Complaint·January 14, 2025

PAGE 2 During the investigation LPA conducted interviews with three adults (A1 – A3) between 12/06/24 and 12/11/24 and made attempts to interview adult A4 on 12/06/24 and 01/10/25. A1 reported that on 11/05/24 they observed children running around in the house and down the hallway. A1 reported that L1 didn’t seem to want children in the hallway and was observed picking up two different children by their forearms, one and then the other, to remove them from the hallway, stating that although L1 didn’t appear angry, it was an inappropriate way to handle a child. A2 and A3 did not report ever witnessing L1 inappropriately handling children. Based on the interview with A1, there is a preponderance of evidence to indicate that L1 used an inappropriate method to move two children in care out of the hallway on 11/05/24 therefore, the above allegation is found to be SUBSTANTIATED. California Code of Regulations, (Title 22), is being cited on the attached LIC9099 Deficiency page. Appeal rights were provided. LPA provided L1 with a handout from Kaiser Permanente thrive on the topic of Nursemaid’s Elbow, a condition that can occur when a child is pulled or lifted while their arm is held straight. A notice of site visit was given and must remain posted for 30 days. Failure to comply with posting requirements shall result in an immediate civil penalty of $100. Exit interview conducted and report was reviewed with the licensee, Margaret Lino-Martinez. PAGE 2 During the investigation LPA conducted interviews with three adults (A1 – A3) between 12/06/24 and 12/11/24 and made attempts to interview adult A4 on 12/06/24 and 01/10/25. A1 reported that on 11/05/24 they observed L1 change a child’s diaper on the couch, L1 leave the child alone on the couch while throwing away the soiled diaper and witnessed the child roll off the couch. A1 was unsure of the child’s age but believed that the child was able to crawl and appeared to be about 2 years old. A2 reported that they have never had any concerns and believes that L1 provides a safe environment, along with being very accommodating and flexible. A2 reported that their child is capable of getting on and off of a couch on their own. A3 reported that they do not have any concerns about the care being providing, stating that their child is not yet mobile. On 11/19/24 L1 provided LPA Strother with the names of the children who were in care on 11/04/24 and 11/05/24. LPA identified the children on the facility roster as the same children who were present during LPA’s initial inspection on 11/13/24. Based on LPA’s observations, 3 of the 4 children present, were physically capable of getting on and off the couch unassisted, although LPA did observe S1 sitting close by as one of the children got down from the couch. The fourth child in care was a young infant and was observed to be napping in a play yard or in a care givers arms during the visit. Based on interviews conducted and LPA observations, although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove that an alleged violation occurred, therefore the allegation is UNSUBSTANTIATED. 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.