complaint·September 4, 2025

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA), Leticia Rosales attempted interviews with five parents, Parents 1 - 5 (P1-P5) between 08/29/25 to 09/03/25. An interview was conducted with Parent 6 (P6) on 9/03/25. LPA interviewed three staff (S1, S2, S3) and one child, Child 2 (C2) on 9/04/25. S1 denied the allegations. S1 stated video footage from facility’s surveillance camera did not see anything happen at all. S tatements provided by S1 - S3 mentioned they did not observe any inappropriately behavior between staff, nor day care children. P6 stated has have never observed or heard of any inappropriate behavior with either staff or children. During LPA’s visit to the facility, LPA observed staff interacting calmly with the children, and LPA did not witness staff violating any child(ren)’s personal rights. LPA also observed there to be sufficient staff available and staff were appropriately supervising children in care. Based on interviews conducted, although the allegations may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of the evidence to prove that the alleged violations occurred, therefore the allegations are Unsubstantiated. There was no Title 22 deficiency cited based on the above findings. Exit interview conducted and report was reviewed and discussed with Facility Representative, Janice Crane. Appeal Rights were provided. Notice of Site Visit shall be posted for 30 days from today's visit. Failure to comply with posting requirements shall result in a $100 civil penalty.