Washington DCYF cited something at 1 of the 4 visits below. Across Seattle home daycares it cites something at about 63% of visits. Each state decides what gets written up, so this compares Seattle with Seattle and never with another state.
Not yet reported: ages served, hours, days / week, schedule, holiday closures.
This provider does not publish pricing.
Plastic bags accessible to children in the kitchen and bathroom. Kitchen: There were trash bags in the cabinet under the sink and the child locks were not working. Bathroom: There was a large, empty zip lock bag in the bathroom drawer. The drawer did not have safety locks which made the bag accessible to children. Provider removed the bags at the time of the inspection. Dispute Description: January 30, 2025 Patricia Anne Vargas/Provider ID 132149/Provider Case ID: PC-408826/ Inspection Date 01/21/2025/Licensor- Jelena Juric/ Name of Facility: Patricia Anne Vargas Form 15-907 Child Care Violation Dispute Request Form 110-300-0165 (2)(d)- Corrected on Site-01/21/2025/Dispute: 01/30/2025 I was unable to find the above referenced form in my Provider Portal as directed. I looked up Tip Sheets and that particular form was not on that location. I was also unable to get a response back earlier from my licensor Jelena Juric regarding assistance in helping me find the form on the Provider Portal. I did email Jelena for assistance. I do want to file this dispute form to include an explanation of violation and would like to request an explanation of why this was categorized as a Severe Risk considering a confusion of the description of “accessible” to children. I do appreciate my licensor Jelena Juric for her thorough monitoring visit to my home. The visits that took 2 ½ - 3 hours for the annual unannounced monitor visit. In 33 years, I have had many unannounced visits that never lasted that long. I was unaware that these monitor visits had changed. And I am glad to learn something new from these visits and always appreciate making changes as required. Jelena was professional and thorough. I do miss regular emails as reminders to providers on current procedures that we should especially watch out for that can be confusing. Every year licensors are looking for specifics. It helps us to know and prepare what you are particularly concerned about. I do generally ask many questions and find these specifics helpful to ensure that providers like myself do it right. I have been working daycare so many years I often wonder if I can remember all the rule changes and I try hard to keep up with it. All my files were reviewed by Jelena and not just 2-3 files that normally gets checked. Every room, every drawer, postings, first aid for home and vehicle; outdoor play area; refrigerator and questions for my husband Leon who is my assistant. Very thorough. We always try to do our best and the visit was during after school arrivals, snack time with some special needs children and the timing was especially difficult but it was necessary. It was difficult to provide and answer questions with licensor during the arrival times. It is a stressful time to answer licensor and handle the children. I believe during the timing of this visit I was unable to properly explain the bags that lead to this violation. Jelena was not wrong about the violation. I want to be able to share this experience with other providers I am in contact with. Many do the same thing and we all want to do the correct way. This is for the benefit of all children and providers. I am supervising my kitchen when feeding children and supervising the bathroom when I prepared a pull-up changing kit as described by Public Health. Please see attached poster. This Public Health poster was provided to me by DCYF. The Public Health Poster is required to be posted in the changing area. I placed my kit in a drawer "ready to change a child" minutes before my daycare child arrived by school bus in front of my house. I get it ready right before he arrives and have all items ready for him to change quickly and safely. I get that kit ready minutes before and supervise the bathroom as he gets off the bus. (this kit was normally in my storage room but it is being renovated at this time). The renovations being made is directly from a grant provided for my daycare from King County. The kit that normally would be in the storage room was placed in a drawer in the bathroom where I planned on changing the child once off the bus. I did not leave the bag on the counter accessible to children. My assistant who is my husband Leon brings him in directly to me. My licensor was present and he arrived shortly after. I placed the kit in the drawer as the check list “requested to have kit “ready”. Minutes before, he arrived by bus. I don’t always have a full kit available. That day I had my gloves and diaper and a very small bag (the kind you get from buying a small amount of fruit at QFC). I didn’t even collect the whole kit since my licensor knocked on the door. I feel the process of preparing the kit is still considered supervising the bathroom. It was her first room she checked as she entered. Parents and DCYF staff that read the Child Check violation later should have this explanation to understand clearly the situation for assessment. I supervise the kitchen when feeding the children. It is not a play area. I do wash and disinfect their toys as well in the kitchen area. The second day my licensor returned again for a monitoring visit. I was cleaning both personal and business