Regarding: Facility does not have planned activities.

It is alleged that staff are not planning community and leisure activities for clients in care.

Staff deny the allegation. Interviews with (5) out of (5) staff indicated that the facility plans their activities according to clients’ interests. Staff indicated that clients are taken on outings they choose throughout the week. Staff indicated that clients are taken on shopping trips, restaurants, parks, museums and strolls around the neighborhood to keep physical activity going. Staff also indicated that activities are planned monthly and are documented on the activities calendar which they post in the kitchen. Furthermore, staff stated that they will make changes to the calendar depending on client feedback, weather conditions or by prioritizing doctor or dental appointments for clients. Any missed activities are postponed and rescheduled accordingly. During visit, LPA reviewed Activity Calendar for March and April 2026. LPA observed the April 2026 calendar posted in the kitchen. Review of the calendar indicated that the facility plans for church services, shopping trips, leisurely entertainment, fitness routines, arts and crafts, board and tabletop games and “choice of activity”. Interviews with (2) out of (5) clients indicated that the facility provides outings and activities and they like what they do at the facility. Three (3) clients were not responsive to LPA’s questions during interview attempt.

Based on interviews, observations and record review, the allegation staff are not planning community and leisure activities for clients could not be corroborated.

Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is no preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation(s) did or did not occur, therefore the allegation is unsubstantiated. An exit interview was conducted, Marilyn Acabal, Administrator, and a copy of this report was provided.

It is alleged that staff brought their child to the facility during staff’s work hours which interrupted client's scheduled services.

During interview, S1 acknowledged that on 2/17/2026, S3’s child was at the facility while clients were in care. S1 indicated that the child was placed in the back room of the home while child waited for another family member to pick child up. S1 indicated that S3 had no one to watch the child and therefore allowed S3 to bring their child to work. S1 further indicated that child was eventually picked up by a family member after several hours of being at the facility. S1 also acknowledged that C1’s day program activities had not started due to S3’s child being at the facility while waiting to be picked up. Interview with S3 revealed that S3 had to bring their child to work on 2/17/2026 because they had no one to watch the child at the time. S3 indicated that S1 gave S3 consent to bring their child to work and that child was eventually picked up at the facility by a family member. S3 further acknowledged that it was a mistake to bring their child to work because it posed a safety concern for child and clients in care. Interview with S2 revealed that staff’s children should not be at the facility at any time and that C1’s services should not have been interrupted due the set-back caused by the child being at the facility.

Interviews corroborate the allegation that staff brought their child to the facility during staff’s work hours which interrupted client's scheduled services. The preponderance of evidence standard has been met, therefore the above allegation is found to be substantiated. California Code of Regulations (Title 22), is being cited on the attached LIC 9099 D. An exit interview was conducted, and a copy of this report was provided.