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

Community Care Licensing


COMPLAINT INVESTIGATION REPORT

Facility Number: 198020794
Report Date: 11/17/2021
Date Signed: 11/17/2021 05:38:37 PM

Unsubstantiated


STATE OF CALIFORNIA - HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY

COMPLAINT INVESTIGATION REPORT		CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
COMMUNITY CARE LICENSING DIVISION
CCLD Regional Office, 1000 CORPORATE CNTR DR. 200-B
MONTEREY PARK, CA 91754
This is an official report of an unannounced visit/investigation of a complaint received in our office on
08/27/2021 and conducted by Evaluator Betty Bell
PUBLIC
COMPLAINT CONTROL NUMBER: 33-CC-20210827090832
FACILITY NAME:BYER FAMILY CHILD CAREFACILITY NUMBER:
198020794
ADMINISTRATOR:FACILITY TYPE:
810
ADDRESS:TELEPHONE:
CITY:STATE: ZIP CODE:
CAPACITY:8CENSUS: 2DATE:
11/17/2021
UNANNOUNCEDTIME BEGAN:
03:55 PM
MET WITH:Licensee Tamera ByerTIME COMPLETED:
05:30 PM
ALLEGATION(S):
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Licensee did not follow the manufacturer's instructions for the use of equipment

Licensee did not meet the needs of child in care
INVESTIGATION FINDINGS:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
An unannounced, in person follow up Complaint inspection was conducted by Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Emiko Bell on 11/17/21. Upon arrival, LPA was greeted and let into the residence by Licensee Tamera Byer, to whom the purpose of the inspection was announced. The purpose of the inspection was to provide the findings of the Complaint investigation.

Throughout the duration of the inspection, LPA Bell wore a face covering as a COVID-19 precautionary measure.

Census: There were two adults and two minors present (neither are daycare children).

Throughout the course of the investigation, interviews were conducted with Reporting Party, licensee, two staff, and one child.
Unsubstantiated
Estimated Days of Completion:
SUPERVISORS NAME: Claudia Guangorena
LICENSING EVALUATOR NAME: Betty Bell
LICENSING EVALUATOR SIGNATURE:

DATE: 11/17/2021
I acknowledge receipt of this form and understand my licensing appeal rights as explained and received.
FACILITY REPRESENTATIVE SIGNATURE:

DATE: 11/17/2021
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 6
Control Number 33-CC-20210827090832
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY

COMPLAINT INVESTIGATION REPORT (Cont)		CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
COMMUNITY CARE LICENSING DIVISION
CCLD Regional Office, 1000 CORPORATE CNTR DR. 200-B
MONTEREY PARK, CA 91754
FACILITY NAME: BYER FAMILY CHILD CARE
FACILITY NUMBER: 198020794
VISIT DATE: 11/17/2021
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
 Page 2/6

Pertaining to the allegation that “Licensee did not follow the manufacturer's instructions for the use of equipment”:

Per Reporting Party (RP) their children were enrolled at the daycare for 23 days. During the first week their children were enrolled, Licensee Byer would take their children on personal errands and to personal doctor’s appointments. When transporting the children (one of whom was a 2 year old) licensee would take their child on a booster seat instead of a car seat. In addition, when feeding the 2 year old, licensee would have the child sit at the kitchen table on a regular chair, though the child is used to sitting in a high chair when eating.

Regarding transporting Child #1 (C1) on a booster seat instead of a car seat:

Licensee admits to transporting C1 between three to six times with Child #2 (C2) and licensee’s own two children; licensee states that the Reporting Party provided a car seat when Licensee asked whether she could transport the child and that as she did not have a car seat (licensee only has booster seats,) licensee asked Staff #1 (S1) to watch the child until a car seat was provided.

No disclosures were made by licensee’s assistants about the equipment used when transporting C1.

According to C2, C1 was transported approximately two to three times with a booster seat before RP provided a car seat and appeared to be in distress (as C1 would cry) and C2 assumed C1 was in distress because the seatbelt did not fit properly. According to RP and C2, it was after C2 informed RP about this that RP provided licensee with a car seat for C1.

