374604349-7-28-2025-08-AS-SJAB-DKKTKH-20250815144758

Community Care Licensing

COMPLAINT INVESTIGATION REPORT

Facility Number: 374604349
Report Date: 07/28/2025
Date Signed: 07/28/2025 09:59:52 AM

Unsubstantiated

STATE OF CALIFORNIA - HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY

COMPLAINT INVESTIGATION REPORT

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
COMMUNITY CARE LICENSING DIVISION
SAN DIEGO RO, 7575 METROPOLITAN DR. #109
SAN DIEGO, CA 92108

This is an official report of an unannounced visit/investigation of a complaint received in our office on
07/02/2025 and conducted by Evaluator Dang Nguyen

COMPLAINT CONTROL NUMBER: 08-AS-20250702162655

FACILITY NAME:	HEALTHY OPPORTUNITIES PROGRESSIVE EDUCATION INC.		FACILITY NUMBER:	374604349
ADMINISTRATOR:	CAMACHO, ARTURO		FACILITY TYPE:	775
ADDRESS:	2530 MAIN ST. SUITE A		TELEPHONE:	(619) 349-2682
CITY:	CHULA VISTA	STATE: CA	ZIP CODE:	91911
CAPACITY:	60	CENSUS: 35	DATE:	07/28/2025
		UNANNOUNCED	TIME BEGAN:	09:15 AM
MET WITH:	Site Coordinator Michelle Islas		TIME COMPLETED:	10:15 AM

ALLEGATION(S):

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

-Licensee’s staff did not treat client with dignity.
-Licensee pursued unlawful discharge of client.

INVESTIGATION FINDINGS:

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Dang Nguyen conducted an unannounced subsequent visit to deliver findings regarding the above prior complaint allegations. LPA was welcomed by, identified himself to, and discussed the purpose of the visit with Site Coordinator Michelle Islas.

The Complainant alleged that that Licensee’s staff [Staff #1 (S1)] did not treat clients [Client #1 (C1) and Client #2 (C2)] with dignity, and that Licensee pursued unlawful discharge of clients (C1 and C2). [See LIC 811 Confidential Names List for a description of select person identifiers used in this report.] Regarding the first allegation, the Complainant said S1 made sexually inappropriate/disrespectful comments to C1 on a day in June 2025. They also said that on a day in October 2023, S1 placed and kept their hand on C2’s leg during a van ride. Regarding the second allegation, the Complainant said on 06/27/2025, Licensee served C1 and C2 with retaliatory discharge notice letters after C1’s most recent complaint against S1. [CONTINUED ON LIC 9099-C, 1 of 4]

Unsubstantiated

Estimated Days of Completion:

SUPERVISORS NAME: Simon Jacob
LICENSING EVALUATOR NAME: Dang Nguyen
LICENSING EVALUATOR SIGNATURE:	DATE: 07/28/2025

I acknowledge receipt of this form and understand my licensing appeal rights as explained and received.

FACILITY REPRESENTATIVE SIGNATURE:

DATE: 07/28/2025

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 5

Control Number 08-AS-20250702162655

STATE OF CALIFORNIA - HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY

COMPLAINT INVESTIGATION REPORT (Cont)

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
COMMUNITY CARE LICENSING DIVISION
SAN DIEGO RO, 7575 METROPOLITAN DR. #109
SAN DIEGO, CA 92108

FACILITY NAME: HEALTHY OPPORTUNITIES PROGRESSIVE EDUCATION INC.	FACILITY NUMBER: 374604349
	VISIT DATE: 07/28/2025

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

[CONTINUED FROM LIC 9099] CCLD’s investigation involved multiple unannounced facility tours/welfare checks to the day program facility, and multiple collateral visits to other locations to interview relevant clients and outside sources. The Department also reviewed pertinent care/personnel records and correspondence.

Interviews of C1, facility managers, and outside sources aligned to show: C1 told Licensee that S1 made inappropriate comments to them on Tuesday 06/24/2025, when S1 was alone with C1. Per Licensee’s own internal investigation, S1 denied the allegation and other staff present were interviewed and similarly denied witnessing such. LPA reviewed Licensee’s internal investigation documentation, then performed his own independent investigation, which included interviews of C1 themselves, C1’s responsible person (RP), San Diego Regional Center (SDRC) personnel, S1 themselves, S1’s supervisors/managers, and almost all of S1’s current coworkers (one person could not be reached for interview), and nearly a dozen other clients of the day program who were able to understand and answer questions.

There were some inconsistencies in C1’s retelling of the 06/24/2025 incident, in what they told day program management, verses what they told SDRC personnel, versus what they told CCLD.

