complaint·November 8, 2023

Continued from 9099 (Page 2) During a previous visit, LPA Tiffanie Diep did not observe immediate or potential risks to children in care. Interviews conducted did not disclose concerns of feeling threatened by Licensee. It was revealed that parents expressed feeling uncomfortable regarding the quality of care and inconsistencies with Licensee\342\200\231s policies. Information obtained did not reveal incidents of children in care whose personal rights were violated, such as sustaining marks or interference with eating or toileting. It was revealed that other adults associated to the facility have criminal record clearances and provide assistance to Licensee when they are temporarily absent. Interviews conducted did not disclose sufficient information that was evident to support the allegation that the provider\342\200\231s conduct poses a risk to a day care child in care. Based on observations made at the facility, information obtained during interviews, and records reviewed, it is determined that the allegation could not be substantiated or dismissed. Although the allegation might 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. An exit interview was conducted and report was reviewed with the licensee, Barbara Avila. A notice of site visit was given to Licensee 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.