SUPERVISORS NAME: Claudia Guangorena
LICENSING EVALUATOR NAME: Betty Bell
LICENSING EVALUATOR SIGNATURE:

DATE: 11/17/2021
I acknowledge receipt of this form and understand my licensing appeal rights as explained and received.
FACILITY REPRESENTATIVE SIGNATURE:

DATE: 11/17/2021
LIC9099 (FAS) - (06/04)
Page: 2 of 6
Control Number 33-CC-20210827090832
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY

COMPLAINT INVESTIGATION REPORT (Cont)		CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
COMMUNITY CARE LICENSING DIVISION
CCLD Regional Office, 1000 CORPORATE CNTR DR. 200-B
MONTEREY PARK, CA 91754
FACILITY NAME: BYER FAMILY CHILD CARE
FACILITY NUMBER: 198020794
VISIT DATE: 11/17/2021
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
 .Page 3/6

Though LPA asked to interview licensee’s own two children and stated that licensee could be present during the interview, licensee denied LPA the right to interview them.
According to the current California car seat law, a child is ready for a booster seat when they have outgrown the weight or height limit of their forward-facing harnesses, which is typically between 40-65 pounds. However, it will vary according to the car seat’s owner’s manual. According to the RP, C1 weighed between 43-46 pounds when enrolled at the daycare.

Regarding having C1 sit on a regular chair while eating instead of in a high chair:

According to Licensee, she tried to have C1 eat while C1 was in a child-size chair in the daycare room, but C1 would not stay put. Then she tried having C1 sit at the kitchen table, but C1 would wiggle and she didn’t feel that was safe, as C1 might fall off of the chair. So C1 asked RP how C1 eats at home and RP disclosed that C1 sits in a high chair; it was after this conversation that RP provided a high chair for C1 to sit in.

No disclosures were made by licensee’s assistants about the equipment used when C1 was eating except that S1 was aware that the high chair belonged to RP and not to licensee.

According to C2, when C1 was on the regular chair, C1 appeared to be afraid and would reach out to C2 and want to sit with C2 and that it was after C2 informed RP about this that RP provided licensee with a high chair for C1.

Although there's no specific age for when a child should or can transition from a high chair to a regular chair, it is recommended that a child not transition directly from a high chair to a regular chair and instead, transition from a high chair to a booster seat which has straps and is strapped

SUPERVISORS NAME: Claudia Guangorena
LICENSING EVALUATOR NAME: Betty Bell
LICENSING EVALUATOR SIGNATURE:

DATE: 11/17/2021
I acknowledge receipt of this form and understand my licensing appeal rights as explained and received.
FACILITY REPRESENTATIVE SIGNATURE:

DATE: 11/17/2021
LIC9099 (FAS) - (06/04)
Page: 3 of 6
Control Number 33-CC-20210827090832
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY

COMPLAINT INVESTIGATION REPORT (Cont)		CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
COMMUNITY CARE LICENSING DIVISION
CCLD Regional Office, 1000 CORPORATE CNTR DR. 200-B
MONTEREY PARK, CA 91754
FACILITY NAME: BYER FAMILY CHILD CARE
FACILITY NUMBER: 198020794
VISIT DATE: 11/17/2021
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
 Page 4/6

to a regular chair before transitioning to a regular chair with no booster seat, as the child may wiggle and risk falling.

As there were no corroborating statements made to support that licensee transported C1 on a booster (it’s licensee’s word against C2’s word since LPA was not permitted to interview licensee’s own children) and since RP provided the proper equipment to be used by C1 (both a car seat and a high chair) which is also used by RP at home, and C1 was never hurt or injured during the time they were in licensee’s care, the allegation has been determined to Unsubstantiated.

This agency has investigated the complaint alleging that “Licensee did not follow the manufacturer's instructions for the use of equipment” and that there was a violation of Title 22, Division 12, Chapter 1, Article 6, Section 102423 Personal Rights. Based upon the evidence as presented above, the allegation has been determined to be Unsubstantiated. A finding of Unsubstantiated means that although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation did or did not occur.