According to the day program’s staff assignment/transportation schedule (and corroborated by manager interview): On 06/24/2025, C1 was one of three clients assigned to the group/cohort led by Staff #2 (S2). S1 led a different cohort of three other clients. Per interviews of S1 and S2: On the date in question, both took their clients to a McDonalds (not a Starbucks), and then the same nearby public park. However, the cohorts sat at different tables. At no point during the outing was S1 alone with C1, nor did S1 communicate one-on-one with C1, let alone say anything inappropriate to C1. Regarding the five other clients also present at the park on 06/24/2025: One did not have the communication skills to be interviewed, and another was on an extended vacation. However, LPA interviewed the remaining three clients, and each denied seeing S1 speak inappropriately/disrespectfully to C1. There were no other staff cohorts at this park, on this day. Around 1:00 PM, both cohorts returned to the day program facility site for classroom time, until end-of-session around 2:00/2:30 PM. LPA individually interviewed nearly all staff who were working on 06/24/2025. No staff saw S1 approach/speak to C1 during the classroom portion, let alone say anything inappropriate to C1. LPA also interviewed several clients who were present in the classroom that day; all denied seeing S1 speak inappropriately or disrespectfully to C1. [CONTINUED ON LIC 9099-C, 2 of 4]

SUPERVISORS NAME: Simon Jacob
LICENSING EVALUATOR NAME: Dang Nguyen
LICENSING EVALUATOR SIGNATURE:	DATE: 07/28/2025

I acknowledge receipt of this form and understand my licensing appeal rights as explained and received.

FACILITY REPRESENTATIVE SIGNATURE:

DATE: 07/28/2025

LIC9099 (FAS) - (06/04)

Page: 2 of 5

Control Number 08-AS-20250702162655

STATE OF CALIFORNIA - HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY

COMPLAINT INVESTIGATION REPORT (Cont)

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
COMMUNITY CARE LICENSING DIVISION
SAN DIEGO RO, 7575 METROPOLITAN DR. #109
SAN DIEGO, CA 92108

FACILITY NAME: HEALTHY OPPORTUNITIES PROGRESSIVE EDUCATION INC.	FACILITY NUMBER: 374604349
	VISIT DATE: 07/28/2025

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

[CONTINUED FROM LIC 9099-C, 1 of 4]

Interviews of C1, facility managers, and outside sources aligned to show: C1 told Licensee that on Friday 10/13/2023, they witnessed S1 rest their hand on top of C2’s thigh during a van ride for over a minute. Per Licensee’s own internal investigation, which occurred the same day: C2 denied being touched. S1 also denied touching C1. Staff #3 (S3), the only other staff inside the vehicle at that time, denied seeing any touching. The other clients in the vehicle also denied seeing any touching. Over the successive weekend, C2 text messaged a day program manager saying they felt "confused" about the incident. On the next business day (Monday 10/16/2023), day program management re-interviewed C2, who said C1 saw the touching, but C2 maintained that they themselves still did not see/believe the incident happened.

LPA reviewed Licensee’s internal investigation documentation, then performed his own independent investigation, which included interviews of C1 and C2 themselves, C1 and C2’s responsible persons (RPs), multiple SDRC personnel, S1 themselves, all of S1’s supervisors/managers, and almost all of S1’s current coworkers (one person could not be reached for interview), and nearly a dozen other clients of the day program who were able to understand and answer questions. C1 and C2 separately told LPA that S1 was seated directly beside C2 on the same passenger bench during the 10/13/2023 van ride, and that S2 placed their hand on top of C2’s thigh (each denied S1 trying to do anything else to C2, and each denied alerting anyone at the time). S1 admitted the incident was too far in the past for them to remember if they were a driver or a passenger during said trip, but they strongly denied touching C2. Review of the day program’s staff assignment/transportation schedule showed S1 was assigned as the driver of the van on 10/13/2023. The only other staff riding in the van on this date was S3. By the date of CCLD’s investigation, S3 was no longer working for the day program; LPA phoned S3 at their last known phone number on multiple occasions but was unable to reach them. Regarding the other four clients inside the van on 10/13/2023: Two did not have the communication skills to be interviewed. LPA interviewed the remaining two, and both clients denied seeing S1 touch C2 inappropriately.

Although not specifically raised by the Complainant, day program records and manager interviews described a separate incident when C2 told Licensee that S1 touched their leg during a van ride on Monday 03/10/2025. Licensee conducted a similar internal investigation, which found no corroborating evidence. LPA also independently investigated the 03/10/2025 incident: To LPA, C1 denied the 03/10/2025 incident. [CONTINUED ON LIC 812-C, 3 of 4]

SUPERVISORS NAME: Simon Jacob
LICENSING EVALUATOR NAME: Dang Nguyen
LICENSING EVALUATOR SIGNATURE:	DATE: 07/28/2025

I acknowledge receipt of this form and understand my licensing appeal rights as explained and received.

