Small home · Licensed for 6 · Hesperia
Chantilly Lace Manor
7421 Minstead Ave, Hesperia, CA 92345Licensed since 2012
Overview
No openings reported
- Approved by the state: Wheelchair · Dementia · Hospice · BedriddenState licensing record · October 26, 2026
- Licensed for 6: a small care homeThe state license record
Ask this home
Free for families. A home gets your number only if you say yes.
Care and support
- Wheelchairup to 6 residents
- Dementia
- Hospiceup to 6 residents
- Bedriddenup to 2 residents
Approved by the state · State licensing record · October 26, 2026. An approval may cover specific rooms or residents; it does not establish an opening.
Read the state’s own wording
6 NON-AMBULATORY, OF WHICH 2 MAY BE BEDRIDDEN IN ROOM #2. HOSPICE WAIVER 6.
983 - RCFE / DEMENTIA
CDSS record, verbatim · October 26, 2026
As needs change
Staying through hospice
Hospice waiver on file · covers up to 6 — care may continue at the end of life
State licensing record · October 26, 2026
If memory loss develops
Dementia-care designation on file
State licensing record · October 26, 2026
We’ll ask for you. Not on file for Chantilly Lace Manor: two-person transfers or a lift, who is awake overnight and help with medicines. When we check availability, we ask about these too.
Check availabilityWhat it costs here
Covelight estimate
$4,050a month to start
Likely $3,300–$5,000
From 13 nearby homes that publish rates · this home’s rate is not on file
Monthly cost breakdownWith a shared room and basic help · room, care and fees$4,050likely a month
Starting monthly rate$4,050likely $3,300–$5,000
Covelight’s estimate starts from the rates 13 small homes and similar homes within 9 miles publish, then adjusts for this home’s size, state care approvals, Medi-Cal waiver participation, years licensed and the area’s prices. In testing, the likely range held the real rate for 6 in 10 homes. This home’s own rate is not on file.
Basic help with daily careUsually includedup to $600
Basic help is usually part of the starting rate. Homes that price care by level start around $600 a month (44 California homes publish a care-level range, seen in September 2026).
One-time move-in fee$2,500one time · likely $0–$4,000
Homes that list a one-time entry or community fee charge a median of $2,500 (133 California listings; middle half $1,000–$4,000). Many homes list none — ask.
- Likely monthly totalLikely $3,300–$5,200
- $4,050
- First monthWith a one-time move-in fee · likely $3,900–$8,450
- $6,550
How people payPrivate pay, Medi-Cal waiver, SSI/SSP, veterans, insurance
- MedicareDoes not pay for room and board in a care home. It can still cover hospice or home-health visits inside one.
- Private payMost residents pay from savings, a home sale or family help. Ask for the rate and what it includes in writing.
- Medi-Cal Assisted Living WaiverThis home is not on the DHCS participation list dated October 1, 2026. Ask the program about current options. The waiver pays for care services, not room and board.
- SSI/SSPCalifornia’s 2026 standard is $1,626.07 a month; $1,444.07 of it goes to the home and $182 stays with the resident. Whether this home accepts it is not on file — ask.
- VeteransVA Aid & Attendance can add to a veteran’s or surviving spouse’s pension. Ask whether residents here have used it.
- Long-term care insuranceMost policies pay for licensed care homes. Ask what paperwork the home provides for claims.
Rates at nearby homes13 nearby homes publish starting rates of $2,800 to $5,500
13 homes like this within 9 miles publish starting rates mostly between $3,150–$4,650.
- Cherry & Pine Garden Home CareHesperia · 0.4 mi · Small home$3,500Listed on Seniorly · seen September 9, 2026
- Aries Residential CareHesperia · 5.4 mi · Small home$3,400Listed on A Place for Mom · seen September 9, 2026
- Carmel Care HomeHesperia · 6.0 mi · Mid-size home$3,000Listed on Seniorly · seen September 9, 2026
- Mission of Love IIHesperia · 6.2 mi · Mid-size home$3,500Listed on Seniorly · assisted living shared bedroom · seen September 9, 2026
- Aging Grace Senior Living FacilityHesperia · 6.3 mi · Small home$3,800Listed on Seniorly · assisted living shared bedroom · seen September 9, 2026
- Yorkshire Garden Care #1Apple Valley · 6.8 mi · Small home$3,200Listed on Seniorly · assisted living shared bedroom · seen September 9, 2026
- Golden Years Elderly CareVictorville · 6.9 mi · Small home$2,800Listed on Seniorly · seen September 9, 2026
- Della Guest HomeVictorville · 7.1 mi · Small home$4,000Listed on Seniorly · assisted living shared bedroom · seen September 9, 2026
- Seegal Residential CareVictorville · 7.1 mi · Small home$4,000Listed on A Place for Mom · seen September 9, 2026
- Oak Hills Home CareOak Hills · 7.2 mi · Small home$5,000Listed on Seniorly · assisted living shared bedroom · seen September 9, 2026
- Crystal Garden RCFEApple Valley · 8.0 mi · Mid-size home$5,500Listed on Seniorly · assisted living shared bedroom · seen September 9, 2026
- Maemar ManorVictorville · 8.3 mi · Small home$4,000Listed on Seniorly · assisted living private room · seen September 9, 2026
- Arya Garden Assisted LivingVictorville · 8.4 mi · Small home$4,900Listed on Seniorly · assisted living shared bedroom · seen September 9, 2026
How this estimate worksWithin 25% for 7 in 10 homes in testing
Covelight’s estimate starts from the rates 13 small homes and similar homes within 9 miles publish, then adjusts for this home’s size, state care approvals, Medi-Cal waiver participation, years licensed and the area’s prices. In testing, the likely range held the real rate for 6 in 10 homes. This home’s own rate is not on file.
