Inspector’s narrative
What the inspector wrote
Page 2 of 4
On 11/14/24, the LPA attempted to interview two children. The children did not qualify for an interview. The rest of the children were not interviewed due to young age. LPA interviewed 4 staff members, 1 adult, and 4 parent.
Allegation: Staff left an infant unattended inside the daycare
On 11/13/2024 and on 11/18/24, the LPA interviewed facility staff. Staff #1 (S1) denied the allegation and said, “There was no kid left in the car.” In a follow-up interview, S1 acknowledged that an infant is transported from outside the facility by a driver who was not identified to a Family Child Care Home (FCCH) operated by Adult #1 (A1).” According to S1 C3 is dropped off with the driver and not at the center. When asked about the allegation, S4 stated, “I didn’t see a child in the car. I saw the little Child #3 (C3) in the car seat in the front in the center in the office area. C3 wasn’t supposed to be there, I didn’t like C3 being locked in the car seat, so I spoke up and S1 didn’t like it.” S4 explained that the facility doesn’t care for infants, but the child is dropped off and then transported to a FCCH. S5 disclosed that an infant was dropped off at the facility multiple times and left in the car seat” inside the child care center. S5 added that Parent #2 (P2) voiced concerns about the infant being left unattended in a car seat, so S5 “began to remove the child from the car seat.” According S4 and S5 staff, C3 was not a daycare child but was present inside the child care center while waiting for a driver to transport C3 to a FCCH.
On 11/14/24, the LPA interviewed A1. A1 corroborated that infant C3 is transported from the child care center to A1’s FCCH in city of Fullerton. When asked about the allegation, A1 said, “Yeah, C3 is not old enough to be at the preschool so I have a transportation woman who picks C3 up in front of the preschool.” A1 added that S5 took the child to Fullerton once, last minute, because the driver called off.
On 12/18/2024, the LPA called four parents for an interview. The parents were not reached or did not reply to the Department’s request for an interview.
Continued on page 3
Page 3 of 4
On 12/18/24, during a confidential interview, the interviewee disclosed they heard from an eyewitness that “an infant was left in the car seat and the child’s parent had walked away.” According to the interviewee, the eyewitness thought the infant was left unattended while the staff were in the back and two or three other children were in the daycare classroom.
On 11/14/24, during a follow-up visit at the facility, the LPA observed Parent #1 (P1) dropping off children at the daycare. P1 had two children and one infant, C3 in a car seat. P1 placed the car seat with C3 on the floor. The LPA asked, “Is this your third child who goes to A1's daycare? P1 said yes. The LPA asked who takes C3 to the FCCH. P1 said they have a driver, The LPA asked where C3 waited to be transported. P1 said here, referring to Creative Little Rascals. S2 interjected "they just left" referring to the driver. P1 walked out with C3 in the car seat.
Allegation: Staff did not ensure daycare children didn't have access to hazardous chemicals.
On 11/17/2024 and on 11/18/24, the LPA interviewed facility staff. During the interview, S1 stated that the hazardous chemicals “are not out in the open” and “the chemicals have been stored on the top” of a bookcase. S4 stated they saw Windex, a Clorox can, and a vinegar bottle in the daycare area on the toy shelves at a height that some children could “easily reach.” S4 added medicine was left on the same shelves or stored in the refrigerator on a shelf within children’s reach. S5 said the staff “left the ammonia on the floor” accessible to children and added, “they also left medication in the daycare area and A1 observed that and A1 told them to remove the medication.” A1 stated A1 did not recall during the interview.
On 12/18/2024, the LPA called four parents for an interview. The parents were not reached or did not reply to the Department’s request for an interview.
Allegation: Staff smoked on the premises.
Continued on page 4
Page 4 of 4
On 11/13/2024 and on 11/18/24, the LPA interviewed facility staff. When asked about the allegation, S1 stated, “Yes, S2 smokes. S2 is friends with some guys who work at the pizza place. S2 walks over there and smokes there. S2 never smokes in the building or the children’s area." During the interview with S4, S4 disclosed that smoking was a constant thing S2 did in the car outside the building. S4 added, “S5 and I used to pick up cigarette butts before the kids went to play in the playground. S5 stated, they observed S2 using electronic cigarette in the child care center while playing video games and S1 was not present. S5 disclosed that they felt afraid to speak up about the vaping inside the facility. S5 added, "S2 had like a square that you press a button and smoke. S2 would leave them in the daycare accessible to the children."
Based on the interviews conducted and the LPA’s observations, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met, therefore the above allegations that staff left a daycare child unattended, staff did not ensure daycare children didn't have access to hazardous chemicals, and staff smoked on the premises are found to be SUBSTANTIATED. A substantiated finding means that the complaint is substantiated, and the allegations are valid. California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 12, 101161 (a) Limitations on Capacity, 101238 (g) Buildings and Grounds and
101231(a) Smoking Prohibition
are being cited on the LIC9099D. Please refer to attached LIC9099D for documentation of deficiencies.
An exit interview was conducted with
Maria Morris. 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 of report.
Page 2 of 2
On 11/14/24, the LPA attempted to interview two children. The children did not qualify for an interview. The rest of the children were not interviewed.
Allegation: Staff did not allow a daycare child's parent access to all designated care areas.
On 11/13/2024 and on 11/18/24, the LPA interviewed facility staff. S1 denied the allegation was true and stated that parents can inspect but they can’t stay in the facility playing with the children. S4 stated that they heard about a parent who was denied access to the bathroom but S4 did not witness the event. S5 stated that they never knew about a parent being denied access to the facility and added, “I was supposed to receive children and not communicate with the parents.”
On 12/18/2024, the LPA called four parents for an interview. The parents were not reached or did not reply to the Department’s request for an interview.
Based on the interviews conducted and records review, the preponderance of evidence standard has not been met. Although the allegation that parents are not allowed in the back where the bathroom and eating area are located may have happened or are valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation did or did not occur, therefore the allegation is unsubstantiated.
An exit interview was conducted with Director Suaa Yonis and Maria Morris. 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 of report
