complaint·May 15, 2025

Page 2 An interview with the Reporting Party (RP) was not conducted because the RP did not provide contact information. In the written report, the RP stated that the staff who started work at the beginning of February 2025 had not completed the employee paperwork for the job, such as immunization records and the physician report. The RP identified the staff member as Staff #1 (S1). Allegation: Staff are missing new employee paperwork, such as immunizations and physician's report. On 3/20/2025, LPAs Silva and Deschampe interviewed nine staff members about the allegation. Staff 2 (S2) disclosed about S1’s paperwork, “That’s what S1 said. S1 had a paper in hand, and said they want me to take a day off. S1 said they didn’t have a physical exam or immunizations.” S3 claimed that “S1 wants to do the physical exam, but they hired S1 without it.” S3 did not have information on S1’s immunizations. Staff S4, S5, S6, S7, and S8 stated they did not know anything about the allegation. S8 acknowledged they heard about it but could not say if the allegation was true or false. During today's inspection, the LPA asked S9 and S11 about the allegation. S9 stated S1 gave S11 the immunizations about a month ago but did not have a specific date. S11 pulled S1’s file. S1 stated that when she found out S1 didn’t have immunizations, she requested them from S1. S11 showed the immunizations to the LPA and stated she thought S1 brought the immunizations in March. On 3/20/2025, LPA Deschampe conducted a staff records review and observed a LIC503 in file. During todays inspection, the LPA reviewed the file a second time. Based on the records review, an LIC503 Health Screening dated 5/13/25 was in S1’s file. Proof of immunization or a negative TB test was not in file on 3/20/24. During the second file review, LPA observed immunizations in file and a x-ray screening for TB for S1. Allegation: The facility has not had a director on site during daycare hours since June or July 2024. Continue on page 3. Page 3 On 3/20/2025, the LPAs interviewed nine facility staff about the allegation above. All staff interviewed on this date identified S9 and S10 as the assistant directors. All staff interviewed on this date identified S11 as the current director and stated S11 took on the director role in January 2025. During an interview on 4/7/25, S9 and S10 corroborated that they are assistant directors and that S11 has been the director since January 2025. Current director S11 disclosed she has been the director since January 2025 and that the previous director retired August 2024. S11 confirmed the facility did not have a director from August 2024 to the end of December 2025. S11 disclosed that a request for a director change has not yet been submitted to the Department. LPA Silva requested in writing that S11 submit a change of director packet within 30 days on 3/20/25. During today’s inspection, S9 corroborated that the previous director left the school August 31, 2024. S11 stated she had been present at the facility since September 2024 but did not provide any evidence to corroborate that she qualifies as a director. S11 stated that S9 and S10, who have served as assistant directors, do not have the units required to qualify as a director. The facility has not had a director since August 31 2024 to the writing of this report 5/15/25. On 4/15/2025, the LPA called five parents requesting an interview. Parent 1 (P1) was reached and interviewed. P1 provided no information that could corroborate or dismiss the allegation. Parents P2, P3, P4, and P5 did not respond to the Department’s request for an interview or could not be reached. Children were not interviewed because they were non-verbal due to their young age. Based on the interviews conducted and the records review, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met therefore, the allegation that a staff was missing new employee paperwork, such as immunizations and a physician’s report, and the facility has not had a Director since June or July of 2024 are found to be SUBSTANTIATED. A substantiated finding means that the complaint is substantiated, and the allegation is valid. Continue on page 4. Page 4 California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 12, Chapter 1, Sections 101217(a)(12) Personnel Records and 101215.1(b) Child Care Center Directors Qualifications and Duties Type B were cited on the attached LIC 9099D. This licensing report and appeal rights were discussed with Director Mary Chang. A notice of site visit was posted during the visit. The notice of site visit must be posted for 30 consecutive days. Failure to post it will result in civil penalties of $100. The director provided a copy of their appeal rights (LIC 9058 01/16), a copy of this licensing report, and their signature acknowledges receipt of these documents. First-level appeals should be