FACILITY REPRESENTATIVE SIGNATURE:

DATE: 07/28/2025

LIC9099 (FAS) - (06/04)

Page: 3 of 5

Control Number 08-AS-20250702162655

STATE OF CALIFORNIA - HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY

COMPLAINT INVESTIGATION REPORT (Cont)

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
COMMUNITY CARE LICENSING DIVISION
SAN DIEGO RO, 7575 METROPOLITAN DR. #109
SAN DIEGO, CA 92108

FACILITY NAME: HEALTHY OPPORTUNITIES PROGRESSIVE EDUCATION INC.	FACILITY NUMBER: 374604349
	VISIT DATE: 07/28/2025

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

[CONTINUED FROM LIC 812-C, 2 of 4] S1 told LPA they were surely driving the van this day and denied touching C1 (who was seated well behind them). Review of the day program’s staff assignment/transportation schedule confirmed that S1 was indeed the driver of the van on 03/10/2025, and that S2 was the only other staff in the van that day. S2 told LPA they were sure it was S1 was driving the van (and not themselves) that day, that C2 was seated on a passenger bench behind S1 (well outside of arms reach), and that they never saw S1 try to touch C2. Regarding the other five clients in the van on 10/23/2023: Three did not have the communication skills to be interviewed. LPA interviewed the remaining two, and both clients denied seeing S1 touch C2 inappropriately.

Care records and interviews of staff and multiple neutral outside sources aligned to show: C2 had history of attention-seeking behavior, including false storytelling. During his own interview of C2, LPA detected some inconsistencies/contradictions between what C2 told LPA, verses what C2 had earlier text messaged to C1. (C2 gave LPA permission to review their prior text messages. Also, printouts of some excerpts of C2's earlier text messages were also part of the day program's internal investigative files.) Multiple job coaches reported that C1 sometimes engaged in behavior which negatively affected and/or influenced their day program peers, while C2 was generally impressionable and not reliably truthful. Text message correspondence generally showed C1 and C2 were friends who also communicated via phone outside of day program hours. LPA encountered texts which suggested C2 had an unsolicited fascination/fantasy towards S1. According to personnel records, S1 had worked for Licensee for over six years with no disciplinary actions. S1’s coworkers consistently said S1 treated all staff and clients in a professional manner and was a well-regarded teammate.

Per California Code of Regulations, Section 82068.5, “(a) A minimum of two weeks' notice shall be given to a client and his/her family and care providers if the Adult Day Program determines that the day program can no longer meet the needs of the client, and he/she must be discharged from the day program.” CCLD obtained copies of the discharge notice letters, which Licensee served on 06/27/2025 to the responsible persons and SDRC Coordinators for C1 and C2, respectively. Both letters cited, in part, “ongoing challenges related to interactions with staff members – particularly male employees – that have resulted in discomfort and, in some instances, concern for safety.” The notices letters specified that C1's and C2’s discharges would not become effective until 08/08/2025, which surpassed the minimum timeline requirement.

[CONTINUED ON LIC 812-C, 4 of 4]

SUPERVISORS NAME: Simon Jacob
LICENSING EVALUATOR NAME: Dang Nguyen
LICENSING EVALUATOR SIGNATURE:	DATE: 07/28/2025

I acknowledge receipt of this form and understand my licensing appeal rights as explained and received.

FACILITY REPRESENTATIVE SIGNATURE:

DATE: 07/28/2025

LIC9099 (FAS) - (06/04)

Page: 4 of 5

Control Number 08-AS-20250702162655

STATE OF CALIFORNIA - HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY

COMPLAINT INVESTIGATION REPORT (Cont)

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
COMMUNITY CARE LICENSING DIVISION
SAN DIEGO RO, 7575 METROPOLITAN DR. #109
SAN DIEGO, CA 92108

FACILITY NAME: HEALTHY OPPORTUNITIES PROGRESSIVE EDUCATION INC.	FACILITY NUMBER: 374604349
	VISIT DATE: 07/28/2025

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

[CONTINUED FROM LIC 9099-C, 3 of 4]

CCLD’s investigation concluded that the preponderance of evidence showed C1 and C2's accusations against S1 were false. The other male staff of the program (S4), who themselves was never the subject of sexual allegations from either C1 or C2, nonetheless felt unease working with these two clients. A third former male staff, also not the subject of any past accusation, requested to be transferred away from the day program to avoid working around C1 and C2. Due to past accusations, C1 and C2 presently cannot be assigned to any cohort led by either S1 or S4 or any other male staff, which presents operational challenges for the day program, particularly given that during outings, two cohorts typically combine into one day program vehicle. CCLD’s investigation concluded that the stated basis for C1 and C2’s discharges from the day program was therefore valid, and said discharge notices were lawful.

Based on records and interviews, a preponderance of evidence does not exist to show that Licensee’s staff did not treat client with dignity, or that Licensee pursued unlawful discharge of client. Both allegations are therefore Unsubstantiated, and no deficiencies were cited for them

An exit interview was conducted with Site Coordinator Michelle Islas, to whom a copy of this report and the Licensee/Appeal Rights (LIC9058 03/22) were provided.

SUPERVISORS NAME: Simon Jacob
LICENSING EVALUATOR NAME: Dang Nguyen
LICENSING EVALUATOR SIGNATURE:	DATE: 07/28/2025

I acknowledge receipt of this form and understand my licensing appeal rights as explained and received.

FACILITY REPRESENTATIVE SIGNATURE:

DATE: 07/28/2025

LIC9099 (FAS) - (06/04)

Page: 5 of 5