Skip to main content

Inspection visit

complaint

Clean visit · 0 citations

Inspector’s narrative

What the inspector wrote

During interviews with staff, all four individuals stated that they have not observed any child with a severe diaper rash within the past month. However, staff did mention a single instance in which a child had a minor diaper rash, which was promptly addressed by informing the parents. The parents requested the application of diaper cream and did not express any concerns to staff or suggest that the rash resulted from facilities neglect. No other incidents of diaper rash were recalled by staff during this time period. Staff also noted that every diaper change is documented using a facility-wide application, ProCare, which includes notes on whether diaper cream was used and any observed signs of irritation. Additionally, the facility keeps physical diapering logs that indicate the type of change and whether cream was applied. During parent interviews, no concerns were expressed by parents interviewed. Parents did state that they have no concerns with the facility. No disclosures were made pertaining to the allegation. LPA Perry reviewed both the facility-wide application, ProCare and physical diapering logs and observed consistent documentation for the past month with diapering. LPA also observed the proper storage of diapering creams along with their nonprescription administration forms signed by parents to be on file. Based on interviews, observations and disclosures made during the department investigation, no disclosures were made by staff or parents pertaining to the allegation above, "Staff are not meeting children's toileting needs." While there was one documented case of diaper rash, the timeline of that incident does not align with the timing of the complaint, suggesting that the two are unrelated. 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 and report provided to Director Megha Sahni.

Citations

No citations recorded on this visit

The inspector found no violations of California child care regulations during this visit.

FAQ · About this visit

Common questions about this visit

What happened during the April 25, 2025 inspection of BLOSSOM GARDEN LEARNING ACADEMY?

This was a complaint inspection of BLOSSOM GARDEN LEARNING ACADEMY on April 25, 2025. The inspection found no deficiencies and no citations were issued.

Were any citations issued to BLOSSOM GARDEN LEARNING ACADEMY on April 25, 2025?

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 complaint inspection. Complaint inspections are triggered when someone reports a concern about the facility to CCLD.

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.