<meta name="robots" content="noindex">
Department of
SOCIAL SERVICES

Community Care Licensing


COMPLAINT INVESTIGATION REPORT

Facility Number: 304371258
Report Date: 11/14/2024
Date Signed: 11/14/2024 11:53:16 AM

Unsubstantiated


STATE OF CALIFORNIA - HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY

COMPLAINT INVESTIGATION REPORT
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
COMMUNITY CARE LICENSING DIVISION
CCLD Regional Office, 750 THE CITY DRIVE, SUITE 250
ORANGE, CA 92868
This is an official report of an unannounced visit/investigation of a complaint received in our office on
09/16/2024 and conducted by Evaluator Dianna ValdezSantana
PUBLIC
COMPLAINT CONTROL NUMBER: 06-CC-20240916100748
FACILITY NAME:DANA POINT MONTESSORIFACILITY NUMBER:
304371258
ADMINISTRATOR:SWINSON, LENAFACILITY TYPE:
850
ADDRESS:33501 DEL OBISPO STREETTELEPHONE:
(949) 443-4213
CITY:DANA POINTSTATE: CAZIP CODE:
92629
CAPACITY:66CENSUS: 29DATE:
11/14/2024
UNANNOUNCEDTIME BEGAN:
09:30 AM
MET WITH:Assistant Director, Jasmin RealTIME COMPLETED:
12:00 PM
ALLEGATION(S):
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Staff did not provide adequate supervision to day care children.
INVESTIGATION FINDINGS:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
On 11/14/2024 Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Dianna Valdez Santana made an unannounced visit to Dana Point Montessori for the purpose to deliver findings of a complaint received. Upon arrival, LPA was met by Assistant Director, Jasmin Real. Assistant Director was explained the reason for today’s visit. LPA was provided a tour of the facility; census was taken in individual classrooms. LPA observed 7 Staff caring for 29 children present at the time of inspection.
A review of the Facility Personnel Report Summary conducted on today’s date indicates all facility staff or other individuals who require caregiver background checks have received criminal record and child abuse index clearances or exemptions.
On 9/16/2024 a complaint was filed with the Licensing office stating, on 09/09 or 09/10/2024 (date not recalled), Reporting Party (RP) stated Staff #3 (S3) left 2 children in the restroom and asked Staff #1 (S1) to supervise the children. S1 was in the classroom but was not in the position where S1 can supervise the 2 children. During the course of investigation, LPA interviewed 6 staff members, 3 parents and 4 children. Page 1 of 4
Unsubstantiated
Estimated Days of Completion:
SUPERVISORS NAME: Thuy Ho
LICENSING EVALUATOR NAME: Dianna ValdezSantana
LICENSING EVALUATOR SIGNATURE:

DATE: 11/14/2024
I acknowledge receipt of this form and understand my licensing appeal rights as explained and received.
FACILITY REPRESENTATIVE SIGNATURE:

DATE: 11/14/2024
This report must be available at Child Care and Group Home facilities for public review for 3 years.
LIC9099 (FAS) - (06/04)
Page: 1 of 4
Control Number 06-CC-20240916100748
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY

COMPLAINT INVESTIGATION REPORT (Cont)
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
COMMUNITY CARE LICENSING DIVISION
CCLD Regional Office, 750 THE CITY DRIVE, SUITE 250
ORANGE, CA 92868
FACILITY NAME: DANA POINT MONTESSORI
FACILITY NUMBER: 304371258
VISIT DATE: 11/14/2024
NARRATIVE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
During the staff interviews, S1, disclosed that the school’s policy regarding supervision and care of the children is maintaining ratios. It requires a lot of patience depending on the children’s needs. S1 denied ever observing another staff leave any children unattended. The protocol when teachers are alone with children outside and a child needs to use the bathroom is if there are two teachers outside, one will stay outside with the children and one escort the children to the bathroom. If the teacher is alone, S1 will watch the children in the bathroom. S1 disclosed S1 met with Parent #1 (P1), but it wasn’t a formal meeting. It was more P1 confronting S1. P1 came to S1 on both dates, 09/09 and 09/10, yelling at S1 over the cubbies and had previously taken child #1’s (C1) bird (art C1 made) from the wall to keep C1’s other parent from keeping C1’s art. P1 kept talking over S1 and not really allowing S1 to speak. P1 said “I hope my child wasn’t getting treated unfairly” and S1 assured P1 that C1 is great and is doing well here. P1 responded “Oh I know my child great. I trust you guys, I need this school, please don’t let my actions affect C1 from being here.” On the 10th, P1 had S1 in the front of the school for over an hour, yelling, P1 was upset because staff put painter’s tape with C1’s name on the water bottle. P1 said “why don’t you just tell me”. But staff have and it wasn’t getting labeled so staff had to add the tape. The school year just started, so staff give the children reminders, and P1 was taking it personally and accusing C1’s teachers of singling C1 out. Regarding the meeting with a parent and S3 leaving children unattended, S1 said it was morning drop off, so all the children and staff were outside. S3 came in with 2 children, that were going to use the restroom. S3 called S1 over to watch them in the restroom and then S3 walked back outside. S1 thinks S3 did that to check on S1 and to interrupt the conservation and give S1 an opportunity to walk away for a bit. S1 supervised the children in the restroom and S1 walked the two children out.

