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 | Per Interviews with Licensee and Staff #2 (S2), unable to agree to the allegation above as they did not see package of alleged expired food item(s) dates. Based on reporting party staff were unable to state to them if the food served to children on visit date was expired or not expired.
Per Interviews conducted with children parents, Parent #1 (P1), Parent #2 (2), Parent #3 (P3) and Parent #5 (P5) informed LPA Calderon that the food when observed looks good and/or fresh. P5 informed LPA Calderon their child in the past had stomach issues related to food provided to the child but unaware of what exact foods or they did not know child's feeding schedule. In addition, P3 informed LPA at the end of child's enrollment, child does not attend the facility; reason is not related the any issues with the school or food services and P3 per interview informed LPA child experienced constipation, P3 stated not sure why but besides that everything was good.
Per reporting party, it was noted food observed that was expired but no expiration dates were provided on foods alleged to be expired.
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, therefore the allegation is unsubstantiated.
Per California Code of Regulation Title 22; No deficiencies will be cited.
A notice of site visit was given and must remain posted for 30 days. Exit interview was conducted with Licensee Sheroniece Swain. |