- Only prices a home put out itself count: its own website, a listing it supplied, or a price Seniorly says the home confirmed. Prices a listing site shows without saying where they came from are left out.
- Nearby homes are the nearest of the same size that publish a rate, widening from 3 to 40 miles until at least 8 do. The estimate starts from what they charge, then adjusts for this home’s size, state care approvals, Medi-Cal waiver participation, years licensed and the area’s prices.
- Room, care-level, second-person and move-in lines come from what California homes publish on listing sites. Memory care uses Covelight’s researched premium over assisted living.
- Totals add each line’s figure and combine the lines’ ranges as separate charges, because a home is rarely at the top, or the bottom, of every line at once.
- We tested this estimate on 1,546 California homes that publish their own starting rate. It was within 10% of the real rate for 3 in 10 homes and within 25% for 7 in 10; the likely range held the real rate for 6 in 10 (September 12, 2026).
- It cannot see this home’s specials, how it assesses care, or which rooms are open.
Avoid surprises on the billWhat changes the price, and what to ask
- The care level
Some homes charge one all-inclusive rate. Others add levels or points as needs grow. Ask how the level is set, who decides, and what the next level costs.
- What is billed separately
Medication management, incontinence supplies, transportation and a second person in the room are often extra. Ask for the list in writing.
- Move-in costs
A one-time move-in fee or deposit is common. Ask what it covers and whether any of it comes back if the stay is short.
- Increases
California requires at least 90 days’ written notice, with reasons, before a rate rises (Health & Safety Code §1569.655). A change in the resident’s care level is the section’s own exception and can be billed sooner.
An estimate for planning, not a quote. A home sets the price after hearing about the care needed.
Daily life
Daily life here is not on file yet. Most small homes haven’t published it, and that says nothing about the home.
The best way to see it is a visit.
Request a tourWhere it is
7421 Minstead Ave, Hesperia, CA 92345Address from the public record · October 26, 2026. Confirm the entrance with the home before visiting.
Opening the neighborhood map…
The state record
California inspects every licensed home and publishes what it found. A citation does not make a home unsafe, and an empty file does not make a home good.
CDSS public record, read October 26, 2026 · License #366425325 · See the state’s own record
The last 36 months — 7 of 12 documents
Complaint outcomes in these 36 months, in the state’s words: 3 “Unsubstantiated”.
20261 state visit · 1 document
Feb 27, 2026Facility evaluation reportRoutine visitReport on file
Type of visit: Required - 1 Year
Licensing Program Analysts (LPAs) Magda Malcore and Eldin Serrano made an unannounced visit to the facility. The purpose of the visit was to conduct a required comprehensive annual inspection. LPAs met with Caregiver, Donna Norton and were granted entry to the facility. At the time of the visit there was one (1) staff, and five (5) residents present. Physical Plant: Indoor and outdoor passageways are free of obstructions. The facility is maintained at a comfortable temperature of 72 degrees Fahrenheit. LPAs inspected resident bedrooms; they are equipped with the required furniture such as: mattresses, nightstands, storage space, and sufficient lighting; bathrooms were clean, and appliances were operating appropriately. LPAs observed sufficient furniture and lighting throughout the facility. LPAs measured and observed the water temperatures in the bathroom to be at 112 degrees Fahrenheit. The facility is equipped with operating smoke detectors and carbon monoxide alarms. Fire extinguisher was also observed at the facility. Posters such as Ombudsman poster, labor law, facility license, and facility sketch were posted in a common area. Cleaning supplies, sharps, and other dangerous items were kept inaccessible to residents in care. There was a designated storage space for resident/staff files. There is a medication room with the resident’s medications locked. LPAs observed first aid kit and manual. Yards/Outside: One shaded patio, one self-latching gate and an attached two (2) car garage was observed. Food Service: Seven (7) days’ supply of Non-perishable foods and two (2) days’ supply of perishable food supply were observed and sufficient for the number of residents in care. LPAs observed that the facility does not have enough emergency food and water for 72 hour emergency. Citation issued. Record Review: LPAs reviewed three (3) resident files for admission agreements, updated physician reports, pre-placement appraisals and needs and services plans. LPAs observed resident files reviewed were complete. LPAs reviewed three (3) staff files for First Aid/CPR certifications, criminal record clearances, trainings, and health screenings. Based on the observations made during today’s visit, a deficiency was cited per Title 22, Division 6, of the California Code of Regulations and Health and Safety Code (HSC). An exit interview was conducted, and this report LIC809, LIC809C, LIC809D forms, and Appeal Rights were discussed and provided to Caregiver Norton.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Feb 27, 2026
The state marks this report as 5 pages; the online copy we transcribed has 4. You can request the full file from the county licensing office.
