Complaint·October 14, 2024

Page 2 Allegation: Staff yells at children. On 8/9/24, the LPA interviewed the Reporting Party (RP). RP explained that during a confidential conversation RP learned that staff yells at daycare children. On 8/15/24, the LPA interviewed two staff about the allegation above. Staff 1 (S1) stated, “I would say I raise my voice to correct them, to get their attention, and try to stop their bad behavior. Maybe they take it as yelling, but to me is trying to stop them.” S1 claimed to be aware of redirection techniques saying that redirection is “changing the direction of thinking and to guide [children] in a good way.” S1 was unable to provide an example of how staff use redirection with daycare children. Staff 2 (S2) said about yelling, “No. Yelling doesn’t work. It’s about choice. We give them choices and ask them do you want this or that. I wouldn’t agree with yelling.” S2 denied that staff yell at daycare children. On 10/14/24, during the review of the report, S1 corroborated that they use a plastic funnel to call children but denied any wrongdoing. On 8/15/2024, the LPA interview eight children. Children were asked whether anyone yells in the daycare. Some children said that younger children yell often. Child 4 (C4) stated that “S1 sometimes gets a little bit mad and talks a little loud to the babies, referring to the preschool children.” Child 6 (C6) said S1 yells and added that S1 gets a plastic funnel of about 1ft in height “and puts that in her/his mouth and then screams at C11.” LPA asked, what does S1 scream? C6 said “S1 screams really loud because S1 has a loud voice. LPA asked, how does that make you feel? C6 said, “I feel nervous.” C7 also said S1 yells “when we get the answers wrong S1 gets upset and says remember what to do and what to say. When we get in trouble, S1 comes to us and yells at us with a thing. LPA asked, is that the thing, pointing at the funnel? C7 said yes and added that S1 once yelled at C7 in the face. LPA asked, how did that make you feed? C7 said, “sad and bad.” On 9/23/24, the LPA called eight parents requesting an interview. Parents P1, P3, P4, P5, and P6 were interviewed. The parents interviewed did not express any concerns and did not provide information related to the allegation that staff yells at children. The rest of the parents did not respond to the Department’s request for comment. Continue on page 3. Page 3 Allegation: A child ran into the parking lot unsupervised. On 8/9/24, the LPA interviewed the Reporting Party (RP). RP explained that during an anonymous conversation RP learned that one child ran into the parking lot unsupervised while the rest of the children and staff were in the playground. On 8/15/24, the LPA interviewed staff about the allegation above. Staff #1 (S1) denied the allegation. S1 said the child did not run all the way from the playground to the parking lot. According to S1, an aide walked the child to the lobby for the parent to pick up. S1 added that when someone walked in leaving the door and the gate open, the child ran out to the parent who was walking from the parking lot to pick up the child. Staff 1 denied any wrongdoing. On 9/19/24, during a confidential interview, the LPA was informed that C2 ran from the playground, through the childcare center, and into the parking lot. The front gate had been left open. The LPA was further informed that sometimes the licensee allows the children to walk from the playground to the lobby alone because the licensee has to supervise the children in the playground and no other staff are available to walk with the children. Based on the information, the licensee and other staff did not have a visual on C2 while C2 ran through the building and out into the parking lot. On 9/19/24, the LPA reviewed records provided by an anonymous party. One document dated April 2024 shows the licensee admitted that a child ran into the parking lot alone because one parent left the gate open. On 9/23/24, the LPAs called eight parents requesting an interview. Parents P1, P3, P4, P5, and P6 were interviewed. During the interview, P4 disclosed that the licensee added a sign reminding parents to close the gate to address parents who left the gate open. P4 did not have a specific date when the sign was posted but estimated it was posted about two months ago. P5 also stated that the sign had been put up about “a couple of months ago.” The rest of the parents interviewed did not know how long the sign had been up or said it was there all along. The parents interviewed did not have any other information related to the allegation above. Continue on page 4 Page 4 Based on the interviews conducted and records review, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met, therefore the allegations that staff yells at daycare children and that one child ran out into the parking lot unsupervised are SUBSTANTIATED. A substantiated finding means that the complaint is substantiated, and the allegations are valid. California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 12, Chapter 1 Section 101223(a)(3) Personal Rights and 101229(a)(1) Responsibility for Providing Care and Supervision were cited. A Repeat Violation Civil Penalty was issued for the deficiency involving care and supervision. Please refer to attached 9099D for documentation of deficiencies. Director Suk Jung was informed that this licensing report dated 5/14/2024 documents two “Type A” citation(s). Type A citation(s) must be posted for 30 consecutive days during the hours that children are in care as there is/are immediate risk(s) to the health, safety, or personal rights of children in care. LPA A. Silva further informed the director that a copy of this licensing report must be provided to parents or guardians of all clients currently enrolled by the next business day or by the next day the children are in care, a copy of this report must be provided to the parents or guardians of all newly enrolled clients for 12 months from the date of this report, and signed Acknowledgement of Receipt of Licensing Report (LIC 9224) form, or another written equivalent statement, must be placed in the child's file for verification of receipt of the report. An exit interview was conducted with Director Suk. The Notice of Site Visit was posted during the visit. The director 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. The director 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 Page 2 Allegation: Staff doesn't allow parents to go into the day care. On 8/9/24, the LPA interviewed the Reporting Party (RP). RP stated that the Director is guarded about letting parents go in the school. RP stated that even with an appointment the director insisted that everything was okay in the classrooms