complaint·June 15, 2023

During the course of investigation, LPA reviewed 2 staff files, LPA interviewed 2 staff members. Staff 1 (S1) denied Adult 1 (A1) watched any children in care but rather just lived in the home and occasionally helped with cleaning the facility. S1 stated S1 left the assistant and another substitute, Adult 2 (A2) to help care for the children. S1 was unable to provide LPA with A2’s qualifications but stated A2 took her file after A2’s time substituting at the facility during Licensee’s vacation. During Staff 2 (S2) interview, S2 disclosed, A1 watched at least one child until S2 arrived for their shift at 8:00am-8:30am. Children’s sign in/out sheets for January 2023 show at least 4 children arrived at the facility before 8am on at least 12 days of the 20 days licensee was gone on vacation showing either A1 or A2 provided care without the qualified assistant present. LPA Valdez Santana attempted on 2 separate occasions to contact and interview A1 and A2 but was unable to contact A1 and A2. LPA Valdez Santana contacted 10 parents for an interview and was able to interview 4 parents. 4 of 4 parents interviewed did not disclose any concerns about the facility staff who provide care for the children. Based on interviews conducted, evidence gathered, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met, therefore the above allegation is found to be SUBSTANTIATED . California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 12, Chapter 1 Section 102416.1 Personnel Records is being cited on the attached LIC 9099D. Please refer to attached 9099D for documentation of deficiencies. Exit interview was conducted. The Notice of Site Visit was posted. Appeal Rights was explained. A copy of appeal rights (LIC 9058 1/16) was provided and their signatures on this form acknowledges receipt of these rights. First level appeal is to Regional Manager, address is above on the report.