Staff 2 (S2) stated staff always have eyes on the children, staff never leave a child and are constantly counting the children. When everyone is together outside, staff make sure all teachers know how many children they have outside. S2 denied ever observing another staff leave any children unattended. The protocol when teachers are alone with children outside and a child needs to use the bathroom is there is at least 2 staff in a class, so one will escort the children to the restroom and the other will stay outside or if needed, S2 will ask S1 to watch the children in the bathroom so they are not alone. S2 does not know of a time when S3 left children unattended on 9/9 or 9/10. S1 was up in the front, so S1 helps watching the children. Sometimes, when S1 is giving a tour and staff need S1, S1 will pause the tour and watch the children. S2 stated there was a parent, P1 and every week P1 had issues or would get upset and confront staff very aggressively.

Page 2 of 4

SUPERVISORS NAME: Thuy Ho
LICENSING EVALUATOR NAME: Dianna ValdezSantana
LICENSING EVALUATOR SIGNATURE:

DATE: 11/14/2024
I acknowledge receipt of this form and understand my licensing appeal rights as explained and received.
FACILITY REPRESENTATIVE SIGNATURE:

DATE: 11/14/2024
LIC9099 (FAS) - (06/04)
Page: 2 of 4
Control Number 06-CC-20240916100748
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY

COMPLAINT INVESTIGATION REPORT (Cont)
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
COMMUNITY CARE LICENSING DIVISION
CCLD Regional Office, 750 THE CITY DRIVE, SUITE 250
ORANGE, CA 92868
FACILITY NAME: DANA POINT MONTESSORI
FACILITY NUMBER: 304371258
VISIT DATE: 11/14/2024
NARRATIVE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
P1 screamed at the Director and pointed a finger at S2. S2 even called Licensing concerned about that parent’s behavior towards the staff and how P1 acted inappropriately around the children.

Staff 3 (S3) stated the school’s policy regarding supervision and care of the children is that staff are always to be supervising and caring for children, staff never leave children unattended. Staff always maintain ratios. S3 denied ever leaving children unattended. S3 disclosed there was a time S3 brought two children (child #2 (C2) and child #3 (C3) to the bathroom and S3 witnessed P1 was yelling at S1. It seemed like it was starting to escalate when P1 saw S3 and P1 seemed to get angrier. So, S3 looked at S1 and knowingly left the children in S1’s care hoping it would diffuse the situation.

Staff 4 (S4) stated that school’s policy regarding supervision and care of children is usually there is 2 staff for 12 children. Staff make sure to always watch the children. When teachers are alone with children outside and children need to use the bathroom S4 messages S1 or if S1 is near enough, S4 would call out to S1 and S1 will help watch the child. S4 denies S3 ever left children unattended.

Staff 5 (S5) stated the school’s policy regarding supervision and care of children is all the time there is 2 teachers in a class. Staff give constant supervision on the playground. Even when going to the bathroom, staff split children to maintain ratios. Staff are not allowed to leave children unattended at any time. Safety first so S5 does not leave them alone, if needed S5 will ask for help.

Staff 6 (S6) stated the school’s policy regarding supervision is to always be in ratio, in the toddler room it’s 1:6, there is always two teachers. In primary it is 2 teachers per class, 2:12 and sometimes 3 teachers. S6 denied ever leaving children alone or ever observing another staff leave children alone. The protocol when the teachers and children are outside, and a child needs to use the bathroom is that staff have to be in ratio. One teacher walks the child in, and staff must make sure the teacher outside doesn’t have too many kids. Sometimes if needed, staff will ask S1 to help.

LPA interviewed 4 children and 4 out 4 children stated they are never left alone in the bathroom. C3 and C4 both denied that S3 ever left them alone in the bathroom unattended.

3 of 7 parents were called to be interviewed, 3 out of 3 parents interviewed had no issues or concerns with the daycare.

Page 3 of 4

SUPERVISORS NAME: Thuy Ho
LICENSING EVALUATOR NAME: Dianna ValdezSantana
LICENSING EVALUATOR SIGNATURE:

DATE: 11/14/2024
I acknowledge receipt of this form and understand my licensing appeal rights as explained and received.
FACILITY REPRESENTATIVE SIGNATURE:

DATE: 11/14/2024
LIC9099 (FAS) - (06/04)
Page: 3 of 4
Control Number 06-CC-20240916100748
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY

COMPLAINT INVESTIGATION REPORT (Cont)
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
COMMUNITY CARE LICENSING DIVISION
CCLD Regional Office, 750 THE CITY DRIVE, SUITE 250
ORANGE, CA 92868
FACILITY NAME: DANA POINT MONTESSORI
FACILITY NUMBER: 304371258
VISIT DATE: 11/14/2024
NARRATIVE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Based on the information gathered from LPAs’ interviews, observation, and records reviewed, the preponderance of the evidence has not been met. Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation of Staff did not provide adequate supervision to day care children did or did not happen; therefore, the allegation is UNSUBSTANTIATED.

Exit interview was conducted, and report was reviewed and discussed. Notice of Site Visit was posted during the visit. The facility representative was informed that the Notice of Site Visit must be posted for 30 consecutive days. Failure to post will result in civil penalties of $100 per day. The facility was provided a copy of their appeal rights (LIC 9058 12/15) and their signature on this form acknowledges receipt of these rights.

Page 4 of 4. End of Report.

SUPERVISORS NAME: Thuy Ho
LICENSING EVALUATOR NAME: Dianna ValdezSantana
LICENSING EVALUATOR SIGNATURE:

DATE: 11/14/2024
I acknowledge receipt of this form and understand my licensing appeal rights as explained and received.
FACILITY REPRESENTATIVE SIGNATURE:

DATE: 11/14/2024
LIC9099 (FAS) - (06/04)
Page: 4 of 4