20252 state visits · 3 documents
Aug 21, 2025Complaint investigation reportUnsubstantiated
Allegation investigated: Staff forced a resident to take medication Staff administered another resident's prescribed medication to a resident Staff restrained a resident
Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Magda Malcore conducted an unannounced visit to the facility to conclude and deliver the findings on the above allegations. LPA was granted entry into the facility and met with Administrator, Teresa Baddeley. The investigation consisted of record review and interviews with pertinent parties. Regarding the allegation, staff forced a resident to take medication, interview with Resident #1 (R1) reveals that staff did not force them to take medication. Interviews with the Administrator and two (2) staff deny forcing any residents to take medications. Regarding the allegation, staff administered another resident's prescribed medication to a resident, review of resident’s medication records reveals medications were given as prescribed. Interviews with the Administrator and two (2) staff deny administering another resident’s prescribed medication to another resident. Unsubstantiated Regarding the allegation, staff restrained a resident, it was alleged that staff physically restrained R1. Interview with (R1) reveals they were not restrained by staff. Interviews with the Administrator and two (2) staff deny restraining any residents. Based on this department’s investigation, the allegations mentioned in this report are Unsubstantiated. An Unsubstantiated finding means 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. An exit interview was conducted where this report was discussed, and a copy was provided with appeal rights to Administrator Baddeley at the conclusion of the visit.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Aug 21, 2025 · control 56-AS-20241107120742
Aug 21, 2025Complaint investigation reportUnsubstantiated
Allegation investigated: Facility staff restrained a resident
Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Magda Malcore and Licensing Program Manager, Karen Clemons conducted an unannounced complaint visit to the facility. The investigation consisted of observations, file review and interviews with pertinant parties. Regarding the allegation, facility staff restrained a resident, LPA observed resident #1 (R1) and resident #2 (R2) wearing lap belt retraints at the facility. Review of resident files reveals the resident #1 (R1), resident #2 (R2), and resident #3(R3) have physician's order to use gait belts. Based on the department's investigation, the allegation above is Unsubstantiated; meaning 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. An exit interview was conducted where this report was discussed and a copy provided with appeal rights to Administrator Baddeley at the conclusion of the visit. Unsubstantiatedthe state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Aug 21, 2025 · control 56-AS-20250818103259
Feb 7, 2025Facility evaluation reportRoutine visitReport on file
Type of visit: Required - 1 Year
Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Michelle Echeverria arrived unannounced to conduct the required annual visit to the facility. LPA met with Caregiver, Donna Norton and introduced self and stated purpose of the visit. LPA was informed that there are currently 6 residents in care who are in the facility. LPA telephone called the Licensee, Teresa Baddeley and informed her about the purpose of the visit. The facility has 3 resident bedrooms, 1 staff bedroom, 2 bathrooms, kitchen, dining area, living room, family room, laundry room, attached garage, and backyard. LPA completed a walk through of facility, and review of records. Physical Plant: The facility is operating in the capacity approved by Community Care Licensing (CCL). There are no obstructions to indoor and outdoor passageways. The facility is maintained at a comfortable temperature of 71 degrees fahrenheit. LPA inspected resident bedrooms; they are equipped with required furniture such as: mattresses, night stands, storage space, chairs and sufficient lighting. LPA observed a resident occupying a staff bedroom without fire clearance approval. Deficiency issued. LPA inspected resident bathrooms; bathrooms were clean and appliances were found functional. Water temperatures tested at 120 degrees fahrenheit. The facility is equipped with operational smoke detectors, carbon monoxide alarms, fire extinguisher and first aid kit. Posters such as; the ombudsman, administrator certificate and license were posted in a common area. LPA also observed cleaning supplies, toxins, sharps, and other dangerous items locked in cabinets made inaccessible to residents. There was a designated storage space for resident/staff files. Medications were observed secured and inaccessible to residents. There are no bodies of water, guns or ammunition in the facility. Food Service: Non-perishable and perishable food supply is sufficient for number of residents in care. Facility has a wide variety of food available for residents. Dishes, cups, and utensils were also stored properly. Yards/Outside: One shaded patio, a side gate with self-latching handle on the right side of the house that leads into the backyard, and a attached garage used for storage. All outdoor pathways were free of obstructions. Record Review: LPA reviewed 3 resident files for admission agreements, updated physician reports, and needs and services plans. LPA also reviewed personnel and administrator files for First Aid/CPR certification, criminal record clearance, trainings, and health screenings. LPA observed no health screening and TB for 1 caregiver. Deficiency issued. LPA observed a second caregiver arrive and assist residents without background clearance. LPA interviewed caregiver and stated that they had already worked 3 days prior. Deficiency with civil penalty issued. LPA reviewed the facility's insurance coverage, emergency disaster plan, infection control plan and emergency drills. LPA observed that the Infection Control Plan was not reviewed/updated annually. Technical violation issued. LPA observed that the Emergency Disaster Plan was not reviewed/updated annually. Technical violation issued. Deficiencies, two technical violations and one civil penalty were cited during this visit. An exit interview was conducted where this report LIC809, LIC809C, LIC809D, LIC9102TV, LIC421BG and appeal rights were discussed and copies were provided to Caregiver, Donna Norton.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Feb 7, 2025
The state marks this report as 6 pages; the online copy we transcribed has 4. You can request the full file from the county licensing office.
