complaint·January 12, 2026

Today, the Licensing Program Analysts (LPA) met with Center Director Anais Heim (S1) to review the findings of the investigation. During the initial visit on October 21, 2025, Director Heim was interviewed regarding the allegations. Heim denied the allegations and provided additional information. She stated that she was aware of the concerns raised about staff member S6 because they had previously been brought to her attention by a concerned party. Upon learning of the concerns, Heim reported that she spoke with S6, who denied roughly handling child C1. Heim also stated that a law enforcement officer from the Petaluma Police Department visited the facility prior to the LPA's initial investigation visit, to conduct interviews as part of the inquiry. Director Heim stated that her facility reports all unusual incidents and injuries to children’s authorized representatives. According to Heim, whenever a child sustains an injury or experiences an unusual incident while under the facility’s supervision, a written incident report is completed and the child’s authorized representative is notified in accordance with applicable reporting requirements. Heim also stated that, depending on the severity or nature of the incident, appropriate external agencies including law enforcement, Community Care Licensing, and/or child protective services are notified as required. Director Heim explained that staff members are responsible for completing written incident reports when incidents occur, documenting pertinent details such as the nature of the incident and any actions taken. Once an incident report is completed, Heim stated that she or another administrator reviews and signs the report prior to providing it to the child’s authorized representative. Director Heim reported that, in the case of child C1, the child’s authorized representative raised a concern regarding injuries observed on the child. Heim explained that she did not work full time in C1’s classroom and, therefore, may not have personally witnessed all incidents that occurred. Heim stated that the information she provides to authorized representatives is based on what was reported to her by the staff member who observed the incident or documented it in a written incident report. Heim further explained that classroom staff provide additional information to authorized representatives at the end of each day and address any questions they may have. In C1’s case, Heim noted that the staff member who wrote the incident report had already left for the day, so she was unable to consult with that staff member before speaking with the child’s authorized representative. Heim acknowledged that if the information she provided differed from the information supplied by the child’s teacher, any discrepancy was unintentional. (Continued on LIC9099-C) Director Heim explained that she naturally has a loud voice and speaks with enthusiasm. She denied ever yelling at children or speaking to them in a threatening manner. Heim stated that she frequently assists in classrooms and helps with breaks and transitions. She indicated that, although she does not yell at children, she may raise her voice on occasion to gain a child’s attention. Heim explained that the children can become loud while playing inside the facility, making it difficult for them to hear her when she uses her regular tone or volume. During the Department’s investigation, interviews were conducted with facility staff members S1 through S10 regarding the allegations. All interviewed staff corroborated Director Heim’s statements, and they reported that they understand their responsibilities as mandated reporters and are aware of their legal obligation to report any facts or circumstances that lead them to suspect a child has been abused or neglected. All interviewed staff also stated that they have never observed staff member S6 or any other employee roughly handling a child, yelling at a child, or violating a child’s personal rights. Staff member S6 was interviewed on November 12, 2025. She denied the allegations and provided additional details regarding the incident involving C1. According to S6, she was in the classroom with another teacher, S7, when they were waking the children from their naps. S6 stated that she assisted C1 in getting up and directed the child to the bathroom where S7 was receiving the children and providing assistance as needed. S6 further stated that, while collecting the children’s sleeping cots, she noticed that the cot used by C1 was wet due to the child having soiled themselves. S6 indicated that she then retrieved C1’s spare clothes and provided them to S7. Staff S6 stated that at no time did she touch or move C1 in a forceful manner. S6 explained that most children in her classroom are nearly fully potty trained and are encouraged to practice self-care and self-help skills. She noted that children are allowed to dress themselves unless it is absolutely necessary for staff to assist them. S6 stated that C1 is capable of putting on clothing independently and has done so on multiple occasions while in care. S6 reported that C1 changed into black leggings and that it was difficult to determine whether the leggings were inside out because there were no obvious indicators. S6 stated that she verbally praised C1 for putting on the pants independently and that C1 then went about their activities prior to being picked up by their authorized representative shortly thereafter. S6 stated that she was on her break when C1’s authorized representative arrived at the facility to pick up C1. (Continued on LIC9099-C) Staff member S7 was interviewed on November 12, 2025, and corroborated the statements made by S6. S7 added that she was in the bathroom assisting C1, who was seated on a stool and putting on their pants. S7 noted that C1 appeared calm and was not crying or in distress. S7 stated that she did not observe any rough handling or any inappropriate interactions or comments by S6. As part of the investigation, interviews were also conducted with the facility’s clients and children; however, these interviews did not yield any corroborating information. Additionally, records obtained from the local law enforcement agency did not provide any evidence supporting the allegation of staff misconduct related to the incident under investigation. During the Licensing Program Analyst’s site visits on October 21, 2025, October 24, 2025, November 12, 2025, and December 23, 2025, no evidence of personal rights violations was observed. Based on available information and interviews conducted, 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 center director, Anais Heim. Appeal rights were provided. Notice of Site Visit shall be posted for 30 days from today's visit. Based on information obtained from interviews during the investigation, 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 9099-D. An exit interview was conducted, and this report was read and discussed with the facility’s director, Anais Heim. Appeal rights were provided. The Notice of Site Visit shall be posted for 30 days.