complaint·September 29, 2022

L1 also denied that any child is placed in the swing to watch TV, stating that the swings are only used for helping the children to fall asleep and then they are moved to a bed. Interviews with children C2 and C3 indicated that the swings are used for the babies to sleep. LPA conducted interviews with 5 adults, Adult 1 – Adult 4 and Adult 6 (A1-A4 and A6) between 07/19/22 and 09/16/22. Interviews conducted with L1’s assistants on 09/16/22 stated that they could not think of a time that a child in care had a rash/allergic reaction or a fever while in care, and that swings are only used to help children fall asleep, corroborating what L1 stated. LPA received screen shots of text communication with L1 and photos of a child that had pink coloring on the cheeks, nose and eyebrows on 07/19/22 and 07/20/22 after an interview was conducted with Adult 1 and Adult 2. Adult 2 stated during an interview that they didn't notice a rash when they picked their child up, but when home noticed what looked like welts or hives all over their body. Further stating that the pink coloring seen on the child’s face would come and go, stating that the doctor was unable to give a diagnosis. A review of text messages between adult and L1 indicates that the adult was informing L1 of the child’s illness, but does not indicate that L1 was aware of the illness prior to receiving the text. A6 stated in an interview that their children have never been ill or injured in care and that she has regular communication with L1. Although interviews and record review corroborate that a child in care did have an allergic reaction to something and was diagnosed with a fever due to an ear infection, based on information gathered during interviews, there is not a preponderance of evidence to support that the Licensee or assistants were aware that the child had an allergic reaction or a fever while in care. Based on interviews conducted there is not a preponderance of evidence to support that the swing is used for any purpose other than to help children fall asleep. Based on interviews conducted and records reviewed, although the allegations may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove that an alleged violation occurred, therefore the allegations are UNSUBSTANTIATED. There were no Title 22 deficiencies cited based on the above allegations during today's inspection. This report was reviewed and discussed with the Licensee. 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 an immediate civil penalty of $100. LPA conducted interviews with 5 adults, Adult 1 – Adult 4 and Adult 6 (A1-A4 and A6) between 07/19/22 and 09/16/22. LPA reviewed the swing manufacturer warning label and product information sheet through an internet search. Swing warning sticker states the following: “WARNING: Prevent death..., Prevent serious injury or death from falls or strangling in the restraint system" -Never leave child unattended. -Always use the restraint system. - This product is not intended to replace a crib or bassinet for prolonged periods of sleep. - Discontinue use when an active child attempts to climb out.” Product information sheet states that the maximum weight limit is 25 lbs, but if child is active and appears to be able to climb out of the swing, immediately discontinue its use. Adult interviewed stated that their child has been observed in the swing and weighs 25 lbs or more and that they have told the Licensee that their child has fallen out of an infant swing at home and shared a concern with the licensee that if they use the swing that they may fall out. On 07/20/22 at 1:13pm LPA observed C6 climb into the swing unassisted and then back out of the swing. Based Interviews conducted, a review of swing manufacturer warnings and LPA observations, the preponderance of evidence standard had been met. It has been corroborated that the swings present at the facility have been used on more than one occasion, including during LPA’s visit on 07/20/22 by children C1 – C4 that are either beyond the swing manufacturers maximum weight limit of 25lbs, able to climb in and out of the swing or not fully restrained with the harness as directed by the manufacturer, therefore making the equipment unsafe. Based on the evidence obtained, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met, therefore the above allegation is found to be substantiated. California Code of Regulations, Title 22, are being cited on the attached LIC 9099-D. Appeal Rights were provided and exit interview conducted. The Notice of Site Visit must be posted for 30 days. Failure to comply with posting requirements shall result in an immediate civil penalty of $100.