and walked RP out, not allowing RP to go inside the classroom. On 8/15/24, the LPA interviewed two staff about the allegation above. Both staff denied the allegation. Staff 1 (S1) stated that parents can walk into the childcare center any time as the doors are unlocked. On 8/15/24, the LPA observed two parents walked into the large room adjacent to the front desk to pick up their children at different times of the day. After greeting the parents, S1 went out to the playground to fetch each child to bring them to their respective parents. On 10/14/24, three school age children were interviewed. Child #1 (C1), C2, and C3 stated that their mom picks them up. The LPA asked how their mothers pick them up. All three children stated their moms come inside the facility to pick them up. On 9/23/24, the LPA called eight parents requesting an interview. Parent #1 (P1), P3, P4, P5, and P6 were interviewed. The parents interviewed did not provide any information to corroborate or deny the allegation. The rest of the parents did not respond to the Department’s request for comment. Continue on page 3 Page 3 Allegation: Staff do not inform parents what they will feed the children. On 8/9/24, the LPA interviewed the Reporting Party (RP). RP stated the staff did not follow the feeding program and did not inform the parents what the children were eating. No allergies allegations were made during this interivew. On 8/15/24, the LPA interviewed two staff about the allegation above. Staff denied the allegation. S1 said that menus are available for parents in the hallway and in the lobby where parents sign children in and out. S1 stated that in addition to making menus available in advance, parents are verbally informed about what their children ate when they inquire about it. S1 stated the facility is enrolled in a food program so they must include vegetable and fruit. On 8/15/24, The LPA observed the August menu posted on top of menus from previous months. The LPA also observed menus are available above the sign in/out sheet in the lobby for parents to take home or inspect at the facility. Children were not interviewed about this allegation. On 9/23/24, the LPA called eight parents requesting an interview. Parents P1, P3, P4, P5, and P6 were interviewed. The parents interviewed did not provide any information to corroborate or deny the allegation. The rest of the parents did not respond to the Department’s request for comment. On 8/15/24, while at the facility, an unidentified parent stated that the facility provides healthy choices for lunch. Allegation: The facility doesn't provide a variety of activities. On 8/9/24, the LPA interviewed the Reporting Party (RP). RP stated that during a confidential conversation, RP learned that children are forced to watch TV most of the day. Continue on page 4 Page 4 On 8/15/24, the LPA interviewed staff about the allegation above. Both staff denied the allegation. Staff 1 (S1) said that children have a set schedule that includes circle time, singing, learning about words, shapes, and letters with flashcards, writing, worksheets, crafts, and art. S1 stated the children take their worksheets home every day. About school-age children, S1 stated the are required to do homework before playtime or watching TV. S1 disclosed that children watch TV when the weather is not suitable for outside play. S2 stated the children are engaged in puzzles, physical activity, ABCs, colors, building blocks, and numbers while running or jumping. On 8/15/24, the LPA interviewed three children about the allegation above. The three children disclosed that the activities include drawing, coloring, and playing with friends. On 8/15/24, the LPA observed preschool children engaged in instructional videos in the morning. The children were singing in classroom A. The children in classroom B were learning ABCs with an instructional video. In the afternoon, the LPA observed S2 teaching the children various concepts with flashcards, including water, car, and others. The LPA also observed drawing and coloring books with the children’s names with most of the pages already colored in. The LPA observed one child taking a paper alligator that the child had done the previous week and had forgotten in the daycare. On 9/23/24, the LPA called eight parents requesting an interview. Parents P1, P3, P4, P5, and P6 were interviewed. The parents interviewed did not provide any information to corroborate or deny the allegation. The rest of the parents did not respond to the Department’s request for comment. Allegation: The facility was out of ratio. On 8/9/24, the LPA interviewed the Reporting Party (RP). RP disclosed that S2 was absent for two weeks during which the facility operated out of ratio. Continue on page 5 Page 5 On 8/15/24, the LPA interviewed two staff about the allegation above. Staff S1 stated the facility is never out of ratio and added that enrollment is very low. S1 added that aides are available in the facility in cases when S2 will be absent. S1 also stated that a substitute is available on call and assist with care and supervision as needed. S2 said that after Covid-19 enrollment is low. S2 stated that ratio in classroom B is 1:12 and 1:8 in classroom A. S1 stated that S2 was absent from July 22 to August 7. S1 stated that S4 helped with care and supervision during S2’s absent. S1 did not have a log for personnel actual hours worked for S1, S3, or S4. On 8/15/24, the LPA obtained sign in/out sheets from the facility for July 22 to August 7, 2024. Based on the records, census ranged from 12 to 22 preschool children during these dates. LPA was unable to obtain personnel actual hours worked at the daycare because the director doesn’t keep a log of the staff’s actual hours worked; this was addressed in a separate LIC809 report. According to the administration, school-age children are transported from the childcare center to their respective elementaries and picked up after school. The facility is licensed for a total capacity of 48 children. Children were not interviewed about this allegation. On 9/23/24, the LPA called eight parents requesting an interview. Parents P1, P3, P4, P5, and P6 were interviewed. The parents interviewed did not provide any information to corroborate or deny the allegation. The rest of the parents did not respond to the Department’s request for comment. Based on the interviews conducted and records review, the preponderance of evidence standard has not been met. Although the allegations above 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 Director Suk. The Notice of Site Visit was posted during the visit. The director 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. The director 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.