Complaint·June 10, 2021

LS further claimed she provided a daily lunch and supplied a variety of snacks for the children to retrieve on their own if they felt hungry, as well as plastic cups for the children to obtain drinking water if they were thirsty. LS felt that she was being falsely accused of the allegations. Statements provided by staff denied the allegations, and staff claimed they had not seen any incident(s) that led to any child(ren) sustaining an injury, they had not seen LS pushed, shoved or grab any child’s arm; and staff treated the children and parents with respect. The staff statements further claimed that staff served and fed the children a daily breakfast, snacks and lunch, and no children had ever been denied food, and child(ren) could grab a snack at the facility hallway without asking an adult. Through the course of the investigation starting from 03/04/21 through 05/19/21, LPA interviewed LS, seven parents, four children, and two staff. Some children were not available to be interviewed. Statements provided by multiple parents and two staff did not report any corroborating evidence where they witnessed unexplained bruising on their child(ren) or LS handled any child in a rough manner, and/or concerns of LS not meeting the children’s dietary needs. While some parents’ statements did not report any concerns of personal rights violation(s) at the facility, two parents’ statements did report concerns of LS handling child(ren) in a rough manner, however; specific details could not be provided. One statement further expressed concerns and claimed that LS allegedly hit a child with a shoe and the child was always hungry because LS was not feeding the child lunch, but the details of those claims were not corroborated. Based on the investigation, there’s not a preponderance of evidence to support the allegations that C3 sustained a bruise at the facility, LS handled any child in a rough manner and/or that LS did not feed several children for seven hours. Therefore, the allegations are unsubstantiated. This report was discussed and reviewed with LS and an Exit interview was conducted with LS. LS’s signature was not recorded on this Complaint Investigation Report (CIR), however; LS was provided with a copy of this CIR, and LS’s confirmation of read receipt is on file. Notice of Site Visit shall be posted for 30 days. There were no title 22 deficiencies cited during this visit. Appeal Rights were provided. P6 described LS’s verbal tone as aggressive and that LS snapped at the children a lot. Several other statements further reported they had witnessed LS was upset and yelled or screamed at children because the children were not behaving. Based on the investigation, there is enough preponderance of evidence to support the allegation that LS yelled in the presence of day care children. Therefore, the allegation is substantiated. California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 12, Chapter 1 is being cited on the attached LIC 9099D. This report was discussed and reviewed with LS and an Exit interview was conducted with LS. LS’s signature was not recorded on this Complaint Investigation Report (CIR), however; LS was provided with a copy of this CIR, and LS’s confirmation of read receipt is on file. Notice of Site Visit shall be posted. Appeal Rights were provided.