complaint·April 19, 2023

The Director stated that on 02/21/2023, she took part in a meeting with the parents of Child#1, and Staff#1. During the meeting it was agreed upon that the start time for Child#1 will be changed from 7:30AM to 7:15AM. LPA Lee observed that the start time for Staff#1 did change from 7:30AM to 7:15AM after 02/17/2023 according to the sign in sheet for staff. The sign in sheet for Child#1 was also reviewed during the course of this investigation. LPA Lee observed that Child#1's start time varied between 7:28AM and 7:32AM from 02/17/23 until 02/23/23. Although the times in the sign in sheet for Child#1 does seem to indicate the Child was still being dropped off at the usual time of 7:30AM despite agreeing to an earlier time on 02/21/23, the reporting party did state that the parent of Child#1 had to wait to sign in the child despite arriving earlier in the initial details of the allegation. According to the Director on 02/28/2023, the parent of Child#1 arrived at the facility in the morning but there was no one available to open the door. The parent contacted the Director after about 15 minutes of waiting near the entrance. The Director stated that she contacted and asked Staff#1 why the parent of Child#1 was not being signed in. According to the Director the staff initially stated that it was due being busy watching another child and not hearing the doorbell. The parent of Child#1 stated that Staff#1 refused to provide care and asked the parent to leave on 02/28/23. The Director stated that although she did not hear Staff#1 state this, Child#1 did not attend school on 02/28/23, and the parents of Child#1 chose to withdraw their child during in person meeting on 03/01/23. The Director stated she did verify that no child was present at the facility on 02/28/23 before Child#1 arrived at the entrance. The Director and another staff member stated that Staff#1 resigned from their position on 02/28/23. Although the facility does advertise the hours of operation as starting at 7AM, Child#1's start time was 7:30AM as per the copy of the admission agreement, This start time was changed to 7:15AM on 02/21/23. On 02/28/23, staff#1 did not answer the doorbell of the facility for about 15 minutes before refusing to provide care for Child#1 and asking the parent to leave the facility. By not answering the door and refusing to provide care to a child that has already been enrolled, the facility staff is not following operating hours. Based on the evidence collected during this investigation, the preponderance of evidence has been met. Therefore, the allegation stating the facility staff not following facilities operating hours has been substantiated. The deficiency listed on the attached LIC 9099D are being cited in accordance with California Code of Regulations Title 22. The notice of site inspection must remain posted for a period of 30 day during hours of operation. Failure to maintain posting will result in a civil penalty of $100.00 dollars. Exit interview conducted with DIrector Sakuntala Abeyasekera. Appeal rights discussed and explained. Based on the information obtained during interviews, the facility staff that opens in the morning is also responsible for cleaning and sanitizing the facility before the first child arrives in the morning. Child#1 who is mentioned in the allegations used to be the first child to arrive to the facility around 7:30AM when the Child attended the facility until 02/28/2023. It is possible that the cleaning done prior to Child#1 arriving in the morning was completed with appropriate equipment and supplies that are acceptable to use in a child care setting. It is also possible that the cleaning was done in an improper manner or done using materials that are not appropriate in a child care center. The reporting party stated that the smells of the facility was strong enough to make Child#1 develop a cough during their time attending the facility. Although it is possible that cleaning done by facility did cause Child#1 to become ill, a child developing a cough does not automatically mean that it was due to improper cleaning or cleaning materials from the facility. The complaint also stated that Child#1 would look quite dehydrated and would want to drink milk after being picked up from the facility. The facility denied this allegation and made no disclosure. During an interview, the staff members that provided care for Child#1 in the classroom stated that Child#1 did not like to drink water. The staff member stated that Child#1 preferred to drink milk instead of water. The staff member stated that although Child#1 was always offered water from the facility to drink, the child refused and the staff member could not force a child to drink more water due to children's personal rights. Therefore, based on the evidence collected during the investigation, the allegation Staff exposed day-care child to chemicals and facility is not providing a sufficient amount of fluids to child in care may be valid. However, there is not enough preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation did or did not occur, therefore at this time the above allegations are found to be unsubstantiated. The notice of site inspection must remain posted for a period of 30 day during hours of operation. Failure to maintain posting will result in a civil penalty of $100.00 dollars. Exit interview conducted with DIrector Sakuntala Abeyasekera. Appeal rights discussed and explained.