The two staff interviewed stated that each infant is generally changed once every two and a half hours, though there is no set schedule or set time. Per Staff #1, s/he is able to smell when a child has a bowel movement and pats an infant’s diaper to determine whether the diaper is wet. Per Staff #2, s/hechecks diapers when an infant arrives, when they wake up from nap and once after that, though there no set schedule or time as to when it is checked. Staff #1 stated that if an infant has a diaper rash, they came with it. Of the two parents interviewed, no disclosures were made by one parent. The one adult and one parent interviewed disclosed that on more than one occasion, their children were wet at pick up.

As no logs are kept as to when diapers are changed, it is impossible to know how often diapers are changed. And though two persons stated that their children were wet on more than one occasion when picked up, one parent stated that their child was never wet at pick up. And as diaper rashes can have several causes, it is difficult to state that licensee leaving the child in wet diapers is the sole cause of a child having diaper rashes.

This agency has investigated the complaint alleging that there was a violation of Title 22, Division 12, Chapter 1, Article 6, Section 102423 "Personal Rights." The complaint alleged that “Licensee failed to change daycare children's diapers in a timely manner.” Based upon the evidence as presented above, the allegation has been determined to be Unsubstantiated. A finding of Unsubstantiated means that although the allegation may

According to the two parents interviewed, their children nap on the bed in the living room or on the sofa in the daycare room; neither parent has observed an infant sleeping in a car seat.

According to Adult #1, Staff #1 admitted to allowing infants to sleep in car seats when they slept “better” in the car seat for an extended period of time (e.g. three to four hours.) Furthermore, Adult #1 stated that the car seat was covered by a blanket on top of it, meaning an infant could be napping in a car seat and no one would know unless they removed the blanket. Adult #1 stated that their infant was in the car seat about twice a week and would otherwise be napping in the swing at pick up time.

According to the two staff interviewed, children sleep on the sofa/futon, nap sacks/sleeping bags and infants sleep in the playpen. Per Staff #1, if a child is sleeping in a car seat, s/he takes them out and puts them in the swing. According to Staff #2, if an infant arrives asleep in a car seat, s/he lets them sleep until they wake up, then they change their diaper and put them in the play pen.

As both staff admitted to permitting infants sleep in a car seat and/or a swing, neither of which is an approved napping equipment, the allegation has been determined to be Substantiated.

*Please note that Safe Sleep Regulations came into effect August 18, 2020. As complaints were put on hold due to the pandemic, the citation is being issued under Personal Rights and not Safe Sleep Regulations. It should be noted that per Safe Sleep Regulations, only a crib or play yard are approved for use as napping equipment.*

-Pertaining to the allegation that “Licensee failed to provide comfortable accommodations for daycare child “: this allegation refers to licensee not changing children’s clothing while in care, though they were wet or dirty.

According to Staff #1, an extra change of clothes is only requested if the child is under the age of 3. They admitted to only changing the children’s clothes if the child had a bathroom accident, though they stated that they changed the children’s bibs every half hour. According to Staff #2, the children are changed if they have a bathroom accident, if they

One of the two parents interviewed made no disclosures. According to Adult #1, their child’s bibs smelled of old milk and food and their child’s clothes smelled wet. The other parent interviewed corroborated that their child and their child’s clothes were dirty (from food after eating) though a change of clothes had been provided and though their child only attended for four hours at a time. Licensee allegedly admitted to only changing children’s clothes when they had a bathroom accident.

This agency has investigated the complaint alleging that " Licensee failed to provide comfortable accommodations for daycare child.“ Based upon the evidence as listed above, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met and the allegation has been determined to be Substantiated. California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 12, Chapter 1, Article 06, Section 102423 "Personal Rights" is being cited on the attached LIC 9099D.

Please refer to 9099D for documentation of deficiencies.

Upon receipt, the Licensee shall post the Notice of Site Visit and the Licensing report. This report and the Notice of Site Visit shall be posted for 30 consecutive days. Failure to maintain posting as required will result in a $100 civil penalty. A copy of this report shall be provided to the parents/guardians of the children currently enrolled by the next business day or immediately upon return. A copy of this report shall also be provided to the parents/guardians of any children newly enrolled at the facility for the next 12 months. The

An exit interview has been conducted with Licensee Maria Morales. Appeal Rights were verbally explained to Licensee as well. A copy of this report has been signed by LPAs Bell and Lopez. This report and the Appeal Rights will be scanned via e-mail to Licensee Morales, who understands that an electronic “Read Receipt” and/or confirmation of receipt of the e-mail confirms receipt of the report and constitutes an electronic signature. A Notice of Site Visit was not provided to Licensee Morales since a physical inspection was not conducted.

have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation did or did not occur.

-Pertaining to the allegation that “Licensee is not following safe food handling practices “: this allegation refers to licensee feeding several infants from the same bowl of food.

The allegation stems from Licensee explaining to Adult #1 that she feeds infants by having them sit around in a circle with their mouths open and she would sit in a chair in the middle and spoon feed them from the same bowl and with the same spoon.

Of the two parents interviewed, Parent #3 stated that they have never observed licensee feeding children and Parent #2 stated that their children have never expressed having to share utensils or bowls. Both staff denied feeding children out of the same bowl and/or of having multiple children sharing utensils, bowls, plates, etc. Thus, no corroborating statements were made.

This agency has investigated the complaint alleging that there was a violation of Title 22, Division 12, Chapter 1, Article 6, Section 102423 "Personal Rights." The complaint alleged that "Licensee is not following safe food handling practices.“ Based upon the evidence as presented above, the allegation has been determined to be Unsubstantiated. A finding of Unsubstantiated means that although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation did or did not occur.

-Pertaining to the allegation that “Licensee failed to ensure daycare child is properly fed”: this allegation refers to licensee only feeding infants bottled milk and not solid food which had been provided by the parent.

One of the two parents interviewed, Parent #2 stated that all food was provided by licensee and Parent #3 stated that they provided snacks. Both staff and Parent #2 acknowledged that licensee is on a food program. Licensee denies that any parent provides any food, while Staff #2 acknowledges that parents may provide their own formula or snacks, but only for infants. Upon review of the contract, the food program states that licensee is supposed to provide all food, though parents may provide their own infant formula. Though licensee has to log meals for the food program, the documentation only shows what time the children are fed, not what or how much they are being fed. Licensee does not have a menu of food served.

Therefore, as licensee is supposed to provide all food, but as a log of what each child ate and how much is not kept, it is difficult to determine whether the infant did not eat the solid food provided by the parent because they weren’t supposed to as mandated by the food program or whether, in fact, it was because licensee was not feeding the infant solid food at all.

This agency has investigated the complaint alleging that there was a violation of Title 22, Division 12, Chapter 1, Article 6, Section 102423 "Personal Rights." The complaint alleged that Licensee failed to ensure daycare child is properly fed." Based upon the evidence as presented above, the allegation has been determined to be Unsubstantiated. A finding of

Unsubstantiated means that although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation did or did not occur.

An exit interview has been conducted with Licensee Maria Morales. Appeal Rights were verbally explained to Licensee as well. A copy of this report has been signed by LPAs Bell and Lopez. This report and the Appeal Rights will be scanned via e-mail to Licensee Morales, who understands that an electronic “Read Receipt” and/or confirmation of receipt of the e-mail confirms receipt of the report and constitutes an electronic signature. A Notice of Site Visit was not provided to Licensee Morales since a physical inspection was not conducted.