items. Only 1 child was present and napping during this time. I was in the kitchen and feel my presence is considered supervising and therefore a bag is inaccessible to children. Considering only one child present and asleep. No child was at Severe Risk of danger. The bag in violation in the kitchen was located below the sink with child proof latches. I have had the garbage bag under the sink to replace the garbage for many years. Same location. Many Inspections. Now thinking about this I was apparently wrong and so was all my previous inspectors for not catching this mistake. I thought it was acceptable for being with a child lock. I understand now not to do this anymore. I am surprised I didn’t catch this. I supervise the kitchen at all times. It is not a play area. I was corrected on this misunderstanding but I alone will be blamed for it. I think certain situations in the future should have discussion not a violation. The current violation states that the provider must take steps to prevent hazards to children. My supervision in a non-play area during one child napping does not mean anything? The Observation: Plastic bags accessible to children in kitchen and bathroom is a predetermine statement that does Not describe the actual situation in detail. It gives the impression that bags are just left on the counter? Floor? On the table? It gives an impression of danger when the location and supervision of licensee is not even addressed. I know my licensor Jelena followed the description and words required for her paperwork. This is not on her. I think she did a fine thorough job. I want to understand why more of a description can’t be allowed on a violation report. This is not on her to make that decision. I want an understanding and description of a supervision and when something is considered inaccessible to children when being supervised. This is a concern that providers do have. Parents read the Child Check and wonder if bags are just left carelessly around. This description is not accurate. This seems unfair that we don’t have a system of communication and warnings to help providers feel successful when working hard with children vs described as dangerous individuals. I welcome anyone to come out and correct me in anything. I want to do it right. Just because I didn’t understand this policy does not make children in danger when the area is supervised. I am a very small daycare. Only one child was present during this bag find. I respect my licensor and I feel comfortable discussing anything with Jelena. Jelena was not available to help me find the Dispute form and I hope this is acceptable to send this dispute in this manner. I hope you can reconsider changing this violation from Risk Level /Serious to Short Term. The matter has been addressed and corrected on site. Thank you for your consideration on this matter that is important to me for children and other providers. Sincerely Patricia Anne Vargas Pat’s FunCare Daycare Loving Children since 1992 3509 252nd PL SE Sammamish WA 98029 425-417-5333 January 30, 2025 Patricia Anne Vargas/Provider ID 132149/Provider Case ID: PC-408826/ Inspection Date 01/21/2025/Licensor- Jelena Juric/ Name of Facility: P.A. V.F. 15-907 Child Care Violation Dispute Request Form 110-300-0165 (2)(d)- Corrected on Site-01/21/2025/Dispute: 01/30/2025 I was unable to find the above referenced form in my Provider Portal as directed. I looked up Tip Sheets and that particular form was not on that location. I was also unable to get a response back earlier from my licensor Jelena Juric regarding assistance in helping me find the form on the Provider Portal. I did email Jelena for assistance. I do want to file this dispute form to include an explanation of violation and would like to request an explanation of why this was categorized as a Severe Risk considering a confusion of the description of “accessible” to children. I do appreciate my licensor Jelena Juric for her thorough monitoring visit to my home. The visits that took 2 ½ - 3 hours for the annual unannounced monitor visit. In 33 years, I have had many unannounced visits that never lasted that long. I was unaware that these monitor visits had changed. And I am glad to learn something new from these visits and always appreciate making changes as required. Jelena was professional and thorough. I do miss regular emails as reminders to providers on current procedures that we should especially watch out for that can be confusing. Every year licensors are looking for specifics. It helps us to know and prepare what you are particularly concerned about. I do generally ask many questions and find these specifics helpful to ensure that providers like myself do it right. I have been working daycare so many years I often wonder if I can remember all the rule changes and I try hard to keep up with it. All my files were reviewed by Jelena and not just 2-3 files that normally gets checked. Every room, every drawer, postings, first aid for home and vehicle; outdoor play area; refrigerator and questions for my husband Leon who is my assistant. Very thorough. We always try to do our best and the visit was during after school arrivals, snack time with some special needs children and the timing was especially difficult but it was necessary. It was difficult to provide and answer questions with licensor during the arrival times. It is a stressful time to answer licensor and handle the children. I believe during the timing of this visit I was unable to properly explain