Follow-up·September 8, 2025

On 9/8/25, at 9:35 AM, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Matthew Sapien made an unannounced Case Management inspection at the abovementioned Child Care Center (CCC). LPA met with Jude Contreras, Site Supervisor of the CCC, and explained the nature and purpose of the inspection. LPA, in the company of the Site Supervisor, toured the CCC. At the time of the inspection, LPA observed 8 children in care. In addition to the Site Supervisor of the CCC, LPA also observed three other staff assistants present on site (cleared and associated). This Case Management inspection follows an Unusual Incident at the CCC which occurred on 8/22/25. The incident was reported to the Department on 8/25/25 and was sent via fax message. Importantly to note, the CCC\342\200\231s hours of operation are Monday through Friday from 8:30 AM until 4:30 PM. In regards to the incident, on 8/22/25 at 1:44 PM, a staff member from Child Welfare Services ("Child Welfare Services Staff Member" or "CWS SM") arrived at the CCC and informed CCC staff that a child in care ("Child 1" or "C1") needed to be talked to and examined due to an incident taking place at C1's household the night prior. One of C1's parents, ("Parent 2" or "P2"), gave permission to the CWS SM that permission was given to visit the CCC. The CWS SM arrived at the facility, showed their badge, and also presented a warrant. Site Supervisor proceeded to walk the CWS SM into one of the CCC's classrooms and show the worker C1's legs and arms. Nothing significant was observed on the legs or arms of the child. The CWS SM observed C1 and proceeded to leave the facility. Upon departure, the CWS SM gave the Site Supervisor business cards for their keeping and asked to give one to C1's mother ("Parent 1" or "P1"). The CWS SM left the CCC at 2:01 PM. On the same date of the incident, 8/22/25, around 3:22 PM, P2 arrived at the CCC to pick up C1. P2 did not have an ID present upon arrival so P2 was required to leave and retrieve some form of identification. At 3:48 PM, P2 arrived again at the CCC and presented ID to staff and proceeded to sign C1 out at 3:52 PM. On the same date of the incident, 8/22/25, around 4:15 PM, P1 arrived at the CCC to pick up their child. CCC staff (CONT. 809-C, Page 2). informed P1 that P2 had already picked up the child from the CCC. P1 informed staff that P2 shouldn't have picked up C1 due to behavioral issues as determined by the CWS SM. Staff reached out the Site Supervisor who had already left for the day. At 4:21 PM, the Site Supervisor returned to the CCC and spoke to P1 to brief P1 of the events of the day. P1 informed Site Supervisor that they spoke to the CWS SM over the phone and it was determined that P2 would not be allowed to pick up the child from child care. Site Supervisor asked P1 if anything was presented in writing on the decision for P2 to not pick up C1, however, no documentation was obtained by P1. Site Supervisor stated to P1 that without proper documentation verifying this by Child Welfare Services, the CCC was able to allow P2 to pick up C1. P1 further stated to the Site Supervisor that proper documentation will be gathered and obtained soon. On the same date of the incident, 8/22/25, P1 called the CWS SM and explained the situation. Site Supervisor also called the Paso Robles Police Department and explained the situation. At 4:48 PM, the Police Department arrive to the CCC and was briefed of the situation by the Site Supervisor and P1. Police informed P1 that since no court ordered documentation was obtained, P2 could pick up the child from child care. With the Site Supervisor present, Police Department informed P1 that this incident would be treated as a co-parenting dispute. The Sheriff Department was also further contacted to conduct a welfare check at P2's residence. P1 was encouraged to continue working on court paperwork. During today's visit, 9/8/25, the LPA viewed the facility and an in-depth conversation was had about the incident that took place at the CCC on 8/22/25. During today's visit, 9/8/25, Site Supervisor informed LPA that P1 had an emergency protective order in place restricting P2 from picking up C1 or from being present around C1. While this emergency protective order expired, a criminal protective order is currently in place that doesn't permit P2 to be around P1 or C1. Site Supervisor informed LPA that the child continues to be enrolled at the CCC. The Site Supervisor was provided a copy of their Appeal Rights (LIC 9058) and their signature on this form acknowledges receipt of these rights. An exit interview was conducted with Facility Representative, Jude Contreras. Facility Representative was provided with a Notice of Site Visit (LIC 9213). The Notice of Site Visit form must be posted for 30 days or a civil penalty of $100 may apply.