complaint·October 15, 2024

The Department received a complaint on 08/02/24 alleging Licensee spoke inappropriately to day care child in the presence of other children. The reporting party (RP) stated, Staff#1 (S1) chastised Child#1 (C1) in front of the other day care children stating that C1 and C1’s mother were liars, and questioned C1 how was it that C1 could lie being that C1 is Catholic. Licensee told C1 that lying is a sin. C1 was humiliated and licensee berated C1 in front of C1’s peers who were laughing. During the investigation, LPA interviewed 2 staff members, attempted to interview 2 children but only 1 child qualified to be interviewed, C1, parents, and obtained a copy of the children’s roster and text messages. During an interview on 8/7/2024, S1 stated the following: C1 did not want to use any of the day care materials or be around the small children. C1’s Parent#1 (P1) asked S1 if C1 can bring C1’s personal cellphone. S1 allowed C1 to bring the cellphone due to C1 not wanting to do anything in the daycare. S1 told P1 that P1 is responsible for checking S1’s phone history because S1 doesn’t know what C1 is doing in C1’s phone. S1 told P1 that C1 is not allowed to take pictures of the other day care children and upload them in any social media. P1 wrote 2 letters with that agreement. C1 would be on the phone all day long. C1 will be in the restroom for long periods of time using the cellphone. The other children in the day care started to come up to S1 and ask why is C1 using a cellphone and they can’t. It became a problem that S1 decided to tell P1 that C1 cannot bring C1’s personal cellphone to the day care anymore due to the other day care children wanting to use their cellphones. P1 agreed that C1 will not be bringing C1’s personal cellphone to the day care. The next day care, C1 stated that C1 told S1 that C1 did not bring the cellphone. S1 told Staff#2 (S2) that C1 has been in the restroom for long period of time and S2 told S1 that C1 is probably using the cellphone. S1 was surprised when S2 said C1 is probably using the cellphone. S2 did not know that C1 was not allowed to bring the cellphone to the day care. S2 told S1 that S2 saw C1 using the cellphone outside and hiding it when C1 would see S2. S1 waited by the fish tank that is located in the living room for C1 to come out of the restroom. C1 was probably in the restroom for about 30 minutes. When C1 came out of the restroom S1 asked C1 for C1’s cellphone and S1 told C1 “You lied to me. Do you remember in the morning you told me you didn’t bring your cellphone and you go to church.” C1 told S1 that P1 told C1 to bring the cellphone in case C1 needed to call Parent#2 (P2). S1 told C1 to go to the play room. S1 called P1 and told P1 that P1 betrayed S1 and told P1 everything that happened. P1 said that P1 never told C1 to bring the cellphone to the day care. S1 told P1 then that’s a problem between P1 and C1. S1 believes S1 made a mistake when S1 told C1, “You lied, and you go to church.” S1 stated S1 shouldn’t have made that comment. Page 2 of 4 During an interview on 8/14/2024, C1 stated the following: Another day care child told their parents that it was unfair that C1 can use the cellphone and they can’t. The next day C1 brought the cellphone even though they had told C1 not to bring the cellphone to day care. C1 brought the cellphone because the music calms C1. It was around lunch time and S2 told C1 to move C1’s stuff and S2 saw C1’s phone. C1 heard S2 telling S1 that C1 had the cellphone. S1 knocked at the restroom door and said S1 needed to use the restroom. C1 put the phone in the backpack and when C1 was out, S1 told C1 to give S1 the cellphone. S1 told C1 that C1 was not supposed to bring the cellphone to the day care and then told C1, “If you are Catholic. Why do you lie?” C1 tried to keep a straight face because C1 did not want show emotion. S1 told C1 that S1 was going to call P1. C1 asked S1 if C1 can go outside and draw for a bit? and S1 told C1 to stay inside because C1 betrayed S1 trust. This incident happened in the kitchen where no children or staff were present. S1 went to the office room that is next to the day care room and called P1 and had P1 on speaker. C1 believes the older day care children were listening to the conversations. S1 made C1 feel embarrassed, ashamed, and guilty which C1 stated C1 still feels. C1 told P1 that C1 does not want to return to the day care because C1 feels anxiety if C1 returns. During an interview on 10/11/2024, Staff#2 (S2) stated the following: C1 did not like to be with the other children and on 