the bags that lead to this violation. Jelena was not wrong about the violation. I want to be able to share this experience with other providers I am in contact with. Many do the same thing and we all want to do the correct way. This is for the benefit of all children and providers. I am supervising my kitchen when feeding children and supervising the bathroom when I prepared a pull-up changing kit as described by Public Health. Please see attached poster. This Public Health poster was provided to me by DCYF. The Public Health Poster is required to be posted in the changing area. I placed my kit in a drawer "ready to change a child" minutes before my daycare child arrived by school bus in front of my house. I get it ready right before he arrives and have all items ready for him to change quickly and safely. I get that kit ready minutes before and supervise the bathroom as he gets off the bus. (this kit was normally in my storage room but it is being renovated at this time). The renovations being made is directly from a grant provided for my daycare from King County. The kit that normally would be in the storage room was placed in a drawer in the bathroom where I planned on changing the child once off the bus. I did not leave the bag on the counter accessible to children. My assistant who is my husband Leon brings him in directly to me. My licensor was present and he arrived shortly after. I placed the kit in the drawer as the check list “requested to have kit “ready”. Minutes before, he arrived by bus. I don’t always have a full kit available. That day I had my gloves and diaper and a very small bag (the kind you get from buying a small amount of fruit at QFC). I didn’t even collect the whole kit since my licensor knocked on the door. I feel the process of preparing the kit is still considered supervising the bathroom. It was her first room she checked as she entered. Parents and DCYF staff that read the Child Check violation later should have this explanation to understand clearly the situation for assessment. I supervise the kitchen when feeding the children. It is not a play area. I do wash and disinfect their toys as well in the kitchen area. The second day my licensor returned again for a monitoring visit. I was cleaning both personal and business items. Only 1 child was present and napping during this time. I was in the kitchen and feel my presence is considered supervising and therefore a bag is inaccessible to children. Considering only one child present and asleep. No child was at Severe Risk of danger. The bag in violation in the kitchen was located below the sink with child proof latches. I have had the garbage bag under the sink to replace the garbage for many years. Same location. Many Inspections. Now thinking about this I was apparently wrong and so was all my previous inspectors for not catching this mistake. I thought it was acceptable for being with a child lock. I understand now not to do this anymore. I am surprised I didn’t catch this. I supervise the kitchen at all times. It is not a play area. I was corrected on this misunderstanding but I alone will be blamed for it. I think certain situations in the future should have discussion not a violation. The current violation states that the provider must take steps to prevent hazards to children. My supervision in a non-play area during one child napping does not mean anything? The Observation: Plastic bags accessible to children in kitchen and bathroom is a predetermine statement that does Not describe the actual situation in detail. It gives the impression that bags are just left on the counter? Floor? On the table? It gives an impression of danger when the location and supervision of licensee is not even addressed. I know my licensor Jelena followed the description and words required for her paperwork. This is not on her. I think she did a fine thorough job. I want to understand why more of a description can’t be allowed on a violation report. This is not on her to make that decision. I want an understanding and description of a supervision and when something is considered inaccessible to children when being supervised. This is a concern that providers do have. Parents read the Child Check and wonder if bags are just left carelessly around. This description is not accurate. This seems unfair that we don’t have a system of communication and warnings to help providers feel successful when working hard with children vs described as dangerous individuals. I welcome anyone to come out and correct me in anything. I want to do it right. Just because I didn’t understand this policy does not make children in danger when the area is supervised. I am a very small daycare. Only one child was present during this bag find. I respect my licensor and I feel comfortable discussing anything with Jelena. Jelena was not available to help me find the Dispute form and I hope this is acceptable to send this dispute in this manner. I hope you can reconsider changing this violation from Risk Level /Serious to Short Term. The matter has been addressed and corrected on site. Thank you for your consideration on this matter that is important to me for children and other providers. Sincerely Patricia Anne Vargas Pat’s FunCare Daycare Loving Children since 1992 3509 252nd PL SE Sammamish WA 98029 425-417-5333· January 21, 2025
Washington DCYF publishes the licensor’s own observation and a risk level for every citation it issues at a licensing visit, with the inspection report attached as a PDF.
