complaint·October 2, 2024

Interviews with the two staff members and a review of their facility records revealed that they had not completed the early childhood education units required to qualify as a teacher. The staff members were therefore aides unqualified to be supervising children alone. The preponderance of evidence standard has been met; therefore, this allegation is SUBSTANTIATED. (2) Facility was operating out of ratio It was alleged that the facility was operating out of ratio. Through interview and record review, LPA identified the incidents described above in which aides were left alone to supervise children without the presence of a qualified teacher. Due to the absence of a teacher, the facility did not meet the required ratio of teacher to children in attendance. The preponderance of standard evidence has been met; therefore, this allegation is SUBSTANTIATED. Title 22 deficiencies are cited on the accompanying 9099-D. Licensee acknowledges, that FOR TYPE A DEFICIENCIES ONLY upon receipt, licensee shall post LIC 9099D with Type A deficiencies for 30 days and provide copies of this licensing report to parents/guardians of children in care at the facility and to parents/guardians of children newly enrolled at the facility during the next 12 months. LIC 9224 must be signed by parents/guardians and kept with the children's forms as a receipt whenever any Type A documents are provided by the licensee. LIC 9224 and Appeal Rights were provided. Exit interview conducted and report was reviewed with the facility representative, Paolo Sarmiento. A notice of site visit was given and must remain posted for 30 days. Based on the available evidence, the finding for the above allegation is UNSUBSTANTIATED, meaning that although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove it. (2) Staff did not ensure medication was stored inaccessible to children It was alleged that staff did not ensure medication was stored inaccessibly to children in the case of diaper cream being kept in a backpack that was reachable by children. During an initial and subsequent visit, LPA did not observe diaper cream being kept in backpacks accessible to children. Staff interviews did not produce evidence that staff was aware diaper cream was being stored in backpacks, and parent interviews similarly did not produce additional support for the allegation. Based on the available evidence, the finding for the above allegation is UNSUBSTANTIATED, meaning that although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove it. (3) Staff did not obtain parent consent for the administration of medication to day care child It was alleged that staff did not obtain parent consent for the administration of diaper cream medication. Record review during LPA’s initial visit on 8/20/2024 provided evidence that the facility does request and keep on file the LIC9221 Parent Consent for Administration of Medications form for children using diaper cream. All staff interviewed displayed knowledge that this form needed to be signed prior to administering medication, and interviews with parents indicated that parents were being asked for this form as a condition of administering medication. Based on the available evidence, the finding for the above allegation is UNSUBSTANTIATED, meaning that although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove it. Exit interview conducted and report was reviewed with the facility representative, Paolo Sarmiento. A notice of site visit was given and must remain posted for 30 days. Appeal rights were provided.