complaint·October 29, 2021

During the visit on 7/06/21 LPA Mendez observed that during the visit that there was no mask wearing at facility. LPA Mendez addressed the allegation of licensee not following the guidelines for facial coverings. Licensee stated that they were under the impression that mask wearing was a choice especially when after June 15th the mask mandate was lifted but was not aware that CCLD was still following the mask mandate. Based on the evidence obtained, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met, therefore the above allegation is found to be substantiated. California Code of Regulations, (Title 22), is being cited on the attached LIC 9099D. Appeal rights were provided and exit interview conducted. The Notice of Site Visit must be posted for 30 days. Licensee denied the allegation of allowing children with symptoms to attend, stating that they informed parents not to bring in sick children and to have a doctor’s note that allows them to return to childcare. LPA Mendez interviewed Staff (S1) on 9/16/21, S1 stated that licensee does not hit children and is extremely gentle with children. LPA Mendez interviewed children on 10/14/21, Children C3 and C4 both stated that licensee does not hit children at daycare. LPA Mendez interviewed parents regarding facility not being clean and orderly. P1 stated that the backyard is not safe and there is stuff piled everywhere. P2 stated that they had not witnessed facility being dirty. P4 stated that facility is not messy just toys placed around. Staff (S1) stated that facility is clean, and licensee is constantly cleaning and disinfecting. LPA Mendez observed that the facility is clean, LPA Mendez observed S1 cleaning up after tables and did not see anything piled in the backyard. LPA Mendez addressed the allegation of licensee did not seek medical care for a head injury . Licensee stated that she is not a medical professional and called the parent to have child checked by a medical professional and had called parent. LPA Mendez asked licensee what was the child’s condition when the child was injured. Licensee stated that child got up and walked toward her while child was crying. Staff (S1) was not present for child’s head injury, S1 stated she was hired after the complaint but was aware of the complaint. LPA Mendez addressed the allegation of licensee allowing children with symptoms of illness to attend. Six out of Seven witness interviews confirmed the licensee does not allow sick children to attend, the licensee requests doctor’s notes if children have been sick before they can return and that the licensee does follow the policy regarding sick children in care. Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of the evidence to prove that the alleged violation occurred, and the findings are unsubstantiated. An exit interview was conducted. The Notice of Site Visit must be posted for 30 days.