20241 state visit · 2 documents
Jan 23, 2024Complaint investigation reportUnsubstantiated
Allegation investigated: Facility staff did not dispense medications as prescribed. Facility staff withheld food from resident. Facility staff withheld water from resident. Facility staff is giving the residents alcohol. Facility staff is using a physical restraint on resident.
Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Ryan Gardner made an unannounced visit to investigate and deliver findings for the allegations listed above. LPA stated the purpose of the visit, was granted entry, and met with Administrator Teresa Baddeley. The investigation consisted of resident interviews, staff interviews, and document review. For allegation, Facility staff did not dispense medications as prescribed: Interviews with the staff revealed that the facility is dispensing the resident’s medication as prescribed. Prior to dispensing, the staff reads the resident’s prescription containers to ensure they are dispensing as ordered. The staff stated the process is to remove the medication out of the prescription containers, place the medications into a reusable cup container, and then immediately hand the cup container to the residents, and the staff verifies the resident took the medication. Once the resident takes the medication, the staff logs and initials the medication in the resident's MAR record. Unsubstantiated Interviews with the residents revealed that there were no known issues with medication not being dispensed as prescribed. Document review of the residents MARs records revealed that the resident’s medication is being documented appropriately. For allegation, Facility staff withheld food from resident: Interviews with the staff and the residents revealed that the residents are not being withheld food. The residents are served breakfast, lunch, dinner, and snacks throughout the day. The meals served include a mixture of fruits, vegetables, protein, and carbohydrates. If the residents are not full after a meal, additional food is available and offered until the resident is full. Document review of the facilities menu revealed that the facility offers a mixture of fruits, vegetables, protein, and carbohydrates three (3) times a day. The staff and the residents both denied that the residents are withheld food. For allegation, Facility staff withheld water from resident: Interviews with the staff and the residents revealed that the residents are not being withheld water. The residents are offered water throughout the day. The staff and the residents both denied that the residents are withheld water. For allegation, Facility staff is giving the residents alcohol: Interviews with the staff and the residents revealed that the residents on occasion are provided alcohol. The alcohol is only provided at resident’s request due to the resident having personal rights. During these occasions, it is usually during a holiday and or a celebration. The residents are only provided a small amount of alcohol. The staff only allows alcohol if the resident is not on a medication that will interact with the alcohol. For allegation, Facility staff is using a physical restraint on resident: Interviews with the staff and the residents revealed that the resident’s are not being physically restrained. The facility staff utilizes a gait belt to assist the residents with their transfers and mobility. The staff and the residents both denied that the residents are being physically restrained. Overall, there was not enough evidence to collaborate the allegations listed above. Based on evidence obtained during the investigation, the allegations listed above are deemed UNSUBSTANTIATED. A finding that the complaints are UNSUBSTANTIATED means 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. During today’s visit, no deficiencies were cited per Title 22, Division 6, of the California Code of Regulations. An exit interview was conducted, and this report (LIC9099) was discussed and provided Administrator Teresa Baddeley, along with a copy of the appeal rights.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Jan 23, 2024 · control 56-AS-20240117142158
Jan 23, 2024Facility evaluation reportCase Management - DeficienciesDeficiency page: Type B
Type of visit: Case Management - Deficiencies
Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Ryan Gardner conducted an unannounced case management visit to the facility during a complaint visit for control number 56-AS-20240117142158. During the visit, LPA observed cameras in the resident’s bedrooms and camera monitoring in the laundry room which poses a potential health, safety, or personal rights risk to persons in care. During today’s visit, one (1) deficiency was cited per Title 22, Division 6, of the California Code of Regulations. An exit interview was conducted where this report (LIC809), LIC809D, the appeal rights were discussed and provided to Teresa Baddeley.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Jan 23, 2024
From the deficiency page — Deficiency type: Type B · Section cited: CCR 87209(a)(2) · Plan of correction due date: Jan 26, 2024
87209 Program Flexibility (a) The use of alternate concepts, programs, services, procedures, techniques, equipment, space, personnel qualifications or staffing ratios, or the conduct of experimental or demonstration projects shall not be prohibited by these regulations provided that: (2) A written request for a waiver or exception and substantiating evidence supporting the request shall be submitted in advance to the licensing agency by the applicant or licensee. This requirement is not met as evidenced based on observation and interview, the licensee did not comply with the section cited above evidenced by having cameras in the resident’s bedrooms without a written approval from the department which poses a potential health, safety, or personal rights risk to persons in care.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Jan 23, 2024
Plan of correction: The licensee has agreed to read regulation 87209 entirely and send LPA a statement of understanding that the regulation was read and understood. The licensee has agreed to remove the cameras from the resident’s bedrooms. The licensee has agreed to send a written request to have cameras in the resident's bedrooms and have approval from the department prior to installing the cameras in the resident’s bedrooms. The POC is due on 1/26/2024.
