Complaint·September 23, 2022

LS stated she did not have a crib or play yard available for infant(s) that met the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) safety standards, and LS was unaware of the Infant Safe Sleep requirements. Furthermore, LS denied claims about not providing supervision to the children in care and stated that when the children were in care, she was in the living room providing supervision to the children. LS also asserted she had not left children unattended. According to interviews, multiple statements confirmed that the children, which included infant(s), napped on a rectangular shaped mat in the living room while on occasion LS stayed in her own room for an extended period of time resulting in younger children being left alone in the living room under the care of other older minor children in care. In addition, W4, W5 & W6 indicated on more than one occasion, LS left several daycare children unattended in her parked vehicle while LS stopped at and went inside various fast food restaurants to pick up food during their trip to the local public community park(s). Some of these occasions, the older minor children were asked to watch over the younger children resulting in an absence of the supervision. S1 confirmed she did not accompany LS and the children on their trips to the park or when they stopped to pick up food at various restaurant, while, S2 stated she was not present for every trip. Based on the investigation, there\342\200\231s a preponderance of evidence to show LS did not provide an appropriate place for infant to sleep and LS did not provide the required supervision to children in care resulting in an absence of supervision. Therefore, the allegations are substantiated, and an immediate $500 Civil Penalty is being assessed for absence of supervision. The California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 12, Chapter 1 is being cited on the attached LIC 9099D. Appeal Rights were provided and exit interview conducted.