complaint·May 5, 2023

Per parent that picked up child they asked Licensee what happened and asked what child ate. They were informed that child ate a \342\200\234mexican soup\342\200\235- per parent they asked why child was given that soup if child does not eat solids. RP disclosed that when other parent informed them via text about rash and swelling, RP texted Licensee inquiring about the rash. Licensee responded they thought it was child\342\200\231s eczema and that they given child some Mexican soup. According to RP their child had recently started eating solids- and told Licensee that it was fine to give child new food but to keep them informed of any reactions. Additionally, RP stated that their child was having a \342\200\234bit of an eczema outbreak\342\200\235 around their lips and had applied cream the morning of the incident. Per RP they took child to urgent care, and they were informed that child had an allergic reaction to something but unknown to what. LPA conducted interviews with Licensee and assistant who stated that child arrived with a rash and were informed that it was eczema. Both S1 and S2 corroborated that face was not swollen while at daycare and assumed rash was eczema. Additionally, they stated that they did not call parents to inform them as they have seen child\342\200\231s eczema worse other days and when parents were called, they did not seem concern. Per S1 child # 1 ate a fideo soup (soup with vegetables) on that day, they stated that they have given this soup to child before and child did not have a reaction. Both S1 and S2 corroborated that menu is posted by signing in sheets and they inform parents if anything changes, or any new food is introduced. LPA conducted interviews with parents. All parents\342\200\231 statements corroborated that they are happy with the care their child receives. Additionally, parents corroborated that menu is posted by signing in sheet and that licensee informs them if any new food was given. This agency has investigated the complaint alleging personal rights violation. Based upon the evidence as presented above, the allegations have been determined to be Unsubstantiated. A finding of Unsubstantiated means that although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove alleged violation(s) did or did not occur.------------pg. 2 of 3------ therefore at this time the above allegation is unsubstantiated. 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 the licensee Leslie Lopez ------------------------------------------------ pg. 3 of 3 -------------------------------------------------------