sent to the regional manager at the address listed above. Page 2. An interview with the Reporting Party (RP) was not conducted because the RP did not provide contact information. However, in the report the RP stated that Staff #1 (S1) may be under the influence of something such as alcohol or drugs and that it feels unsafe with S1 supervising or holding infants in care. Allegation: Staff member may be under the influence of alcohol or drugs. On 3/20/2025, the LPAs Silva and Deschampe interviewed nine facility staff about the allegation above. Staff 2 (S2) stated that S1 looked “drowsy” and that S2 had seen S1 when S1 “looks normal and when S1 looks off.” S2 added that they observed S1 “holding a baby, standing up, and rocking in circles.” Per S2, S1’s “eyes were a little drowsy” and “not focusing.” S2 said that S1’s pants were wet around the crotch and thigh area. S2 believed S1 urinated his/her pants but could not confirm it. S2 could not confirm whether S1 was intoxicated and did not have conclusive evidence to corroborate the allegation. Staff 3 (S3) claimed S1 was “sober now… for a couple of months.” S3 stated they did not know if S1 smokes or uses other substances. S4 said, “It’s not normal to work wet”, referring to S1’s wet pants. S4 continued, “if one wants to go to the restroom, one goes to the restroom or asks for time to change.” S4 added that they observed S1 resting S1’s head on a hand while looking down at an infant, adding that S1 “looked tired.” S5 said, “I have not noticed that S1 is on drugs,” and disclosed that S1 smelled of alcohol during a baby shower that was held on March 12, 2024, at the facility after all the children were gone. S5 was unsure whether the smell was alcohol or scope because the smell was mixed with a mint scent. S6 stated, “I have heard, but I haven’t smelled or seen something to be concerned about.” S7 said, “I don’t know much about that. I haven’t seen S1 one-on-one like that,” when asked about the allegation. S8 stated that on Friday, March 14, 2025, S8 smelled a hint of alcohol during work hours but was “not sure what it was.” S7 added that S1 “would tumble off,” and “could not put a shoe on a child,” and “S1 was falling asleep a lot.” S7 added that on Wednesday, March 12, 2025, S1 again smelled of alcohol after hours, when all the children were gone. Continue on page 3. Page 3. Staff 1 (S1) denied having been intoxicated during work hours and added, “I have no problem with drug testing.” S1 said, “I’m not coming to work under the influence” and “If staff smelled something, I wasn’t drunk.” S1 acknowledged they might have drunk on Thursday night after work hours and added, “…but I didn’t come to work drunk on Friday. I did not drink before coming to work.” S1 also stated, “I don’t do drugs.” S1 appeared alert and coherent during the interview. The LPAs did not observe any indication that S1 was intoxicated at the time of the interview. On 4/7/25, LPA Silva interviewed Staff S9, S10, and S11. All three staff stated they did not have any indication to believe that S1 was working while intoxicated. S9 said S1 seemed intelligent and normal. S10 stated that S1 did not exhibit any indication that would suggest S1 was intoxicated during work hours. S11 stated that S1 had been competent from the beginning. On 4/3/25, S1 emailed LPA Silva the contact information for Adult #2 (A2), whom S1 claimed to have worked with for 11 years. LPA Silva called A2 on 4/18/25 for an interview. A2 could not be reached. On 4/8/2025, the LPA Silva received a copy of a drug test for S1, dated 3/25/25. The test lists various substances, including a marker for alcohol. The results show negative for all the substances listed. On 4/15/2025, the LPA called five parents requesting an interview about the allegations listed above. Parent 1 (P1) was reached and interviewed. P1 provided no information that could corroborate or dismiss the allegation. Parents P2, P3, P4, and P5 did not respond to the Department’s request for an interview or could not be reached. Children were not interviewed because they were non-verbal due to their young age. Based on the interviews conducted and the records reviewed, the preponderance of evidence standard has not been met. Although the allegations may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violations did or did not occur, therefore the allegation is unsubstantiated. This licensing report and appeal rights were discussed with Mary Chang. A notice of site visit was posted during the visit. The notice of site visit must be posted for 30 consecutive days. Failure to post it will result in civil penalties of $100. The director provided a copy of their appeal rights (LIC 9058 01/16), a copy of this licensing report, and their signature acknowledges receipt of these documents. First-level appeals should be sent to the regional manager at the address listed above. END.