Skip to main content

Inspection visit

complaint

ST. MARK COMMUNITY PRESCHOOLLicense 3043704232 citations on this visit
2 citations recorded

Inspector’s narrative

What the inspector wrote

LPA, Gutierrez conducted a complaint investigation inspection on 01/12/2022 at 9:15 AM and observed 51 out of 58 of children ages 2 and up were not masked while indoors. LPA, Gutierrez interviewed staff, children, director and children's records reviewed of the children interviewed did not have mask exemptions provided in their files. On 01/12/2022 LPA interviewed 7 staff, all staff statements were consistent that masks are optional for the children in care and not required nor encouraged. Staff stated that the vast majority of parents do not want their children wearing a mask, some expressed taking their children out of the school if mask are required. LPA interviewed 6 children, the vast majority stated that they are not required to wear mask while at school. After LPA\342\200\231s inspection conducted on 01/12/2022 the response by the director was to send an email provided to parents from via Bright Wheel on 01/12/2022 at 4:28 PM that stated, \342\200\234 Children will be offered a mask as they enter the classroom and as always at SMCP, our children's Personal Rights will be respected and they will not be forced to wear one\342\200\235. There is no mention that masks are a requirement while indoors at the facility. Child care providers must comply with requirements in the Guidance for the Use of Face Coverings issued by the California Department of Public Health (CDPH). This public health order was issued under the authority of Health and Safety Code sections 120125, 120140, 120175, 120195, and 131080. The current CDPH Guidance for the Use of Face Coverings (July 28, 2021) require s that all individuals in child care settings wear face coverings while indoors, regardless of vaccination status. The Director failed to ensure the personal rights of children in care to safe and healthful accommodations, and engaged in conduct inimical to the health, welfare, and safety of the children in care, in that the children were not encouraged to wear face coverings while indoors at St. Mark Community Preschool as required by the State Public Health Officer order dated June 11, 2021 requiring compliance with CDPH Guidance for the use of face coverings. and the Cal/OSHA COVID-19 Prevention Emergency Temporary Standards (ETS). An exemption to the order face coverings did not apply. Page 2 of 3 Based of observation on 01/12/2022, interviews and records reviewed the allegations of Personal Rights conduct inimical will be substantiated. A substantiated finding means that the complaint is substantiated, and the allegation is valid because the preponderance of the evidence standard has been met. The following violations were revealed and are being cited in accordance with California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 12, Chapter 1, article 6, Section 101223 (a)(2) and He alth and Safety Code Section 1596.8897 (2) , please refer to attached 9099 (D). Exit interview conducted and report was reviewed with the Director, Star Brimer. Appeal Rights and deficiencies were discussed. The facility representative was provided a copy of their appeal rights (LIC 9058) 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.

Citations

2 citations recorded*CCLD

What does Type A vs Type B mean?

Type A. Serious citation. Imminent or substantial risk to children. The regulator requires corrective action immediately and may impose a civil penalty.

Type B. Lower-severity citation. Corrective action required, no imminent risk. The regulator monitors compliance on the next visit.

  • PERSONAL RIGHTS

    Personal Rights- (a) The licensee shall ensure that each child is accorded the following personal rights:(2) To be accorded safe, healthful and comfortable accommodations, furnishings and equipment to meet his/her needs. This requirement was not met as evidence by observation and interviews conducted with staff, children and parents. The did not provide a safe, healthful and comfortable accommodations for the children in care as a governor mandate as specified on page 2 of complaint finding report 9099 (C).

  • 1596.8897(2)Type B

    1) Health and Safety Code Section 1596.8897 (2) Engaged in conduct which is inimical to the health, morals, welfare, or safety of either an individual in or receiving services from the facility, or the people of the State of California. This requirement was not met as evidence by observation and interviews conducted with staff, parents and children. The facility engaged in conduct inimical to the health, morals, welfare and safety of this children present at the facility of St. Mark Community Preschool by not using safe practices of face coverings while indoors at the facility.

FAQ · About this visit

Common questions about this visit

What happened during the March 9, 2022 inspection of ST. MARK COMMUNITY PRESCHOOL?

This was a complaint inspection of ST. MARK COMMUNITY PRESCHOOL on March 9, 2022. 2 citations were issued: 2 Type B.

Were any citations issued to ST. MARK COMMUNITY PRESCHOOL on March 9, 2022?

Yes, 2 citations were issued (0 Type A, 2 Type B). The first citation was for: "Personal Rights- (a) The licensee shall ensure that each child is accorded the following personal rights:(2) To be accor..."

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.