Complaint·January 4, 2023

During the staff interview, licensee stated the following: they have had an on-going problem with a disgruntled neighbor who would harass the children and parents. This neighbor hates kids and complains about the noise all the times. This neighbor also has screamed at some of my parents before. Licensee has lost a lot of business because of this neighbor and the neighbor is very belligerent. Staff #1 (S1) stated the following: Licensee has frequent conversations with staff about trainings and there is not an issue with staff yelling or speaking inappropriately in front of children in care. The neighbor next door has a problem with the daycare and is always screaming and telling the children to be quiet. The children are not too loud at all. Staff #2 (S2) stated the following: There are no concerns about the condition children were being transported and believe the staff and the van used to transport the children were safe. Staff members do not yell at children or use foul language in front of them. Staff #3 (S3) stated, S3 and licensee are the closers at the end of the day and they have never spoken inappropriately in front of the children. S3 said they care for the children as if they were their own and S3 would speak up if one of the staff spoke inappropriately to them or in front of them. S3 said it is the angry neighbor that yells at the children and has even scared them. S3 says the staff do not respond to neighbor’s yelling or angry comments. S3 said there is no one called “papa” only “grandpa”. S3 says licensee. Staff 4 (S4) and their spouse live in the home and yes, licensee is present in the home. Staff #4 (S4) stated they transport the children in care and helps watch them overnight. S4 said they are always safe when transporting the children. S4 said they never start to drive off with the doors of the van open, they always ensure that the children are safe with seat belts on before driving off. S4 believes the other staff also take all the precautions necessary to ensure everyone’s safety. S4 also stated they live in the daycare home with their spouse and the licensee and the licensee’s child. S4 stated Staff 5 (S5) is very safe and very responsible when transporting children. S4 says none of the staff yell at the children or speak inappropriately in front of them, it is the neighbor that yells. Neighbor has scared children and they are then taking the children inside to avoid interactions for the children. S4 said it is the neighbor that yells obscenities to them and the staff do not engage and just ignore the neighbor. Page 2 of 3 Staff 5 (S5) stated the children refer to him as “grandpa’ not “papa” and S5 occasionally helps transport children when needed. S5 stated, they do not yell at children in care only correct them. S5 stated they are hard of hearing so sometimes S5 will speak loudly. S5 stated, neighbor next door is the one yelling at them and at the children. S5 does not know what neighbor is saying but says they are unhappy and always yell at the kids. On 12/27/22 LPA Valdez Santana attempted to interview 8 parents, however only 3 parents were available for interviews. None of the parents disclosed any concern with the childcare facility or staff. All of the parents are happy with the childcare. LPA interviewed 3 children and 2 of 3 stated the staff are nice. LPA inspected the facility on 10/13/2022 and observed the fence in question was sturdy and not in disrepair. LPA also did not observe facility to be in disrepair. LPA also inspected the van used to transporting the children in care, the van seemed in good condition and safe for children. Based on LPA’s observations, interviews conducted with licensee, staff members, children, and reviewing records, it was determined there was insufficient evidence to support the above allegations. Although the allegations may have happened or are valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violations did or did not occur, therefore the allegations are Unsubstantiated. Exit interview was conducted with licensee Corinne Jacobo-Seguin. Notice of Site Visit was posted during the visit. Licensee was informed that the notice of site visit must be posted for 30 consecutive days. Failure to post will result in civil penalties of $100. Licensee was provided a copy of their appeal rights (LIC 9058 01/16) and their signature on this form acknowledges receipt of these rights. First level appeals should be sent to the regional manager to the address listed above. End of Report, Page 3 of 3. LPAs Valdez Santana and Gutierrez inspected licensee’s bedroom. It was observed that the bedroom was mostly empty. There was a bed and other furniture in the bedroom, but the closet and the restroom were empty. File review indicated licensee were not present at the daycare upon LPAs arrival to conduct the inspections. The inspection are dated as follow: 4/20/2017, 5/7/2018, 11/18/2019, 10/27/2021, 6/13/2022, 3/30/2022, 3/28/2022, and 10/13/2022. During the course of the investigation and interviews S5 disclosed licensee lives in the daycare home most of the time but also has another home. Based on LPA’s observations and records reviewed, and interviews, it was determined there was sufficient evidence to prove that licensee does not live in daycare home; therefore, the allegation is substantiated. California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 12 & Chapter 1, Article 1 Definition 102352(f)(1) is being cited on the attached LIC9099D. Exit interview was conducted with licensee, Corinne Jacobo-Seguin. Notice of Site Visit was posted during the visit. Facility representative/licensee was informed that the Notice of Site Visit must be posted for 30 consecutive days. Failure to post will result in civil penalties of $100. Licensee was provided a copy of their appeal rights (LIC 9058 01/16) and their signature on this form acknowledges receipt of these rights. First level appeals should be sent to the regional manager to the address listed above.