7/18/24 when C1 was outside, S2 saw C1 with the cellphone. When all the children went inside, C1 went inside and into the bathroom. When S1 and C1 were talking S2 was not in the area were S1 and C1 were and there were no children present. S1 told S2 that C1 has been in the bathroom for a long time. S2 told S1 that C1 is probably using the cellphone. S1 was shocked and told S2 that C1 was not supposed to have the cellphone. S1 waited for C1 to get out of the bathroom and S2 went inside the playroom to set up nap time and the children were in the playroom with S2. No children were present when S1 and C1 were talking in the hallway. S2 did not hear S1 and C1’s conversation. S1 also did not hear S1 and P1’s conversation. S1 said no children were present when S1 was talking to P1 because S1 was in another room. After, S1 finished talking to C1 everything was normal. On 8/7/24, LPA Nunez attempted to interview 2 children but only 1 child qualified to be interviewed. The child did not disclose knowing anything about C1’s cellphone incident. On 10/11/24, LPA Nunez called 6 parents but was only able to interview 3 parents. The 3 parents stated they are satisfied with the day care and did not disclose any concerns. Page 3 of 4 Based on LPA interviews with S1 and C1 it has been determined that S1 made C1 feel humiliated and ashamed; therefore, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met, the allegation s is found to be Substantiated. California Code of Regulations, Title 22, 102423(a)(4) Personal Rights is being cited on the attached LIC 9099D. Exit interview conducted and report was reviewed with Licensee, Angelica Maria Cisneros Lopez. Notice of Site Visit was provided to licensee. The notice of site visit must be posted for 30 consecutive days. Failure to post will result in civil penalties of $100. The licensee was provided a copy of their appeal right (LIC 9058 1/16) and their signature on this form acknowledges receipt of these rights. Exit interview was conducted. Page 4 of 4 The Department received a complaint on 08/02/24 alleging Licensee used inappropriate discipline for day care child. Reporting Party (RP) stated Staff#1(S1) punished Child#1 (C1) by having C1 remain indoors for the entire day and could not go outdoors with the other children. During the investigation, LPA interviewed, 2 staff members, attempted to interview 2 children but only 1 child qualified to be interviewed, C1, parents, and obtained a copy of the children’s roster and text messages. During an interview on 8/7/2024, S1 stated when S1 discovered C1 brought the cellphone to the daycare even though C1 was not allowed to bring it to the daycare, S1 did not tell C1 to remain indoors for the entire day or could not go outdoors with the other children as a punishment. S1 told C1 to go to the playroom after their conversation. S1 denied the allegation. During an interview on 8/14/2024, C1 stated that after S1 and C1’s conversation regarding C1 brought the cellphone to the daycare despite C1 was not allowed to bring it to the daycare, C1 asked S1 if she can go outside to draw and S1 told C1 that C1 had to stay inside because C1 betrayed S1 trust. C1 stated C1 went to the living and felt asleep on the floor. During an interview on 10/11/2024, Staff#2 (S2) stated after S1 and C1 had a conversation regarding C1 bringing the cellphone to the daycare everything was normal. S2 does not know if C1 was punished or C1 was unable to go outside due to C1 brining the cellphone. On 8/7/24, LPA Nunez attempted to interview 2 children but only 1 child qualified to be interviewed. The child did not disclose knowing anything. On 10/11/24, LPA Nunez called 6 parents but was only able to interview 3 parents. The 3 parents stated they are satisfied with the day care and did not disclose any concerns. Page 2 of 3 Based on LPA’s interviews with staff, children, and parents, there was insufficient evidence to corroborate the allegation s . Although the allegation s may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violations of Licensee used inappropriate discipline for day care children; therefore, the allegation s is UNSUBSTANTIATED. Exit interview conducted and report was reviewed with Licensee, Angelica Maria Cisneros Lopez. Notice of Site Visit was provided to licensee. The notice of site visit must be posted for 30 consecutive days. Failure to post will result in civil penalties of $100. The licensee was provided a copy of their appeal right (LIC 9058 1/16) and their signature on this form acknowledges receipt of these rights. Exit interview was conducted. Page 3 of 3