Licensing visit · January 21, 2025
WAC 110-300-0165(2)(d) · Serious
Plastic bags accessible to children in the kitchen and bathroom. Kitchen: There were trash bags in the cabinet under the sink and the child locks were not working. Bathroom: There was a large, empty zip lock bag in the bathroom drawer. The drawer did not have safety locks which made the bag accessible to children. Provider removed the bags at the time of the inspection. Dispute Description: January 30, 2025 Patricia Anne Vargas/Provider ID 132149/Provider Case ID: PC-408826/ Inspection Date 01/21/2025/Licensor- Jelena Juric/ Name of Facility: Patricia Anne Vargas Form 15-907 Child Care Violation Dispute Request Form 110-300-0165 (2)(d)- Corrected on Site-01/21/2025/Dispute: 01/30/2025 I was unable to find the above referenced form in my Provider Portal as directed. I looked up Tip Sheets and that particular form was not on that location. I was also unable to get a response back earlier from my licensor Jelena Juric regarding assistance in helping me find the form on the Provider Portal. I did email Jelena for assistance. I do want to file this dispute form to include an explanation of violation and would like to request an explanation of why this was categorized as a Severe Risk considering a confusion of the description of “accessible” to children. I do appreciate my licensor Jelena Juric for her thorough monitoring visit to my home. The visits that took 2 ½ - 3 hours for the annual unannounced monitor visit. In 33 years, I have had many unannounced visits that never lasted that long. I was unaware that these monitor visits had changed. And I am glad to learn something new from these visits and always appreciate making changes as required. Jelena was professional and thorough. I do miss regular emails as reminders to providers on current procedures that we should especially watch out for that can be confusing. Every year licensors are looking for specifics. It helps us to know and prepare what you are particularly concerned about. I do generally ask many questions and find these specifics helpful to ensure that providers like myself do it right. I have been working daycare so many years I often wonder if I can remember all the rule changes and I try hard to keep up with it. All my files were reviewed by Jelena and not just 2-3 files that normally gets checked. Every room, every drawer, postings, first aid for home and vehicle; outdoor play area; refrigerator and questions for my husband Leon who is my assistant. Very thorough. We always try to do our best and the visit was during after school arrivals, snack time with some special needs children and the timing was especially difficult but it was necessary. It was difficult to provide and answer questions with licensor during the arrival times. It is a stressful time to answer licensor and handle the children. I believe during the timing of this visit I was unable to properly explain the bags that lead to this violation. Jelena was not wrong about the violation. I want to be able to share this experience with other providers I am in contact with. Many do the same thing and we all want to do the correct way. This is for the benefit of all children and providers. I am supervising my kitchen when feeding children and supervising the bathroom when I prepared a pull-up changing kit as described by Public Health. Please see attached poster. This Public Health poster was provided to me by DCYF. The Public Health Poster is required to be posted in the changing area. I placed my kit in a drawer "ready to change a child" minutes before my daycare child arrived by school bus in front of my house. I get it ready right before he arrives and have all items ready for him to change quickly and safely. I get that kit ready minutes before and supervise the bathroom as he gets off the bus. (this kit was normally in my storage room but it is being renovated at this time). The renovations being made is directly from a grant provided for my daycare from King County. The kit that normally would be in the storage room was placed in a drawer in the bathroom where I planned on changing the child once off the bus. I did not leave the bag on the counter accessible to children. My assistant who is my husband Leon brings him in directly to me. My licensor was present and he arrived shortly after. I placed the kit in the drawer as the check list “requested to have kit “ready”. Minutes before, he arrived by bus. I don’t always have a full kit available. That day I had my gloves and diaper and a very small bag (the kind you get from buying a small amount of fruit at QFC). I didn’t even collect the whole kit since my licensor knocked on the door. I feel the process of preparing the kit is still considered supervising the bathroom. It was her first room she checked as she entered. Parents and