complaint·April 2, 2025

Report continued from page one Interviewees denied C5 is bullied at the Center. Per information received from staff, due to the behavior of C4, the Center has an action plan that was in place at the time of the above incidents. Although the investigation could not support, the information that C5 was being bullied, investigation concluded that at the time of these incidents, the Center did not provide adequate supervision. As even with a safety plan being enforced, C4 was able to pick up scissors from a separate table in the classroom and then walk with the scissors over to C5s table and cut C5s hair without the staff observing that C4 had scissors. The Department received a second allegation alleging that on January 8, 2025, staff 1 (S1) yelled at child 1 (C1), stating S1 wanted to punch C1 out of frustration. In addition, the allegation alleged S1 asked child 2 (C2) “do you want me to die?”. Confidential interviews confirmed that S1 uses a "strict" and "loud" voice. When S1 used the strict and loud voice, the school age children felt sad, angry and mad. Additional interviews confirmed S1 was overheard telling C2 that C2 “pissed off” S1. Interviewees reported C2 was wide eyed and cried due to this interaction. S1 confirmed, S1 used the wrong word when talking to C2 about C2 actions. S1 also confirmed they “yelled” at the school age children due to the being left alone in the classroom and stressed due to the behavior of the school age children. Over the course of the investigation, evidence supported the allegation that S1 speaks inappropriately to the school age children which violated the children personal rights while attending the Center. Based on the interviews conducted and a review of the records, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met. Therefore, the above allegations are found to be Substantiated. Citations were issued on the LIC 9099D for California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 12, Chapter 1, regulation 101229 (a) Responsibility for Providing Care and Supervision and 101223(a) (1) Personal Rights. A Notice of Site Visit was given and must remain posted for 30 days. An exit interview was conducted, and the report was reviewed with facility representative Margaret Quintana. Appeal rights and a copy of the report were provided to facility representative Margaret Quintana. Report continued from page one In addition, LPA reviewed S1s file, which did not contain evidence of S1 grabbing C3 wrist. Based on interviews, record review and LPA observation, there is not enough evidence regarding the allegation alleging Staff handled C3 in a rough manner. Therefore, the allegation is deemed unsubstantiated at this time. Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation did or did not occur, therefore the allegation is unsubstantiated. Notice of Site Visit was given and must remain posted for 30 days. An exit interview was conducted, where this report and appeal rights were reviewed with facility representative Margaret Quintana.