Skip to main content

Inspection visit

Complaint

DEBOSE-MCCREE, ANTHONYLicense 483010329
Clean visit · 0 citations

Inspector’s narrative

What the inspector wrote

The licensee stated that on the day of the alleged incident, three children were present at the facility. The children were napping in a designated nap room under the supervision of one staff member (S2), who was positioned at the entrance to maintain continuous visual supervision of that room and, when in use, the room across from it. The licensee reported that child C1 was placed at least one cot away from the other child involved in the allegation. Based on the distance between the children and the level of supervision, the licensee asserted that the alleged inappropriate touching would not have been possible. The licensee further stated that during the two-week period C1 was enrolled at the facility, this was the only occasion on which C1 and C2 napped in the same room; on all other days, they slept in separate rooms. A written Unusual Incident Report (UIR) was submitted to the Department on February 17, 2026 by the licensee, notifying the Department of the allegations involving the facility. The licensee reported that the facility operates in partnership with a Family Child Care Home (FCCH) managed by the licensee’s spouse, Sindy Lafages, which is located adjacent to this facility. The licensee explained that both operations function in coordination with one another and share staffing resources. As such, staff members may be assigned to or moved between the two locations as operational needs arise, including to support coverage, supervision, and daily program activities. The licensee further stated that the coordination between the two homes is intended to ensure continuity of care and efficient staffing support while maintaining appropriate supervision of children in care at all times. Additionally, the licensee explained that his facility serves older preschool-age children who have “promoted” from Lafages' facility and are more developmentally independent and able to participate in structured preschool activities. The licensee indicated that the separation of age groups between the two homes allows each program to better tailor activities, routines, and staffing approaches to the developmental needs of the children enrolled. The licensee stated that he has never denied any child’s authorized representative access to the childcare areas of the home. The licensee emphasized that authorized representatives are permitted to enter and observe the childcare environment at any time as needed. The licensee explained that drop-off and pick-up procedures are typically conducted at the main entrance of the home for reasons of convenience and efficiency. This practice is intended to streamline daily transitions and minimize disruption to children’s routines and program activities within the childcare setting. The licensee clarified that this procedure is not intended to restrict access to the facility. The licensee further stated that authorized representatives retain the right to enter the home and inspect the childcare areas at any time without prior notice during hours of operation, in accordance with licensing requirements. (Continued on LIC9099-C) Throughout the investigation, LPA conducted observations and interviewed individuals familiar with the facility, including clients, staff members (S1–S7), and daycare children. These interviews did not yield any evidence to support the allegations. Additionally, during multiple visits to the facility, the LPA did not observe any violations of children’s personal rights or any deficiencies in supervision. The children were consistently observed to be in a safe, healthy, and comfortable environment with appropriate furnishings and equipment. Based on available information, although the allegations may have happened or are valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violations did or did not occur, therefore, the allegations are determined to be unsubstantiated at this time. There were no Title 22 deficiencies cited. This report was reviewed and discussed with the licensee, Anthony Debose-McCree Appeal rights were provided. Notice of Site Visit shall be posted for 30 days from today's visit.

Citations

No citations recorded on this visit

The inspector found no violations of California child care regulations during this visit.

FAQ · About this visit

Common questions about this visit

What happened during the April 14, 2026 inspection of DEBOSE-MCCREE, ANTHONY?

This was a complaint inspection of DEBOSE-MCCREE, ANTHONY on April 14, 2026. The inspection found no deficiencies and no citations were issued.

Were any citations issued to DEBOSE-MCCREE, ANTHONY on April 14, 2026?

No citations were issued during this inspection. The facility was found to be in compliance with all applicable regulations.

What type of inspection was this?

This was a complaint inspection. Complaint inspections are triggered when someone reports a concern about the facility to CCLD.

Share this reportEmail

Next steps

If this is your facility,claim this pageand correct anything the record gets wrong. Free.

Researching this visit professionally?Book a 15-minute calland we will walk through what we have on file.

Data from CCLD public records. Last updated . If you believe any information is inaccurate, report it here.