<meta name="robots" content="noindex">
Department of
SOCIAL SERVICES

Community Care Licensing


COMPLAINT INVESTIGATION REPORT

Facility Number: 336407892
Report Date: 05/20/2025
Date Signed: 05/20/2025 06:41:11 PM

Unsubstantiated


STATE OF CALIFORNIA - HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY

COMPLAINT INVESTIGATION REPORT		CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
COMMUNITY CARE LICENSING DIVISION
RIVERSIDE ASC, 1650 SPRUCE ST STE 200 MS29-27
RIVERSIDE, CA 92507
This is an official report of an unannounced visit/investigation of a complaint received in our office on
05/31/2024 and conducted by Evaluator Tena Herrera
PUBLIC
COMPLAINT CONTROL NUMBER: 18-AS-20240531094241
FACILITY NAME:ANGELVIEW CARE HOMES, INC. @ LA PALMA WAYFACILITY NUMBER:
336407892
ADMINISTRATOR:MAY BOCOFACILITY TYPE:
735
ADDRESS:15306 LA PALMA WAYTELEPHONE:
(951) 247-7015
CITY:MORENO VALLEYSTATE: CAZIP CODE:
92555
CAPACITY:0CENSUS: 5DATE:
05/20/2025
UNANNOUNCEDTIME BEGAN:
06:30 PM
MET WITH:TIME COMPLETED:
06:45 PM
ALLEGATION(S):
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Staff yells at resident in care.
Staff does not allow resident visitors.
Staff does not allow resident to receive mail/gifts.
Staff is isolating resident in room.
Staff confiscated resident's personal items.
INVESTIGATION FINDINGS:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
**This report supersedes report dated 5/19/2025, reason for supersede is to add required verbage at ending of report stating that findings are unsubstantiated. The unsubstantiated findings on above listed allegations remain the same** Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Tena Herrera mailed this report to the ex-licensee’s last known mailing address via USPS certified mail, to communicate the findings related to the above-mentioned allegations. The facility has been closed since 9/26/2024.

The investigation consisted of the following:
LPA obtained copies of the following documents via text message: resident roster, copy of Client #1’s (C1) IPP with Inland Regional Center, copy of C1’s Quarterly Progress Report, C1’s Physician Report, and Letters from Attorney, Disability Rights California, and C1’s conservator regarding C1 visitation. LPA interviewed via phone call 3 staff (S1-S3), 2 clients (C2-C3) and 1 witness (W1). Interviews with C1 and C4 were attempted but not successful.
(Continued on LIC9099-C)
Unsubstantiated
Estimated Days of Completion:
SUPERVISOR'S NAME: David SicairosTELEPHONE: (323) 981-3982
LICENSING EVALUATOR NAME: Tena HerreraTELEPHONE: 323-980-4633
LICENSING EVALUATOR SIGNATURE:

DATE: 05/20/2025
I acknowledge receipt of this form and understand my licensing appeal rights as explained and received.
FACILITY REPRESENTATIVE SIGNATURE:

DATE: 05/20/2025
This report must be available at Child Care and Group Home facilities for public review for 3 years.
LIC9099 (FAS) - (06/04)
Page: 1 of 3
Control Number 18-AS-20240531094241
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY

COMPLAINT INVESTIGATION REPORT (Cont)		CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
COMMUNITY CARE LICENSING DIVISION
RIVERSIDE ASC, 1650 SPRUCE ST STE 200 MS29-27
RIVERSIDE, CA 92507
FACILITY NAME: ANGELVIEW CARE HOMES, INC. @ LA PALMA WAY
FACILITY NUMBER: 336407892
VISIT DATE: 05/20/2025
NARRATIVE
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
The investigation revealed the following:
Allegation: Staff yells at resident in care.
It is alleged that staff yell at C1 and order C1 to go to their room. LPA interviewed (via phone call) 3 staff and 3 out of 3 staff denied the above allegation, each stated they have never yelled at a client nor have they witnessed another staff yell at any clients. LPA interviewed 2 clients and 2 out of 2 clients denied the above allegation and stated that staff have never yelled at them and they have never seen staff yell at another client. LPA attempted to interview 2 additional clients, including C1, and neither client were interested in speaking with LPA and quickly handed phone back to staff, therefore, interviews were concluded quickly. LPA interviewed W1 and witness stated that they visit the facility frequently 3-4 times a week and have never seen staff yell at clients or be disrespectful in any way towards the clients.
Allegation: Staff does not allow resident visitors.
It is alleged that staff are preventing C1 from having visitation. LPA interviewed 3 staff and 3 out of 3 staff denied the above allegation and stated that they have never denied clients any visitations. Staff did state that there are ongoing court restrictions for C1 from having certain visitors however they have never been denied by staff to visit, the courts are the ones who have informed those particular visitors of the restrictions. One of the restrictions is that C1 must agree to a visit for there to be a visitation, in which C1 refuses to have those visits. LPA interviewed 2 clients and 2 out of 2 clients denied the above allegation and stated that they are allowed to have visitors and have never had staff deny them of visitation nor have they seen them do that with other clients’ visitors. LPA attempted to interview 2 additional clients, including C1, and neither client were interested in speaking with LPA and quickly handed phone back to staff, therefore, interviews were concluded quickly. LPA interviewed W1 and witness denied the above allegation and stated that when visiting at the facility they have never been denied a visitation. LPA reviewed documents from Disability Rights California and Attorney in which both documents revealed that C1 does not wish to have visitation with certain individuals and that those individuals will need to go to court to request visitations with C1.
Allegation: Staff does not allow resident to receive mail/gifts.
It is alleged that staff are not allowing gifts or food requested by C1 to be delivered them. LPA interviewed 3 staff and 3 out of 3 staff denied the above allegation and stated that all gifts and mail are given to the clients once received, with the exception of C1 as C1 tends to not like surprises and if it is not explained who or why they are receiving gifts from they will reject the gifts. It was further explained that when items are given to client even after explanation, C1 will throw the gifts away. LPA interviewed 2 clients and 2 out of 2 clients denied the above allegation and stated that staff have never denied them their mail or gifts given to them. LPA attempted to interview 2 additional clients, including C1, and neither client were interested in speaking with LPA and quickly handed phone back to staff, therefore, interviews were concluded quickly. LPA interviewed W1 and witness stated C1 is known to have behaviors when they have unexpected items given to them or if they are surprised in any way resulting in gifts or mail being thrown away by C1.
(Continued on LIC9099-C)
SUPERVISOR'S NAME: David SicairosTELEPHONE: (323) 981-3982
LICENSING EVALUATOR NAME: Tena HerreraTELEPHONE: 323-980-4633
LICENSING EVALUATOR SIGNATURE:

