complaint·June 5, 2023

(Continued from LIC 9099) L1 stated they would ask children what type of filter to use a \342\200\234funny one\342\200\235 or \342\200\234scary one\342\200\235, \342\200\234scary ones\342\200\235 meaning funny and appropriate to children but would stop doing this activity. Interviews conducted with staff (S1, S3-S4) did corroborate the allegation by stating that they have seen when the phone was used to take photos using a Snapchat filter. While some parent interviews indicated they did not mind staff using photo filters with daycare children, if they are not saved; others (P1, P3, P4) could understand how it can be seen as inappropriate since some filters can be viewed as scary and what one child may see as silly or funny another child may see as scary. One child found the filtered photos scary, while other children (C3, C5) did not see them as scary, but fun. Based on the information gathered during this investigation, the preponderance of the evidence standard has been. Therefore, the allegation is determined to be substantiated. California Code of Regulations, Title 22, is being cited on the attached LIC 9099-D. Appeal rights were provided. An exit interview was conducted, and this report was read and discussed with the Licensees, Laurie Brady & Robert Brady. The Notice of Site Visit shall be posted for 30 days. (Continued from LIC 9099) According to staff interviews (S1-S5), the facility uses time outs or would redirect the situation when disciplining daycare children. Staff also conveyed that they would talk with the children to try to resolve the issue or have them try to work through the situation. One parent interview (P4) stated to have seen a staff member acting unprofessionally and upset with daycare children but nothing else that was alarming. The remaining parent and children interviews indicated they had not seen or heard any inappropriate discipline being used and had no concerns with the facility at this this time. Based on the information gathered during this investigation, although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove that the allegations occurred and therefore are determined to be unsubstantiated. There were no Title 22 deficiencies cited. This report was reviewed and discussed with Licensees, Laurie Brady & Robert Brady. Appeal rights were provided. Notice of Site Visit shall be posted for 30 days from today's visit.