Complaint·May 7, 2026

Throughout the course of the investigation, the Department was able to obtain substantial information, including documentation, confirming that the facility had operated with one adult supervising 13 children. Based on the information obtained, the preponderance of evidence revealed that the facility failed to maintain compliance with Title 22 Regulation 102416.5(e), which requires that when more than eight children are present in a large family child care home, an assistant provider shall also be present. The facility has been cited under Title 22 Regulation 102416.5(e), Staffing Ratio and Capacity Requirements. See LIC 9099-D for cited deficiency. Please note that a detailed plan of correction for the facility will be implemented, as a part of the cited deficiency. LPA informed Licensee that this report dated 05/07/2026 documents 1 Type A citation which shall be posted for 30 consecutive days as there was a immediate risk to the personal rights of children in care. Also, LPA informed Director to provide a copy of this licensing report dated on 05/07/205 that documents any Type A citation to parents/guardians of all children currently enrolled by the next business day or the next day the children are in care, and to any newly enrolled parents/guardians for 12 months from the date of this report. A signed Acknowledgement of Receipt of Licensing Report (LIC 9224), or other written statement, must be placed in the child's file for verification. A notice of site visit was given and must remain posted on, or immediately adjacent to, the interior side of the main door for 30 days. Failure to comply with posting requirements shall result in an immediate civil penalty of $100. Exit interview conducted and report was reviewed with Emely Gutierrez, Licensee. It was reported that infants were allegedly left in play pens for extended periods of time, sometimes without engagement, as a form of restraint. Licensee denied inappropriate restraint practices and stated that children are occasionally placed in play pens during periods such as food preparation to prevent infants from accessing the kitchen area. During a complaint visit, LPA observed children in play pens, including while watching television with toys around nap time. Conflicting statements were received regarding whether the use of play pens constituted inappropriate restraint or temporary supervision for child safety purposes. It was also reported that staff members allegedly handled children in a rough manner, including physically pulling children by the arms. Throughout the course of the investigation, conflicting statements were received from interviewed individuals regarding staff interactions with children. Licensee denied that staff engaged in rough or inappropriate physical handling. Although concerns were disclosed, available documentation, interviews, and observations did not provide sufficient corroborating evidence to support the allegation by a preponderance of evidence. Additionally, it was reported that staff allegedly prevented children from sleeping prior to scheduled nap times and harshly woke children after nap periods. Licensee denied these allegations. Throughout the course of the investigation, conflicting statements were received regarding sleep practices and staff responses to children’s sleep behaviors. Documentation, interviews, and observations did not provide sufficient corroborating evidence to conclusively verify violations related to children’s personal rights concerning rest or sleep. Continued on LIC 9099-C. Throughout the course of the investigation, conflicting information was received. While some disclosures raised concerns regarding facility operations and staff conduct, documentation, interviews, and observations as a whole did not provide sufficient corroborating evidence to support the allegations by a preponderance of evidence. This agency has investigated the complaint regarding the above allegations pertaining to Personal Rights. Conflicting statements were received throughout the course of the investigation. Based on the interviews conducted and documentation collected, the allegations are UNSUBSTANTIATED. A finding of unsubstantiated means, although the allegations may have happened, or are valid, there is not a preponderance of the evidence to prove the allegations occurred. No deficiencies were cited during this inspection. A notice of site visit was given and must remain posted on, or immediately adjacent to, the interior side of the main door for 30 days. Failure to comply with posting requirements shall result in an immediate civil penalty of $100. Exit interview conducted and report was reviewed with Emely Gutierrez, Licensee.