20231 state visit · 1 document
Dec 21, 2023Facility evaluation reportRoutine visitReport on file
Type of visit: Required - 1 Year
Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Mary Rico made an unannounced visit to the facility. The purpose of the visit was to conduct a required comprehensive annual inspection. LPA met with care giver Alison D. Bowler and was granted entry to the facility. The facility is a (6) bedroom (2) bathroom home and, with a kitchen/dining area, living room, and attached garage. LPA was accompanied by Administrator Teresa Baddeley to conduct a general overall inspection, which included, but was not limited to, the following: Physical Plant: The facility is operating in the capacity approved by Community Care Licensing (CCL). There are no obstructions to indoor and outdoor passageways. The facility is maintained at a comfortable temperature. LPA inspected client bedrooms; they are equipped with required furniture such as: mattresses, night stands, storage space, and sufficient lighting; bathrooms were clean, and appliances were operating appropriately. LPA observed sufficient furniture and lighting throughout the facility. The facility is equipped with operating smoke detectors and carbon monoxide alarms. Posters such as personal rights, the CCL complaint poster, and the disaster plan were posted in a common area. Cleaning supplies, toxins, and sharps were kept inaccessible to clients in care. There was a designated space for client/staff files. Food Service: Non-perishable and perishable food supply is sufficient for number of clients in care. Facility has a variety of food available for clients. Dishes, cups, and utensils were also stored properly. Care & Supervision: Facility has sufficient care staff for coverage 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Record Review: LPA reviewed (4) resident files for admission agreements, updated physician reports, and needs and services plans. LPA reviewed (4) resident medications. During medication review, LPA observed lose medications and medications transferred between containers. LPA also reviewed (2) staff files for First Aid/CPR certification, criminal record clearance, training's, and health screenings. During record review, LPA observed S1 did not have a criminal record clearance. Administrator stated S1 did not have a criminal record clearance. S1 immediately left the facility. Based on the observations made during today’s visit, two (2) Type A deficiencies were cited per Title 22, Division 6, of the California Code of Regulations. And a Civil Penalty in the amount of $500 dollars will be issued for S1 for working without a criminal record clearance. An exit interview was conducted, and this report (LIC809) (LIC809D) (LIC421BG) was discussed and provided Administrator Teresa Baddeley. Along with a copy of the Appeals Rights.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Dec 21, 2023
Earlier years2021 to 2023 · 5 documents
20231 state visit · 2 documents
May 9, 2023Complaint investigation reportUnfounded
Allegation investigated: Resident sustained bruises while in care. Staff hurt resident in care. Staff did not provide proper medication assistance to resident in care.
Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Rayshaun Nickolas visited the facility unannounced to deliver the finding on the above allegations. LPA met with caregiver Jeannene Regets and explained the purpose of the visit. Licensee Teresa Baddeley was notified of this complaint and arrived at the facility approximately 10 minutes later. The investigation included a facility tour, file reviews, and interviews with relevant parties. Allegation #1 “Resident sustained bruises while in care”. The allegation alleged that client #1 (C1) had bruises on their arm. LPA Nickolas’ interview with staff #3 (S3) revealed that C1 does not reside at this facility. S3 stated that C1 resided at another facility owned by the Licensee. LPA Nickolas' interview with the Licensee revealed that C1 has never resided at this facility. The Licensee stated that C1 resided at their other facility. Allegation #2 “Staff hurt resident in care”. The allegation alleged that C1 told staff #2 (S2) that staff #1 (S1) "S1 is hurting me". LPA Nickolas' interview with S3 revealed that C1 does not reside at this facility. S2 stated that C1 resided at another facility owned by the Licensee. Unfounded LPA Nickolas' interview with the Licensee revealed that C1 has never resided at this facility. The Licensee stated that C1 resided at their other facility. The Licensee stated that S1 has never worked at this facility. Allegation #3 “Staff did not provide proper medication assistance to resident in care”. The allegation alleged that a client’s relative ordered S2 to give the client additional medication, and S2 did not comply. The allegation alleged that other facility staff members were over-medicating the same client. LPA Nickolas’ interview with S3 revealed they have never encountered S2 working at this facility. S3 stated that they have been working at this facility since March 2022. LPA Nickolas’ interview with the Licensee revealed that S2 does not work at this facility. The Licensee stated that S2 has never worked at this facility. LPA Nickolas’ file review revealed that S2 is on the shift schedule of another facility owned by the Licensee. This agency has investigated the complaint allegations. We have found that the complaint was unfounded meaning that the allegations were false, could not have happened and/or are without a reasonable basis. We have therefore dismissed the complaint. A finding of Unsubstantiated means 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. An exit interview was conducted and copy of this report was provided.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, May 9, 2023 · control 56-AS-20230508163519
May 9, 2023Complaint investigation reportUnsubstantiated
Allegation investigated: Uncleared staff are working at the facility. Facility staff are not receiving adequate training.
Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Rayshaun Nickolas visited the facility unannounced to deliver the finding on the above allegations. LPA met with caregiver Jeannene Regets and explained the purpose of the visit. Licensee was notified of this complaint and arrived at the facility approximately 10 minutes later. The investigation included a facility tour, file reviews, and interviews with relevant parties. Allegation #1: “Uncleared staff are working at the facility”. The allegation alleged that multiple employees at the facility do not have a background check. LPA Nickolas’ interview with the Licensee revealed that all employees have a criminal records clearance. LPA Nickolas’ file review revealed that all employees have a criminal record clearance with our agency. The finding is Unsubstantiated. There is no evidence or witnesses to corroborate the allegation. Allegation #2: “Facility staff are not receiving adequate training”. The allegation alleged that only one (1) day of training is provided at the facility. LPA Nickolas' interview with staff #1 (S1) revealed that they conduct a lot of the training at the facility. Unsubstantiated S1 stated that any employees hired within the last year have received training before working with clients. LPA Nickolas' interview with staff #2 (S2) revealed they were trained before working with clients. S2 stated that they feel safe performing their job duties with the training received. LPA Nickolas' interview with the Licensee revealed that new employees are provided the recommended training outlined by the Title 22 California Code of Regulations (CCR). LPA Nickolas randomly audited four (4) out of six (6) employees' training records, which revealed that employees are provided 40 hours of training within 30 days of hire. LPA Nickolas' file audit also revealed that the facility provides all employees with 20 hours of annual training. The finding is Unsubstantiated. There is no evidence or witnesses to corroborate the allegation. A finding of Unsubstantiated means 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. An exit interview was conducted and copy of this report was provided. Based on the evidence gathered during the investigation, the above allegation is Substantiated. A finding that the complaint is Substantiated means that the allegation(s) is valid because the preponderance of the evidence standard has been met. An exit interview was conducted where a copy of this report (LIC 9099), LIC 9099D, and appeal rights were discussed and provided.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, May 9, 2023 · control 56-AS-20230503095914
From the deficiency page — Deficiency type: Type B · Section cited: CCR 87411(f) · Plan of correction due date: May 16, 2023
87411 Personnel Requirements - General (f) All personnel, including the licensee and administrator, shall be in good health, and physically and mentally capable of performing assigned tasks. Good physical health shall be verified by a health screening... This requirement was not met as evidenced by: Based on file review, the licensee did not ensure to maintain health screenings on file, which poses a potential health, safety, personal rights violation to clients in care.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, May 9, 2023
Plan of correction: The Licensee shall submit proof of health screenings on all employees by the POC due date.
20222 state visits · 2 documents
Oct 19, 2022Facility evaluation reportCase Management - IncidentReport on file
Type of visit: Case Management - Incident
Licensing Program Analysts (LPA’s) Rayshaun Nickolas and Amber Coleman made an unannounced visit to the facility to conduct a Health and Safety case management visit. This case management visit is in response to a special incident report (SIR) that was received by this agency from the facility on October 18, 2022. LPAs met with Licensee Teresa Baddeley and explained the purpose of the visit. The SIR documents on October 15, 2022 and October 16, 2022, staff # 1 (S1) was sleeping on the couch all night and neglected patients all night. The Licensee terminated the staff after reviewing the facility cameras. Inquiry into this incident included conducting a tour of the facility to assess for any Health and Safety concerns. LPA's interviewed the Licensee and clients. There are no health and safety concerns observed during this visit. No deficiencies were cited during this visit. An exit interview was conducted where this report (LIC 809) was discussed and provided to the Licensee.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Oct 19, 2022
Feb 14, 2022Facility evaluation reportRoutine visitReport on file
Type of visit: Required - 1 Year
Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Stephanie Williams conducted an unannounced visit to the facility in order to conduct a required annual inspection, with an emphasis on infection control, due to the COVID-19 pandemic. LPA Williams identified herself to Licensee/Administrator, Teresa Baddeley, who was also informed of the purpose of the visit. During the inspection, LPA Williams interviewed Baddeley regarding the facility's infection control measures and inspected the facility for regulatory compliance. LPA Williams observed appropriate postings in the facility, including COVID-19 symptoms postings and emergency contact information, which were in accordance with the Department's guidelines. LPA Williams observed that the facility was also equipped with sufficient hand hygiene supplies, sufficient cleaning/disinfecting provisions, and a supply of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). The facility has a designated infection control lead person who has been tasked with tracking all COVID-19 cases and/or suspected cases and that staff are trained in the facility's infection control measures. The facility has a plan in place which follows Community Care Licensing Division guidelines for COVID-19 testing, isolation, and properly caring for clients with COVID-19 positive results and/or exposures. The facility also has a plan in place to monitor residents regularly for any changes in condition and to subsequently notify the resident's physician and emergency personnel in the event the resident presents any COVID-19 symptoms. Furthermore, LPA Williams observed that the facility appeared to be meeting operational requirements. LPA Williams observed that all utilities and appliances were functioning properly and all passageways clear of obstruction, including emergency exits. The facility was equipped with sufficient food supply and emergency supplies. All areas of the facility, including resident bedrooms and restrooms, appeared clean and in good repair. LPA Williams observed that medications and dangerous objects were kept inaccessible to residents in care. LPA Williams observed no apparent health and safety risks at the time of visit. Based on interviews and observations made during today’s inspection, no deficiencies were cited per Title 22, Division 6, of the California Code of Regulations. An exit interview was conducted where this report was discussed and a copy of this report was provided to Baddeley at the conclusion of the inspection.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Feb 14, 2022
20211 state visit · 1 document
Jul 29, 2021Complaint investigation reportUnfounded
Allegation investigated: Provider is disregarding a treatment plan made between the resident and their medical doctor. Provider refused to allow the resident to leave the facility.
