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 | When LPA conducted interviews, S1 and P1 both stated that they did not allow P2 to pick up C1 without the presence of a court order.
The second allegation indicates that “Child's authorized representative was prohibited from entering and inspecting the childcare.”
Per the reporting party (RP), upon arrival to pick up C1 and without prior notice from the school, P2 entry code did not work, and P2 was not allowed entry.
When LPA conducted interviews, S1 verified that the code for P2 was changed without notice and P2 was not allowed entry into the facility.
The third allegation indicates that “Child's authorized person was denied access to the child's records.”
Per the reporting party (RP), on 10/26/2023, P2 was attempting to pick up C1 just like any other day, however, noticed something different that day which was that P2 was not receiving any updates or communications from the school via the Brightwheel app.
When LPA conducted interviews, S1 verified that P2 was removed from updates and communication via the Brightwheel app.
Based upon interviews conducted and the licensee's own admission, the allegations have been determined to be Substantiated. A finding of Substantiated means that the preponderance of evidence standard has been met. California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 12 Chapter 1
Article 06. Continuing Requirements, Section 101218.1 “Admission Procedures and Parental and Authorized Representative’s Rights” and Section 101221 “Child’s Records” are being cited on the attached LIC9099-D
Please refer to 9099-D for documentation of deficiencies.
Notice of site visit was given and must remain posted for 30 days.
Exit interview conducted and report was reviewed with Director JACQUELINE BONSEIGNEUR-SMITH. |