DCYF staff that read the Child Check violation later should have this explanation to understand clearly the situation for assessment. I supervise the kitchen when feeding the children. It is not a play area. I do wash and disinfect their toys as well in the kitchen area. The second day my licensor returned again for a monitoring visit. I was cleaning both personal and business items. Only 1 child was present and napping during this time. I was in the kitchen and feel my presence is considered supervising and therefore a bag is inaccessible to children. Considering only one child present and asleep. No child was at Severe Risk of danger. The bag in violation in the kitchen was located below the sink with child proof latches. I have had the garbage bag under the sink to replace the garbage for many years. Same location. Many Inspections. Now thinking about this I was apparently wrong and so was all my previous inspectors for not catching this mistake. I thought it was acceptable for being with a child lock. I understand now not to do this anymore. I am surprised I didn’t catch this. I supervise the kitchen at all times. It is not a play area. I was corrected on this misunderstanding but I alone will be blamed for it. I think certain situations in the future should have discussion not a violation. The current violation states that the provider must take steps to prevent hazards to children. My supervision in a non-play area during one child napping does not mean anything? The Observation: Plastic bags accessible to children in kitchen and bathroom is a predetermine statement that does Not describe the actual situation in detail. It gives the impression that bags are just left on the counter? Floor? On the table? It gives an impression of danger when the location and supervision of licensee is not even addressed. I know my licensor Jelena followed the description and words required for her paperwork. This is not on her. I think she did a fine thorough job. I want to understand why more of a description can’t be allowed on a violation report. This is not on her to make that decision. I want an understanding and description of a supervision and when something is considered inaccessible to children when being supervised. This is a concern that providers do have. Parents read the Child Check and wonder if bags are just left carelessly around. This description is not accurate. This seems unfair that we don’t have a system of communication and warnings to help providers feel successful when working hard with children vs described as dangerous individuals. I welcome anyone to come out and correct me in anything. I want to do it right. Just because I didn’t understand this policy does not make children in danger when the area is supervised. I am a very small daycare. Only one child was present during this bag find. I respect my licensor and I feel comfortable discussing anything with Jelena. Jelena was not available to help me find the Dispute form and I hope this is acceptable to send this dispute in this manner. I hope you can reconsider changing this violation from Risk Level /Serious to Short Term. The matter has been addressed and corrected on site. Thank you for your consideration on this matter that is important to me for children and other providers. Sincerely Patricia Anne Vargas Pat’s FunCare Daycare Loving Children since 1992 3509 252nd PL SE Sammamish WA 98029 425-417-5333 January 30, 2025 Patricia Anne Vargas/Provider ID 132149/Provider Case ID: PC-408826/ Inspection Date 01/21/2025/Licensor- Jelena Juric/ Name of Facility: P.A. V.F. 15-907 Child Care Violation Dispute Request Form 110-300-0165 (2)(d)- Corrected on Site-01/21/2025/Dispute: 01/30/2025 I was unable to find the above referenced form in my Provider Portal as directed. I looked up Tip Sheets and that particular form was not on that location. I was also unable to get a response back earlier from my licensor Jelena Juric regarding assistance in helping me find the form on the Provider Portal. I did email Jelena for assistance. I do want to file this dispute form to include an explanation of violation and would like to request an explanation of why this was categorized as a Severe Risk considering a confusion of the description of “accessible” to children. I do appreciate my licensor Jelena Juric for her thorough monitoring visit to my home. The visits that took 2 ½ - 3 hours for the annual unannounced monitor visit. In 33 years, I have had many unannounced visits that never lasted that long. I was unaware that these monitor visits had changed. And I am glad to learn something new from these visits and always appreciate making changes as required. Jelena was professional and thorough. I do miss regular emails as reminders to providers on current procedures that we should especially watch out for that can be confusing. Every