Registered Family Child Care Home
✓ Licensed
Crystal James
Hollywood, MD
· Saint Marys County
Keith Court,
Hollywood, MD 20636
Quick Facts
Capacity
6 children
Age Range
0-23 Months, 2 years, 3 years, 4 years, 5 years, 5 years to 12 years
Subsidized Program
Does not participate
Food Program
Does not participate
Missing details such as transportation or rates? Suggest an update to help other families.
Licensed Registered Family Child Care Home
Active License
License Number
259621
Issued By
Maryland State Department of Education
District Office
Region 10 - Southern Maryland Office
Reviews
Write a Review
Be the first to review this childcare provider. Write a review about Crystal James. Let other families know what's great, or what could be improved. Please read our brief review guidelines to make your review as helpful as possible.
Review Policy: ChildcareCenter.us does not actively screen or monitor user reviews, nor do we verify or edit content.
Reviews reflect only the opinion of the writer. We ask that users follow our
review guidelines.
Providers are welcome to respond to parental reviews, however we ask that they identify themselves as the provider.
About the Provider
Crystal James is a Registered Family Child Care Home in Hollywood MD, with a maximum capacity of 6 children. The home-based daycare service helps with children in the age range of 0-23 Months, 2 years, 3 years, 4 years, 5 years, 5 years to 12 years. The provider does not participate in a subsidized child care program.
Hours of Operation
- Monday 9:00 AM - 2:30 PM
- Tuesday 9:00 AM - 2:30 PM
- Wednesday 9:00 AM - 2:30 PM
- Thursday 9:00 AM - 2:30 PM
- Friday 9:00 AM - 2:30 PM
- Saturday Closed
- Sunday Closed
Inspection/Report History
Where possible, ChildcareCenter provides inspection reports as a service to families. This information is deemed reliable but is not guaranteed. We encourage families to contact the daycare provider directly with any questions or concerns. Reports can also be verified with your local daycare licensing office.
| Date | Type | Regulations | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-03-25 | Complaint | 13A.15.06.03B(1) | Corrected |
| Findings: The complaint alleges the provider utilized her husband, not an approved substitute, as a substitute on July 12, 2023. A text message was provided at the time of the complaint showing the provider telling someone that her spouse was covering for her while she went to the doctor. The provider cannot remember the time in July 2023 when she texted a parent that her spouse would be covering for her in the morning while she went to the doctor. She stated it must have been an emergency because she always uses her grandmother or sister who are approved substitutes. The grandmother was present for a portion of the inspection and stated she is available next door when the provider needs her. The provider understands her spouse is not an approved substitute and does not remember having to use him as such. The provider will not use her spouse as a substitute; she has requested that he be reassessed since her conversion inspection. He did submit a substitute form but was not approved as a substitute. | |||
| 2024-03-25 | Complaint | 13A.15.08.01A | Corrected |
| Findings: The complaint alleges the provider's spouse, who is not an approved substitute, was used as a substitute on the morning of July 12, 2023. A text message was sent to this office showing the provider letting someone know that this was happening. The provider cannot remember the time that she texted regarding her spouse covering her but assumes it must have been an emergency. The incident occurred almost a year ago. The provider's substitute, grandmother, lives right next door and can assist when needed. She was present for a portion of the inspection and stated she has assisted in the past but the provider rarely needs a substitute. The provider tried to find the text messages regarding her spouse covering for her last July but stated she will have to look for them after daycare hours. The provider understands that her spouse is not an approved substitute and will not use him as such. In an emergency, she will contact her approved substitutes of which are usually present next door. | |||
| 2024-03-20 | Complaint | 13A.15.04.03A | Corrected |
| Findings: The provider has 7 children enrolled and 7 children were present at the time of the inspection. The provider sent one child home per the licensing specialist's request to bring her back into compliance with capacity. The provider enrolled a child to take another child's place when she leaves care. The provider cannot have more than 6 child care children present at any given time. Please submit a plan for only having 6 children present. | |||
| 2024-03-20 | Complaint | 13A.15.05.04A(1) | Corrected |
| Findings: The complaint alleges infants are napping in the master bedroom which is not approved for child care use. The only approved napping area is the daycare room per the fire marshal. The provider does utilize the master bedroom for infant napping. She had a camera system installed in her daycare room, master bedroom and at the front door. The camera can be positioned to see the napping children. The fire marshal has not approved this room for napping. The provider would like the specialist to submit another fire request to have the fire marshal inspect the master bedroom. If approved, this room will only be utilized for contained nappers. The master bedroom is right across from the daycare room on the same level of the home. The provider is reminded that when infants are approved to nap in the master bedroom, the door must remain ajar. The master bedroom cannot be utilized for napping until approved by the fire marshal. | |||
| 2024-03-20 | Complaint | 13A.15.08.01A | Corrected |
| Findings: The complaint alleges the provider's 11 year old son was in the daycare room with up to 3 daycare children and his 2 younger siblings. The provider's car was in the driveway but the complainant never saw her and did not ask where she was at that time. A couple of months ago, the complainant alleges the provider's 13 year old daughter was with the children. The complainant never said anything because the daughter is good with her daughter. It was also reported that the provider's husband has substituted when the provider was not home. The provider denies her husband substituting for her nor another male person used as a substitute. The provider does remember last week when one parent picked up and she was in the bathroom with an upset stomach. The bathroom is immediately outside the daycare room and the provider asked her 11 year old son to sit at her desk and let parents know she was in the bathroom because she was feeling ill. Two parents arrived during that time and one left before the provider came out of the bathroom. The provider is unaware of any other times that she was not present but her older children were with the child care children. | |||
| 2023-07-19 | Conversion | ||
| Findings: No Noncompliances Found | |||
| 2023-06-13 | Mandatory Review | ||
| Findings: No Noncompliances Found | |||
If you are a provider and believe any information is incorrect, please contact us. We will research your concern and make corrections accordingly.
Ask the Community
Connect, seek advice, share knowledge.
Providers in ZIP Code 20636
Viewing an Infant Daycare?
Helpful Resources
Choosing Infant Care
Read article →
Questions to Ask During a Tour
Read article →
Infant Licensing Guide
Read article →