children. The regulator requires corrective action immediately and may impose a civil penalty.

Type B. Lower-severity citation. Corrective action required, no imminent risk. The regulator monitors compliance on the next visit.

  • STAFFING RATIO AND CAPACITY

    Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee did not comply with the section cited above in which poses an immediate health, safety or personal rights risk to persons in care.

  • 102425(c)Type B

    INFANT SAFE SLEEP

    Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee did not comply with the section cited above in 6 out of 6 persons which poses a potential health, safety or personal rights risk to persons in care.

  • 102425(j)(2)(D)(c)Type B

    Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee did not comply with the section cited above in 6 out of 6 persons which poses a potential health, safety or personal rights risk to persons in care.

FAQ · About this visit

Common questions about this visit

What happened during the February 17, 2026 inspection of NANAYAKKARA FAMILY CHILD CARE?

This was a other inspection of NANAYAKKARA FAMILY CHILD CARE on February 17, 2026. The inspection found no deficiencies and no citations were issued.

Were any citations issued to NANAYAKKARA FAMILY CHILD CARE on February 17, 2026?

No citations were issued during this inspection. The facility was found to be in compliance with all applicable regulations.

What type of inspection was this?

This was a other inspection. other inspections are conducted by CCLD as part of their licensing oversight.

SourceView on CCLDView original report

Share this reportEmail

Next steps

If this is your facility,claim this pageand add your response to the public record. Free.

Spotted an inaccuracy on this visit?Request a reviewand we will check it against the public record.

Researching this visit professionally?Book a 20-minute calland we will walk through what we have on file.

Data from CCLD public records. Last updated . If you believe any information is inaccurate, report it here.