Skip to main content

Inspection visit

Incident investigation

CATALYST KIDS-BESWICKLicense 304371281
Clean visit · 0 citations

Inspector’s narrative

What the inspector wrote

Licensing Program Analysts (LPA) Cynthia Sun conducted an unannounced case management inspection in response to a self-report unusual Incident dated 04/03/2025. Upon arrival LPA met with Site Supervisor, Yessica Hernandez was led on facility tour. LPA observed a total of 0 school age children along with 2 staff. This is a continued case management initiated 4/8/2025. A review of staff criminal clearance records on this date indicates that all facility staff or other individuals who require caregiver background checks have received criminal record and child abuse index clearances or exemptions. On 04/03/2025 the Orange County Child Care Office received a self reported unusual incident report (UIR): S1 took three children from room #2 to the children\342\200\231s restroom then S1 used the restroom nearby. S1 propped open the door (fully open) and had the children sit on the floor against the wall and wait (the children were not able to see S1 using the bathroom). All three of the children\342\200\231s parents were informed of the incident on the same day by S2 that the incident occurred. S1 resigned on 4/2/2025 and is no longer working with Catalyst Kids. Page 1 of 3 During the investigation, LPA Sun interviewed 2 staff, 2 children, reviewed the facility roster, 4/3/2025 Staff Supervision Meeting Sign in Attendance Sheet, Catalyst Kids Child Supervision Principals and Protocols, and Supervision of Children Staff Responsibilities Sheets. During staff interviews on 04/08/2025, Both Staff 2 (S2) and staff 3 (S3) stated when staff need to go to the restroom while supervising children they need to communicate with other staff. S2 stated, \342\200\234If staff need to go to the restroom, staff check with each other and see if we need to move children to other classroom to stay in ratio and then staff go to restroom. Most of us (staff) go to the restroom before we receive the children into program or wait to use restroom during our 10-minute break. (S3) stated, \342\200\234we communicate with the walkie-talkies to accommodate the staff to use the restroom. If needed, we transition children to the other room to keep staff in ratio.\342\200\235 Both S2 and S3 stated that nothing similar to this incident has ever happened at facility. S2 added, \342\200\234we are a model facility; staff are sent to this facility from other facilities to be trained on how to work with children and how to do day to day activities. S2 stated S2 conducted an all-Staff Training on 4/4/25, covering: CCL Video Acknowledgment, Supervision of Children, UIR Correction Action Plan: Enhancing Supervision and Communication Among Staff. S2 added that S1 who took C1, C2, and C3 to restroom was at this facility only for a second time and staff was new to agency. LPA reviewed training material covered by facility staff and observed staff procedure for taking children to use restroom. LPA confirmed staff was provided training on supervising children, communicating and following program policies. During children interviews both child 1(C1) and child 2 (C2) stated that S1 told them to sit and wait next to the door. Page 2 of 3 Site Supervisor stated, after the incident happened, the following action have been implemented to prevent further accidents: 1. Staff reviewed policies and procedures for supervising children. 2. Staff reviewed policies and procedures for staff communication. 3. On Site Supervisor informed C1, C2, and C3 of incident. Based on LPAs observations and interviews which were conducted, and records reviewed, the preponderance evidence of children was unattended has not been met. Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation(s) did or did not occur, therefore the allegation is unsubstantiated . Exit interview was conducted. Notice of Site Visit was posted during the visit. Facility representative 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. Appeal Rights were explained. The Director was provided with a copy of the 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. Page 3 of 3 End of Report

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 April 15, 2025 inspection of CATALYST KIDS-BESWICK?

This was a other inspection of CATALYST KIDS-BESWICK on April 15, 2025. The inspection found no deficiencies and no citations were issued.

Were any citations issued to CATALYST KIDS-BESWICK on April 15, 2025?

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 other inspection. other inspections are conducted by CCLD as part of their licensing oversight.

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.