complaint·March 13, 2025

According to the Reporting Party (RP), “the infant classroom has no toys for the children. Rp also reports it seems all the toys were removed so children can't fall is what they have told the rp.” During interviews conducted with staff, all staff corroborated that toys are available for the children and are brought out during different activity times throughout the day. Additionally, staff stated that they do have enough age-appropriate toys available le for the children in care. S#4 stated that. “Some toys cause a concern to use since we have such a big age group. That’s why I like to have a little bit of toys because the older children in the class will hit the younger children with it. That class has a big age group.” Additionally, S#4 stated, “too many items on the floor is also not good because children will get hurt and we want to keep them safe.” Staff stated that they did not disclose that toys were put away so the children can not fall. Parent interviews made no disclosures pertaining to the above allegation. All parents disclosed that they have no issues with the facility and are very satisfied with the facility. LPA did observe during the investigation that the classroom was noted to be lacking adequate toys and equipment for the children in care. Additionally, LPA Perry observed some toys in the classroom, however, LPA did note that toy cabinets were faced the opposite way where they are made inaccessible to the children to reach and play with. LPA did not see a variety of age-appropriate toys during inspections. LPA did not see an adequate amount and combination amount of toys that provide and encourage auditory stimulation, visual stimulation, tactile stimulation and manipulative skills. When LPA conducted interviews with staff it was disclosed by all staff that toy cabinets were turned around and are brought out during different activities depending on the curriculum. Based on interviews, observations and disclosures made during the department investigation, the preponderance of evidence and the standard has been met, therefore, the allegation is found to be substantiated. California Code of Regulations (Title 22 Division & Chapter), are being cited on the attached deficiencies page LIC 9099-D. These incidents pose a potential risk to the Health and Safety of the children in care. A notice of site visit was given and must remain posted for 30 days. Appeal Rights provided. Failure to comply with posting requirements shall result in an immediate civil penalty of $100. Appeal rights were given and explained. Exit interview conducted, report provided to Lead Teacher Erica Canales. According to the Reporting Party (RP), “a little boy was left in the hallway, and this was never reported to Licensing.” Also sated was, “Rp walked in and child was standing there and the whole classroom was outside.” During interviews conducted with staff, all staff corroborated that no child was left unattended in the hallway. Additionally, S#4 stated that face to name checks are conducted during transitions and a white board with counts is completed periodically when staff enter and exit the room. Also stated was that they use pro care app to see everything as to who is in the classroom and who is not as well as what children are in our care. S#1 stated. “Oh no no, we have gates they can’t open and like I said we maintain supervision. They are infants and can't just leave since we have always 3 teachers and a 4 to 1 ratio. We know who is always in our care.” Parent interviews made no disclosures pertaining to the above allegation. All parents disclosed that they have no issues with the facility and are very satisfied with the facility. LPA did observe facility in compliance with the required staff-to-child ratios and present staff are fully qualified as confirmed by file review. LPA did not observe any lack of supervision. All children were observed to be in their assigned classrooms and in supervision. All children were always in care with a teacher and in sight of the teacher. LPA also observed child gates in place to prevent children from leaving. Based on interviews, observations and disclosures made during the department investigation, no disclosures were made by staff or parents pertaining to the allegation above. Therefore, although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation did or did not occur, therefore the allegation is unsubstantiated. A notice of site visit was given and must remain posted for 30 days. Appeal Rights provided. Failure to comply with posting requirements shall result in an immediate civil penalty of $100. Appeal rights were given and explained. Exit interview conducted, report provided to Director Megha Sahni.