The director was interviewed on 11/9/21 and stated that some prior staff, who were trying to do their own thing, mixed the children but were no longer working at the day care.

Interviews with 2 out of 2 staff (S1-S2) on 10/5/21; 10/18/21; 11/1/21 and 11/9/21 denied that commingling of children is happening and expressed the children would not blend in so they didn’t know how they could do it. Interviews with 3 out of 3 children (C1-C3) on 11/1/21 and 11/2/21 confirmed that preschool and infant ages are commingled. Interviews with 10 out of 16 witnesses, (W1-W16) on 10/8/21; 10/12/21; 10/20/21; 10/21/21; 10/28/21;11/1/21; 11/2/21 indicated that they have witnessed commingling between the preschool and infant classes primarily either to keep staff ratio’s balanced or as a disciplinary tool.

The LPA has reviewed records; texts and photos and has determined that the preschool children are commingled with the infants on a regular basis. Therefore, based on the evidence obtained, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met, therefore the above allegation is found to be substantiated.

Staff restrained child in a highchair

The director was interviewed on 11/9/21 and denied that children are put in highchairs as a restraint, though a child recently out of the infant room like a 2 ½ year old, might be placed in one to eat.

Interviews with 2 out of 2 staff (S1-S2) on 10/5/21; 10/18/21; 11/1/21 and 11/9/21 acknowledged that highchairs are in the infant room, but staff denied seeing them used by preschool aged children. Interviews with 2 out of 3 children, (C1-C3) on 11/1/21 and 11/2/21 indicated children are seen in highchairs, though they did not know the reason why the child was placed in the highchair. Interviews with 7 out of 16 witnesses, (W1-W16) on 10/8/21; 10/12/21; 10/20/21; 10/21/21; 10/28/21;11/1/21; 11/2/21 indicated that they have observed preschool aged children placed in highchairs, one example provided was on 9/1/21 at 9 am when a photo was taken of C1 who was placed on a time out for 10 or so minutes.

The LPA has determined that interviews and photos support that preschool children are placed in highchairs for time out purposes. Therefore, based on the evidence obtained, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met, therefore the above allegation is found to be substantiated.

The director was interviewed on 11/9/21 and denied that children miss meals such as lunch but if a child does not want to eat what is provided, they are not required too.

Interviews with staff 2 out of 2 staff, (S1-S2) on 10/5/21; 10/18/21; 11/1/21 and 11/9/21 acknowledged that child C3 had behaviors of throwing food and would sometimes be sent to the back room to eat but that the child would take their lunch with them. Interviews with 2 out of 3 children, (C1-C3) on 11/1/21 and 11/2/21 confirmed that C3 had missed lunch before and C2 indicated knowing that a sibling missed a lunch before. Interviews with 5 out of 16 witnesses, (W1-W16) on 10/8/21; 10/12/21; 10/20/21; 10/21/21; 10/28/21;11/1/21; 11/2/21 indicated sometimes children are not provided lunch due to a behavior and an example was given that C3 had missed a lunch.

The LPA has determined that interviews support, at least on one occasion, C3 was not provided lunch. Therefore, based on the evidence obtained, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met, therefore the above allegation is found to be substantiated.

Staff made day-care child cry

The director was interviewed on 11/9/21 and acknowledged that squirt guns are used during the summer months, but they are not used as punishment resulting in children crying.

Interviews with 2 out of 2 staff, (S1-S2) on 10/5/21; 10/18/21; 11/1/21 and 11/9/21 indicated that S3 acknowledged that a prior staff did make a child cry before by getting water on the child by using a water toy/squirt gun. The staff comforted the child and later found out the parent uses water as punishment which upset the child. Interviews with 2 out of 3 children on 11/1/21 and 11/2/21 confirmed that C5 witnessed S3 use a squirt gun indoors on hot days but that some kids did not like it. Interviews with C6 confirmed that S3 uses squirt guns inside and that some children have asked the staff to stop doing it, but that the staff keeps squirting them, though they have not seen children cry because of it. Interviews with 5 out of 16 witnesses, (W1-W16) on 10/8/21; 10/12/21; 10/20/21; 10/21/21; 10/28/21;11/1/21; 11/2/21 indicated that S3 does squirt children and sometimes parents with squirt guns while inside the building. Witnesses confirmed that an incident happened where S3 squirted C1 with a super soaker squirt gun, until the child was crying and hyperventilating. It was acknowledged that S3 used this water technique on C1 without prior permission due to a behavior.

The LPA has determined that interviews support that C1 was squirted with a water gun by S3 which upset the child without the permission to use a water technique by the child’s responsible party. Therefore, based on the evidence obtained, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met, therefore the above allegation is found to be substantiated.

The director was interviewed on 11/9/21 and stated that a prior staff was totally inappropriate in both comments and tone, so employment was terminated.

Interviews with 2 out of 2 staff, (S1-S2) on 10/5/21; 10/18/21; 11/1/21 and 11/9/21 denied hearing or making any inappropriate comments towards children. Interviews with 2 out of 3 children (C1-C3) on 11/1/21 and 11/2/21 indicated that children have witnessed staff being told their behavior is unprofessional and that staff sometimes talk in a mean tone which makes the children sad. Interviews with witnesses (W1-W16) on 10/8/21; 10/12/21; 10/20/21; 10/21/21; 10/28/21;11/1/21; 11/2/21 indicated that 3 out of 16 witnesses indicated that staff tell children they are “bad” or “naughty” frequently. They have also heard comments like “something is seriously wrong with you” and once S3 made sexual comments assisting a child in the bathroom with the door open and 4-8 children were present. W10 indicated being told by their child that S3 was bullying the child.

The LPA has determined that interviews support that inappropriate comments have been made towards day care children, or at least in ear shot of them. Therefore, based on the evidence obtained, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met, therefore the above allegation is found to be substantiated.

The director was interviewed on 11/9/21 and stated that C1 would have behaviors and the child would be sent to the back room and that it was considered “special treatment” to go to the back room with the staff.

Interviews with 1 out of 2 staff, (S1-S2) on 10/5/21; 10/18/21; 11/1/21 and 11/9/21 indicated that they have used naptimes in a punitive nature, when a child throws their food, but that no child was ever denied food. Interviews with 3 out of 3 children, on 11/1/21 and 11/2/21 indicated that children are sent to nap time early due to behaviors. C3 indicated missing lunch and C5 indicated that their sibling had missed lunch before. C6 indicating seeing children bring their lunches with them when sent to the back room. Interviews with witnesses (W1-W16) on 10/8/21; 10/12/21; 10/20/21; 10/21/21; 10/28/21;11/1/21; 11/2/21 indicated that 8 out of 16 witnesses believed that children were sent early to nap time when rambunctious where they were forced to nap or lay on their mats for 2-3 hours. Some expressed behavior changes in their children after attending the program. One child now appears afraid after nap time to come out of their room and another child reportedly has made comments about having food taken away because they were bad. One witness had to speak with staff about not forcing a child to nap that does not want too.

The LPA has determined that interviews support that early nap times have been used in a punitive nature and that on occasion, a child has missed a meal because they were sent to the back room just before mealtime. Therefore, based on the evidence obtained, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met, therefore the above allegation is found to be substantiated.

The following violation(s) of the California Code of Regulations, Title 22; Division 12, were observed: see LIC 809D. Appeal Rights were provided. Reports citing Type A violations are to be provided to parents/guardians of children currently in enrolled and to parents/guardians of children newly enrolled at the facility during the next 12 months. Parents/guardians must sign Form LIC9224 to be kept in each child's file.