complaint·July 26, 2023

Shortly after that day, P1 was verbally told by AD that P1 was not allowed to pick up or drop off P1’s children, however, no court/custody orders were in place nor was there documentation of any order on file that denied P1 parental rights. Record review revealed that on June 28, 2023, AD also sent a text message to staff stating that P1 was not allowed in the building for any reason, to drop off or pick up and should be turned away. Additional record review revealed on June 29, 2023, AD also sent an email correspondence to P1 stating that P1 would not be allowed in the building for pick up or drop off. The interview with AD, revealed that AD put this restriction in to place due to P1’s conduct and past incidents with staff. However, AD had no documentation of any such incidents, nor had Community Care Licensing been made aware of any unusual incidents involving P1 or any staff and/or children. Interviews did reveal that P1’s demeanor was confrontational and P1 made accusations regarding staff and the treatment of C1 and C2, however, at no point was P1 threatening to staff or children. Further interviews revealed that there was a time, when P1 went into the facility to drop C1 and C2 off and P1 was stopped by staff in the lobby area and P1 was told P1 was unable to be there. Additionally, at that time a staff member escorted C1 and C2 back to their classroom due to P1 not being allowed. Interviews further revealed that parents normally pass the lobby area and escort their own children to their classrooms, however, on this day, P1 was not allowed. Based on confidential interviews and record review, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met and the allegation staff prohibiting P1 from entering the childcare are substantiated. The facility is being cited for Title 22 Regulations Section 101218.1 (b)(1). See LIC 9099-D for cited deficiencies. An exit interview was conducted, appeal rights discussed and given to the licensee along with a copy of this report was provided to Director Tara Martinez. A notice of site visit was also provided and must remain posted for 30 days. One interview further revealed C1 did not get a snack that day because C1 did not want to talk to S1 and C1 was picked up shortly after the incident. Other interviews revealed C1 did get snack that day. Interviews further revealed that normally snack is set up and children are dismissed to get their own snack. Based on conflicting statements, the allegation that S1 did not ensure that C1 received their snack may have occurred, however is not supported or proven by evidence. Therefore, the above allegation is unsubstantiated. An exit interview was conducted and a copy of this report and appeal rights were discussed and provided to Director Tara Martinez. A notice of site visit was also provided and must remain posted for 30 days.