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 investigation, LPA interviewed the licensee’s husband, 1 parent, and reviewed 2 staff members' files.
During interviews, the licensee’s husband stated the following: The licensee is currently out of the country and is unable to return at the moment. During the time the licensee was out of the country, 2 of the licensee’s staff members operated the day care and cared for the children. The last day the facility was operating was August 29, 2025. LPA reviewed the 2 staff members’ files and were qualified to be with the children. The licensee’s husband stated he did not help with the day care.
On 11/5/2025, LPA interviewed 1 parent and confirmed that the licensee was out of the country for 2 weeks and Licensee’s staff member was caring for the children. The parents did not have any concerns regarding the allegation.
Based on information gathered from LPA’s interview with the licensee’s husband and parent, the preponderance of evidence has not been met. Although the allegations may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation (1) Licensee did not ensure that children in care are supervised by a qualified substitute; therefore, the allegations is UNSUBSTANTIATED.
Exit interview was conducted with Assistant, Ana Chavez. The Notice of Site Visit was posted. Ana Chavez was informed that the Notice of Site Visit must be posted for 30 consecutive days. Ana Chavez was provided with a copy of their appeal rights (LIC 9058) and their signature on this form acknowledges receipt of these rights. First level appeals should be sent to the regional manager to the address listed above.
Page 2 of 2 |