complaint·May 16, 2023

Licensee states that C2 is very hyper active, and has advised C2's mother about it. Licensee states C1 would remember about things that C2 would do C1 and would bring it up again. Licensee stated she currently did not have an assistant. LPA observed licensee struggling with children supervision. LPA also conducted an interview with the reporting party (RP) who stated that on several occasions C1 would come home with marks arms and lips. On one occasion when C1 was being picked up RP overheard the licensee talking to a parent about their child (C2). Licensee was telling the parent that C2 had hurt another child that day. When C2's parent left, the licensee told the RP that the child she was referring to was C1. RP states that the licensee admitted that it occurred frequently and that other children in care complain about C2. The RP also mentioned C2 tends to target C1 more. The RP submitted pictures of C1's bruises which were also shown to the licensee. Licensee told RP that she did not know how those injuries happened, but did not deny that they occurred while under her supervision. Based on LPAs observations, interviews which were conducted, documents gathered and record review(s), the preponderance of evidence standard has been met, therefore the above allegation is found SUBSTANTIATED. California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 12 or Health and Safety Code, are being cited on the attached LIC 9099D. Exit interview conducted with Licensee Safia Farook. A copy of the Appeal Rights (LIC 9058 FAS 01/16) were given and explained. Licensee\342\200\231s signature on this form acknowledges receipt of these rights. A notice of site visit was given which must remain posted for a minimum of 30 days.