complaint·April 23, 2025

Staff S1 brought C1 back inside of the outdoor play area. Staff S2 said that she outside blowing up balloons and went to enter data into an iPad and did not notice C1 leaving the yard though the gate. Child C1 verbally denied leaving the outdoor play area but when asked to clarify C1 pointed to the area where he was discovered alone and said that he didn’t go outside and pointed to the area where he was found. This was between the two fenced areas where staff also said he was. Although C1 was outside of the inner fence, the teachers who were in the outdoor play area would still be able to hear C1 if C1 yelled for assistance and could have been in line of sight supervision if teachers were aware of C1. Based on the evidence obtained through the interviews with staff S1 and S2, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met, therefore the allegation that staff did not prevent day care child from wandering from the facility is found to be substantiated. California Code of Regulation, Title 22 is being cited on an attached LIC9099-D. While conducting staff interviews regarding the allegation that staff did not prevent day care child from wandering from the facility, Staff S1, S2, S3, S4 and S5 disclosed during the interview that SS1 (former site supervisor) told subordinate teachers and teachers aides that everyone is going to say that C1 went into the infant outdoor play area which is separated from the preschool outdoor area by a fence and gate instead of C1 going out of the gate to the dirt area behind the preschool outdoor area. SS1 told staff S1 that if SS1 reports to the Community Care Licensing what really happened that S1 would lose her teaching permit. S1 was also told by SS1 that she was going to tell the Director of Program Services that C1 went into the infant outdoor play area to conceal the truth of what occurred. When interviewed, P1 said that SS1 told her that C1 exited into the parking lot through the backside but was not told that C1 was in the infant outdoor area. SS1 employment was terminated by the facility. The allegation that Staff are not providing adequate food service to day care children was also investigated. The DC said that she knows of one day where the milk was spoiled and was not served. The program was also short on fresh fruit. DC said that there was a breakdown between SS1 communicating with the program office on the amount of food at the center. DC said that they have accounts with Safeway, Costco and Instacart for food delivery. DC said that the new site supervisor is reviewing the food ahead of time to prevent running out of food or dealing with spoilage. The allegation that facility did not follow reporting requirements was reviewed. The incident of C1 wandering from the facility outdoor play area occurred of on 01/30/2025. During interview, P1 said that she was told on the date of the incident that C1 left the outdoor play area. The Department was not notified until an unusual incident report was received by the Department on February 18, 2025. A telephone call or fax within the next working day and the unusual incident report sent to the Department within seven days for this type of incident is required. Based on the evidence obtained during the interview with DC regarding the lack of fruit and spoiled milk and the late reporting of the incident which occurred on 01/30/2025, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met, therefore the allegations that staff are not providing adequate food service to day care children and facility did not follow reporting requirements are found to be substantiated. California Code of Regulations, Title 22, are being cited on an attached LIC9099-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.