complaint·June 16, 2023

According to the allegation, Staff #1 (S1) told Child #1 (C1) to pull up their shirt because C1 was thought to be hiding a cell phone. Licensee, Staff #1, and children interviewed stated cell phone usage is not allowed at the facility. C1 stated, S1 \342\200\234told me to put away my phone. I went into the bathroom and sneaked and got my phone\342\200\246and was about to put my phone back\342\200\235. C1 stated S1 told C1, \342\200\234Lift up your shirt\342\200\235. C1 stated they did not lift their shirt. During interviews S1 was asked if they have asked a child to lift their shirt to show if they were hiding a cell phone. S1 state \342\200\234No\342\200\235. Children interviewed stated they did not observe anyone trying to hide a cell phone under their shirt. Licensee stated although she did not ask S1 if they asked C1 to lift their shirt, she does not think S1 would ask C1 to lift her shirt. Parents interviewed stated they are happy with the care being provided to their child(ren). Allegation #2: Facility staff inappropriately picks on daycare child Complaint alleges the licensee blames C1 for incidents and not the other children. Complaint states the licensee discriminates against C1 as C1 is the only African American child. During interviews Staff #1 stated she treats everyone equally. Licensee denies staff inappropriately pick on C1 or any children in care. Children interviewed stated all the children are treated the same. Parents interviewed stated they are happy with the care being provided to their child(ren). Allegation #3: Licensee inappropriately spoke to a daycare child Complaint alleges the licensee told C1 to not kiss their brother on the lips and licensee told C1 \342\200\234Do not do that. My parents do not like that.\342\200\235 Licensee stated she asked the parent of C1 is it was OK for C1 to kiss her brother on the lips, but did not have any other conversation regarding the matter. No disclosures were made by Staff #1 or children regarding the licensee inappropriately speaking to children. Parents stated they are happy with the care being provided to their children and do not have any concerns regarding the facility. Page 2 of 3 Based on interviews with staff, children, and parents, there was no supporting evidence to validate the allegations. Although the allegations may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violations did or did not occur, therefore the allegations are unsubstantiated. There were no deficiencies cited on the above-mentioned allegations per California Code of Regulations Title 22. 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. Exit interview conducted and report was reviewed with Licensee, Estela Guerrero. Page 3 of 3