Licensing Program Analyst (LPA), Stephanie Torres, conducted an unannounced visit to deliver the findings of the investigation on the above allegations. The LPA met with House Manager, Carol Canto-Hamilton, and informed her of the purpose of the visit. Pertaining to the allegation, "Provider is disregarding a treatment plan made between the resident and their medical doctor," it was alleged Licensee, Teresa Baddeley, cancelled Resident One's (R1's) physical therapy and their transfer to inpatient rehabilitation. The LPA initiated the investigation on January 08, 2020; the LPA conducted interviews, reviewed records, and took copies of pertinent documentation. Records from R1's Primary Care Provider were obtained; a Health Advocate Post Discharge Communication note, dated December 20, 2019, revealed R1 did show interest in receiving physical therapy, however, they also had a desire to remain in the facility. Licensee Baddeley was interviewed and denied the allegation; she reported R1 was observed crying and stating they did not want to leave the facility. R1 was interviewed and corroborated the Licensee's statement. Therefore, based on interviews and records, this allegation is deemed Unfounded this time. A finding that the complaint is unsubstantiated means that although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of the evidence to prove that the alleged violation occurred. No citations have been issued at this time. This report was reviewed with House Manager, Carol Canto-Hamilton, and a copy was provided. UNFOUNDED. With regard to the allegation, "Provider refused to allow the resident to leave the facility," it was alleged Licensee, Baddeley, refused to allow R1 to leave the facility to receive treatment at a Skilled Nursing Facility (SNF) on December 31, 2019. Baddeley was interviewed and denied the allegation; she reported R1 chose not to leave the facility on this date. R1 was interviewed and corroborated the Licensee's statement. Medical records were requested and received; a Health Advocate Post Discharge Communication note reported R1 did notify their primary care office they did not want to transfer out of the facility. Therefore, based on interviews and records review, this allegation is deemed UNFOUNDED. A finding that the complaint is unfounded means that the allegations are false, could not have happened, and/or are without a reasonable basis. No citations have been issued at this time. This report was reviewed with Canto-Hamilton and a hard copy was provided.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Jul 29, 2021 · control 18-AS-20200102162034
6 of 6 beds were occupied at the August 21, 2025 state visit — a count on that day, not an opening.
License holder
Chantilly Lace Manor LLC, licensed since 2012.
Operates 2 licensed homes in California. Running more than one home is common and is neither good nor bad on its own.
- Chantilly Lace Manor II · Hesperia
The state’s totals for this licenseSince 2012, as the state’s facility page counts them
- State visits on file
- 13
- Total complaints
- 5
- Substantiated allegations
- 1
- Type A citations
- 0
- Type B citations
- 1
These are the state’s own totals for this license since 2012, per CDSS records. The state counts them apart from the documents above, and they can differ from what those documents show; the documents say what each visit found. One complaint can contain several allegations.
Compare with homes the same size
| This home | Typical | |
|---|---|---|
| Type A citations | 0 | 0 |
| Type B citations | 1 | 0 |
| Substantiated allegations | 1 | 0 |
| Total complaints | 5 | 0 |
“Typical” is the statewide median for licensed homes this size. It does not adjust for years licensed, and older licenses have had more visits and reports. The median is across the 6,916 licensed small board-and-care homes (6 or fewer beds) in the state record. The figures compared are the state’s totals, not the documents.
What the state’s words mean
CDSS citation definitions (PDF) ↗ · CDSS complaint outcomes ↗
An “unsubstantiated” complaint is not a finding of wrongdoing — it means the state investigated and could not confirm the allegation. Outcome words are the state’s own; we never grade, score, or color a record, and we publish no reviews — the state’s dated documents stand in their place.
Frequently asked questions
A citation does not make a home unsafe, and an empty file does not make a home good.
Quick answers about Chantilly Lace Manor
Is Chantilly Lace Manor licensed?
