complaint·December 9, 2022

(page 2) Several parents were interviewed on 12/8/22 via phone call. From their interviews, there was nothing stated to support a preponderance of evidence for these allegations. Based on this gathered information over the course of LPA's investigation the allegations Staff use stroller as a restraint device for child in care, and Staff do not provide appropriate sleeping accommodations for children in care, were not determined to have a preponderance of evidence to support them. In addition to this, LPA was unable to demonstrate that these allegations or that the facility at any point in the past was out of compliance of napping or nap equipment regulations. LPA was unable to make the determination from the information gathered that these allegations did not ever occur, or that there wasn't a preponderance of evidence to support these allegations, at some point. Due to this reasoning the most factual finding on the allegations, with all available information to LPA during the investigation are unsubstantiated. Based on all this information LPA gathered, the preponderance of evidence standard for these allegations was not met, therefore the allegations are found to be unsubstantiated. From all of the available information obtained by LPA during the course of the investigation, that there is insufficient evidence indicating that Staff use stroller as a restraint device for child in care, or Staff do not provide appropriate sleeping accommodations for children in care. Based on all of the information LPA gathered, LPA was not able to determine that these allegations were false or untrue. Therefore LPA cannot make the determination that these allegations are unfounded; and the most accurate findings would remain at unsubstantiated. 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 allegations are unsubstantiated. Exit interview was conducted, and report was reviewed and discussed. Notice of Site Visit was posted during the visit. The 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 per day. The facility was provided a copy of their appeal rights (LIC 9058 12/15) and their signature on this form acknowledges receipt of these rights. (page 2) This practice of propping a bottle in an infants mouth when feeding the infant is unsafe, and not within compliance of Title 22 Regulation 101427(h), specifying that a bottle shall never be propped in an infant's mouth. Several parents were interviewed on 12/8/22 via phone call. From their interviews, there was nothing stated to support a preponderance of evidence for this allegation. Based on LPA's staff interviews it was determined that on occasion bottles are propped in an infant's mouth. LPA reviewed and provided director with Title 22 Regulations related to Infant Care Food Service. Facility has immediately ceased propping bottles in infants mouths since discussion of these Title 22 Regulations. From this information from staff interviews, the preponderance of evidence to support the allegation Staff are engaging in unsafe feeding practices, is evident and is therefore Substantiated. Based on LPAs interviews the following violation was observed and is being cited in accordance with California Code of Regulations, Title 22 Section 101427(h), is being cited on the attached LIC 9099D. 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. A notice of site visit was given and must remain posted for 30 days. Exit interview conducted and report was reviewed with the licensee