DATE: 05/20/2025
I acknowledge receipt of this form and understand my licensing appeal rights as explained and received.
FACILITY REPRESENTATIVE SIGNATURE:

DATE: 05/20/2025
LIC9099 (FAS) - (06/04)
Page: 2 of 3
Control Number 18-AS-20240531094241
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY

COMPLAINT INVESTIGATION REPORT (Cont)		CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
COMMUNITY CARE LICENSING DIVISION
RIVERSIDE ASC, 1650 SPRUCE ST STE 200 MS29-27
RIVERSIDE, CA 92507
FACILITY NAME: ANGELVIEW CARE HOMES, INC. @ LA PALMA WAY
FACILITY NUMBER: 336407892
VISIT DATE: 05/20/2025
NARRATIVE
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
Allegation: Staff is isolating resident in room.
It is alleged that C1 is isolated in their room and not having much time out in the community. LPA interviewed 3 staff and 3 out of 3 staff denied the above allegation and stated that they have never isolated clients in their rooms, in regards to C1 it was explained that C1 enjoys mainly being in their room by personal preference and will only be interested in leaving room for meals, showers, events (such as birthday parties) or when mother visits. LPA interviewed 2 clients and 2 out of 2 clients denied the above allegation and stated that they are able to exit their room whenever they want, they spend time in the living room watching TV, or in the back patio. LPA attempted to interview 2 additional clients, including C1, and neither client were interested in speaking with LPA and quickly handed phone back to staff, therefore, interviews were concluded quickly. LPA interviewed W1 and witness stated that C1 tends to want to stay in their room listen to music and organize closet, there are few activities and outings that C1 will want to be a part of and when W1 visits C1 will leave to go for walks or go in the community, these visits/outings happen at least 3 times weekly.

Allegation: Staff confiscated resident's personal items.


It is alleged that C1’s TV has been confiscated from them. LPA interviewed 3 staff and 3 out of 3 staff denied the above allegation and stated that it was C1’s decision to have the TV removed from their room and that the TV was removed by their conservator/mother based on their decision. Staff further explained that C1 does not display a desire to watch TV as there is one available for clients in the living room. LPA interviewed 2 clients and 2 out of 2 clients denied the above allegation and stated that they have never had any of their personal items confiscated from them. LPA attempted to interview 2 additional clients, including C1, and neither client were interested in speaking with LPA and quickly handed phone back to staff, therefore, interviews were concluded quickly. LPA interviewed W1 and witness stated that C1 does not enjoy TV and mainly enjoys listening to radio, it was C1’s choice to remove TV from their room.

Based on statements and interviews conducted with staff/clients, and review of C1's files, there was not enough supportive evidence to concur with the reported allegations. Although the allegations may have happened or are valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violations did or did not occur, therefore the allegations are UNSUBSTANTIATED.

An exit interview was not conducted as the facility has been closed since 9/6/2024. A copy of this report was sent to the ex-licensee’s last known address via USPS certified mail, due to the facility closure.

SUPERVISOR'S NAME: David SicairosTELEPHONE: (323) 981-3982
LICENSING EVALUATOR NAME: Tena HerreraTELEPHONE: 323-980-4633
LICENSING EVALUATOR SIGNATURE:

DATE: 05/20/2025
I acknowledge receipt of this form and understand my licensing appeal rights as explained and received.
FACILITY REPRESENTATIVE SIGNATURE:

DATE: 05/20/2025
LIC9099 (FAS) - (06/04)
Page: 3 of 3