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 | LPA, Rosales-Meza conducted additional interviews with six adults (A1 – A6) and parent (P1) between 03/19/26 to 03/26/26, reviewed records; and obtained documents. Based on LS’s statement, she was out of town on vacation from 12/26/25 through 01/14/26, LS claimed the facility was closed during her absence, and LS referred her daycare clients to other providers including her main assistant (A8) and A5, who provided childcare either at the facility or at their own residence(s). LS claimed that all individuals that assisted in providing care were cleared and associated to her facility license, however; Department records indicate that A5 had not obtained a criminal record clearance and/or was not associated to the facility license.
According to A1, A3 & A4’s statements, there is indication that while LS was on vacation from 12/29/25 through 12/31/25, the facility was still in operation. To their knowledge, on at least one occasion, A5 provided childcare services to C9 at the facility and A5’s own residence, while adults (A6-A7) also provided services to children (C3-C6 & C8) between 12/29/25 through 12/31/25, either at the facility or at their residence. A5’s statement reflects there were other children being cared for by other adults at the facility, but it is uncertain how many children from different families received care. It is further noted that A5-A7 signed December 2025 subsidy attendance sheets that were designated for LS’s licensed facility and they attempted to submit those documents to the local subsidy program to claim subsidy funds. To P1’s knowledge, A5 had obtained criminal record clearance. P1 and A5 confirmed that LS referred them to each other, and there was an arrangement between the parties for P1 to drop C9 off at the facility where A5 would transport C9 to A5’s residence so C9 could receive care from A5 and A8.
The Department obtained evidence to show that although LS claimed the facility was closed while she was on vacation, the facility was still in operation because multiple adults including A5 provided childcare services to different families on behalf of LS, and those adults submitted documents meant for LS’s licensed facility, to the subsidy program to claim subsidy payments.
Continued on LIC9099C |