complaint·November 28, 2023

Furthermore, LPA Herrera observed a discrepancy on 09/18/2023 as licensee submitted attendance records stating child #1 attended daycare, however through interview and evidence obtained LPA Herrera concluded child #1 did not attend daycare on 09/18/2023. Per Licensee’s own statement, facility records and interviews, infant #7’s last day enrolled was on 09/27/2023, but upon attendance review LPA Herrera observed records with parent signature to state infant #7 attended daycare on 09/29/2023 which was untrue. Per Licensee’s own statement and facility records, infant #3 was enrolled on 09/25/2023, but upon attendance review LPA Herrera observed records with parent signatures to indicate infant #3 attended daycare since 09/05/2023 which was contrary to Licensee’s statement and facility records. Furthermore, through interviews LPA Herrera gathered enough information that indicated Licensee Bryan directed or allowed parents to sign in children on days that children did not attend daycare, therefore the attendance records did not reflect the actual attendance of children in care. Based upon record review, observations, and information gathered through interviews, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met, the licensee’s conduct was inimical to the health, morals, welfare, or safety of either an individual in or receiving services from the facility or the people of this state. Therefore, the above allegation is found to be substantiated. Upon receipt of a Type A violation, licensee shall post and provide copies of this licensing report to parents/guardians of children in care at the facility and to parents/guardians of children newly enrolled at the facility during the next 12 months and a copy of LIC 9224 was given to licensee. Per California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 12, Chapter 3, the following deficiency is being cited: (See LIC 9099-D). Licensee Brayn was provided a copy of appeal rights. A notice of site visit was given and must remain posted for 30 days.