The state lists this license as “Licensed,” per CDSS records as of October 26, 2026.
How many residents is Chantilly Lace Manor licensed for?
6 residents — a small home, per CDSS records as of October 26, 2026.
Has Chantilly Lace Manor been cited?
0 Type A and 1 Type B citation since 2012, per CDSS records as of October 26, 2026. Those records count 13 state visits over the same years.
Is Chantilly Lace Manor still open?
This license was on the CDSS roster as of November 10, 2026.
What does Chantilly Lace Manor cost?
$4,050 a month to start is a Covelight estimate, likely $3,300–$5,000. This home’s own rate is not on file. Ask: “What is the all-in monthly rate, and what would push it higher?”
Covelight’s estimate starts from the rates 13 small homes and similar homes within 9 miles publish, then adjusts for this home’s size, state care approvals, Medi-Cal waiver participation, years licensed and the area’s prices. In testing, the likely range held the real rate for 6 in 10 homes. This home’s own rate is not on file.
Among 5 other homes of a similar licensed size in Hesperia that publish a starting rate, the middle half runs $3,300 to $3,575 a month, and the middle figure is $3,500 (n = 5 other homes publishing a starting rate).
Each of those is a home’s own published figure, gathered on its own date in September 2026 — not an average of ours, and not a survey. Similar size means small and mid-size homes counted together, and large communities counted on their own, because they are different markets.
A home outside the band is not overcharging or underpricing: a starting rate covers different things in different homes, which is the first thing to ask about.
The price is made in the phone call. Nothing here is a quote, an offer or a discount.
A starting rate is the room and the base care. California homes commonly bill care levels, medication management, supplies, transport and a second person in the room as extras. Many also charge a one-time fee at move-in. Ask for that list in writing before anything is signed.
Only prices a home put out itself count here: its own website, a listing it supplied, or a price a listing site says the home confirmed. Prices a site shows without saying where they came from are left out.
Does Chantilly Lace Manor take Medi-Cal?
On Medi-Cal’s Assisted Living Waiver: this home is not on the DHCS participation list dated October 1, 2026. Ask the program about current options. The waiver pays for care services, not room and board.
Who holds the license?
The license is held by Chantilly Lace Manor LLC, per CDSS records as of October 26, 2026. See the homes licensed to Chantilly Lace Manor LLC — at least 2 on the state roster.
Can Chantilly Lace Manor keep a resident on hospice?
Hospice care is approved on this license, covering up to 6 residents, per CDSS records as of October 26, 2026.
Chantilly Lace Manor license and inspection record
- Name on the license: “CHANTILLY LACE MANOR”, per the CDSS roster as of May 25, 2025.
- License #366425325. The state lists this license as “Licensed,” per CDSS records as of October 26, 2026.
- Licensed for 6 residents — a small home, per CDSS records as of October 26, 2026.
- Licensed to Chantilly Lace Manor LLC, per CDSS records as of October 26, 2026.
- First licensed in 2012, per CDSS records as of October 26, 2026.
- 13 state inspection visits since 2012, per CDSS records as of October 26, 2026.
- 0 Type A and 1 Type B citation on file since 2012, per CDSS records as of October 26, 2026. The same records count 13 state visits in that period.
- 5 complaints and 1 substantiated allegation on file since 2012, per CDSS records as of October 26, 2026. One complaint can carry several allegations.
- The most recent state visit on file is February 27, 2026, per CDSS records as of October 26, 2026.
California writes these definitions for every licensed home, not for this one. CDSS citation definitions (PDF) ↗
Nearby
Other homes nearby
Licensed homes near this one in San Bernardino County, most information on file first. Every listed home appears on the same terms.
- Map
Starting rate
$3,500 a month to start
Listed by the home on Seniorly · September 9, 2026On the state record
- Wheelchair: on the state record
- Dementia: on the state record
- Hospice: on the state record
- Bedridden: on the state record
- Map
Estimated starting rate
$3,000 a month to start
Covelight estimate · likely $2,350–$3,850On the state record
- Wheelchair: on the state record
- Dementia: on the state record
- Hospice: on the state record
- Bedridden: on the state record
- Map
Estimated starting rate
$4,100 a month to start
Covelight estimate · likely $3,350–$5,050On the state record
- Wheelchair: on the state record
- Dementia: on the state record
- Hospice: on the state record
- Bedridden: on the state record
- Map
Estimated starting rate
$3,950 a month to start
Covelight estimate · likely $3,100–$5,200On the state record
- Wheelchair: on the state record
- Dementia: on the state record
- Hospice: on the state record
- Map
Estimated starting rate
$4,150 a month to start
Covelight estimate · likely $3,400–$5,100On the state record
- Wheelchair: on the state record
- Dementia: on the state record
- Hospice: on the state record
- Map
Estimated starting rate
$4,150 a month to start
Covelight estimate · likely $3,400–$5,100On the state record
- Wheelchair: on the state record
- Dementia: on the state record
- Hospice: on the state record
Street maps © Protomaps · © OpenStreetMap
Explore San Bernardino County