No deficiencies are being cited for the allegation listed above.



Pertaining to the allegation that “Licensee did not meet the needs of child in care”:

According to RP, the diapers of C1 were not changed as often as they should be. There was one time in particular when RP picked C1 up and the diaper was so soaked full of urine that urine began running down the leg of C1; when asked about it, licensee stated that they had been out and she had not taken diapers with her to change C1.

SUPERVISORS NAME: Claudia Guangorena
LICENSING EVALUATOR NAME: Betty Bell
LICENSING EVALUATOR SIGNATURE:

DATE: 11/17/2021
I acknowledge receipt of this form and understand my licensing appeal rights as explained and received.
FACILITY REPRESENTATIVE SIGNATURE:

DATE: 11/17/2021
LIC9099 (FAS) - (06/04)
Page: 4 of 6
Control Number 33-CC-20210827090832
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY

COMPLAINT INVESTIGATION REPORT (Cont)		CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
COMMUNITY CARE LICENSING DIVISION
CCLD Regional Office, 1000 CORPORATE CNTR DR. 200-B
MONTEREY PARK, CA 91754
FACILITY NAME: BYER FAMILY CHILD CARE
FACILITY NUMBER: 198020794
VISIT DATE: 11/17/2021
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
 Page 5/6

According to licensee, she would change the diaper of C1 every two to three hours and that though her handbook says she will provide diapers, as RP wanted diapers changed frequently, she asked that RP provide diapers.

No disclosures were made by licensee’s assistants except that licensee had asked S1 to change C1’s diaper before pick up time if C1 was left in S1’s care.

According to C2, licensee would change the diaper of C1 about once every four hours and when licensee was busy with her own children, she would ask C2 to change C1’s diaper.

Again, this allegation comes down to licensee’s word against C2’s word since LPA was not permitted to interview licensee’s own children. As there were no corroborating statements made, the allegation has been determined to Unsubstantiated.

This agency has investigated the complaint alleging that “Licensee did not meet the needs of child in care” and that there was a violation of Title 22, Division 12, Chapter 1, Article 6, Section 102423 Personal Rights. Based upon the evidence as presented above, the allegation has been determined to be Unsubstantiated. A finding of Unsubstantiated means that although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation did or did not occur.

No deficiencies are being cited for the allegation listed above.

SUPERVISORS NAME: Claudia Guangorena
LICENSING EVALUATOR NAME: Betty Bell
LICENSING EVALUATOR SIGNATURE:

DATE: 11/17/2021
I acknowledge receipt of this form and understand my licensing appeal rights as explained and received.
FACILITY REPRESENTATIVE SIGNATURE:

DATE: 11/17/2021
LIC9099 (FAS) - (06/04)
Page: 5 of 6
Control Number 33-CC-20210827090832
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY

COMPLAINT INVESTIGATION REPORT (Cont)		CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
COMMUNITY CARE LICENSING DIVISION
CCLD Regional Office, 1000 CORPORATE CNTR DR. 200-B
MONTEREY PARK, CA 91754
FACILITY NAME: BYER FAMILY CHILD CARE
FACILITY NUMBER: 198020794
VISIT DATE: 11/17/2021
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
 Page 6/6

Upon receipt, Licensee Tamera Byer posted the Notice of Site Visit. The Notice of Site Visit shall be posted for 30 consecutive days. Failure to maintain posting as required will result in a $100 civil penalty.

An exit interview has been conducted with, and a copy of this report has been signed by and provided to Licensee Tamera Byer. Appeal Rights have been provided and explained to Licensee as well.
SUPERVISORS NAME: Claudia Guangorena
LICENSING EVALUATOR NAME: Betty Bell
LICENSING EVALUATOR SIGNATURE:

DATE: 11/17/2021
I acknowledge receipt of this form and understand my licensing appeal rights as explained and received.
FACILITY REPRESENTATIVE SIGNATURE:

DATE: 11/17/2021
LIC9099 (FAS) - (06/04)
Page: 6 of 6