Skip to main content

Inspection visit

complaint

SILVA, HEMAMALILicense 304312178
Clean visit · 0 citations

Inspector’s narrative

What the inspector wrote

page 2 of 2 scratch on the nose. Never mentioned about neck. Ms. Silva reports that when C1’s parents picked C1 up they did not notify her of the scratch on the nose. LPA observed ring video which shows C1 and C1’s parents walking to their car. At this point C1 was not wearing a mask. Ms. Silva stated C1’s parents could have advised her of injury at this point but did not. A review of the ring video shows C1did not have a mask on when walking to car. A review of 6 out of 6 children’s files and did not note injury report. Interview with 4 of 7 parents contacted indicated there were no issues or concerns with the home. LPA was unable to interview 3 of 7 parents, calls were not returned. LPA was unable to corroborate allegation. In reference to the allegation that licensee is retaliating against day care child’s authorized representative for filing a complaint; Licensee Silva states she does not retaliate, she does not know for a fact who has filed complaints. Licensee stated she thought it may have been 1 of 2 families. Licensee states she believes both sets of parents were upset because she has been enforcing her COVID-19 Protocols, sending children home or not accepting them if the children had any COVID-19 symptoms. Interview with 4 of 7 parents indicate they have no issues or concerns with day care. LPA was unable to interview 3 of 7 parents, calls were not returned. LPA was unable to corroborate allegation. Although the allegations may have happened or are valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation(s) did or did not occur, therefore the allegations are unsubstantiated. An exit interview was conducted with Licensee Silva. Appeal Rights were explained. The licensee was provided a copy of appeal rights (LIC 9058 01/16) and their signature on this form acknowledges receipt of these rights. All appeals must be in writing and received by the Regional Office within 15 business days. First level appeals should be sent to the regional manager to the address listed above. A notice of site visit was given and must remain posted for 30 days. Failure to comply with posting requirements shall result in an immediate civil penalty of $100.

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 February 11, 2022 inspection of SILVA, HEMAMALI?

This was a complaint inspection of SILVA, HEMAMALI on February 11, 2022. The inspection found no deficiencies and no citations were issued.

Were any citations issued to SILVA, HEMAMALI on February 11, 2022?

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.

SourceView on CCLDView original report

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.