year licensors are looking for specifics. It helps us to know and prepare what you are particularly concerned about. I do generally ask many questions and find these specifics helpful to ensure that providers like myself do it right. I have been working daycare so many years I often wonder if I can remember all the rule changes and I try hard to keep up with it. All my files were reviewed by Jelena and not just 2-3 files that normally gets checked. Every room, every drawer, postings, first aid for home and vehicle; outdoor play area; refrigerator and questions for my husband Leon who is my assistant. Very thorough. We always try to do our best and the visit was during after school arrivals, snack time with some special needs children and the timing was especially difficult but it was necessary. It was difficult to provide and answer questions with licensor during the arrival times. It is a stressful time to answer licensor and handle the children. I believe during the timing of this visit I was unable to properly explain the bags that lead to this violation. Jelena was not wrong about the violation. I want to be able to share this experience with other providers I am in contact with. Many do the same thing and we all want to do the correct way. This is for the benefit of all children and providers. I am supervising my kitchen when feeding children and supervising the bathroom when I prepared a pull-up changing kit as described by Public Health. Please see attached poster. This Public Health poster was provided to me by DCYF. The Public Health Poster is required to be posted in the changing area. I placed my kit in a drawer "ready to change a child" minutes before my daycare child arrived by school bus in front of my house. I get it ready right before he arrives and have all items ready for him to change quickly and safely. I get that kit ready minutes before and supervise the bathroom as he gets off the bus. (this kit was normally in my storage room but it is being renovated at this time). The renovations being made is directly from a grant provided for my daycare from King County. The kit that normally would be in the storage room was placed in a drawer in the bathroom where I planned on changing the child once off the bus. I did not leave the bag on the counter accessible to children. My assistant who is my husband Leon brings him in directly to me. My licensor was present and he arrived shortly after. I placed the kit in the drawer as the check list “requested to have kit “ready”. Minutes before, he arrived by bus. I don’t always have a full kit available. That day I had my gloves and diaper and a very small bag (the kind you get from buying a small amount of fruit at QFC). I didn’t even collect the whole kit since my licensor knocked on the door. I feel the process of preparing the kit is still considered supervising the bathroom. It was her first room she checked as she entered. Parents and DCYF staff that read the Child Check violation later should have this explanation to understand clearly the situation for assessment. I supervise the kitchen when feeding the children. It is not a play area. I do wash and disinfect their toys as well in the kitchen area. The second day my licensor returned again for a monitoring visit. I was cleaning both personal and business items. Only 1 child was present and napping during this time. I was in the kitchen and feel my presence is considered supervising and therefore a bag is inaccessible to children. Considering only one child present and asleep. No child was at Severe Risk of danger. The bag in violation in the kitchen was located below the sink with child proof latches. I have had the garbage bag under the sink to replace the garbage for many years. Same location. Many Inspections. Now thinking about this I was apparently wrong and so was all my previous inspectors for not catching this mistake. I thought it was acceptable for being with a child lock. I understand now not to do this anymore. I am surprised I didn’t catch this. I supervise the kitchen at all times. It is not a play area. I was corrected on this misunderstanding but I alone will be blamed for it. I think certain situations in the future should have discussion not a violation. The current violation states that the provider must take steps to prevent hazards to children. My supervision in a non-play area during one child napping does not mean anything? The Observation: Plastic bags accessible to children in kitchen and bathroom is a predetermine statement that does Not describe the actual situation in detail. It gives the impression that bags are just left on the counter? Floor? On the table? It gives an impression of danger when the location and supervision of licensee is not even addressed. I know my licensor Jelena followed the description and words required for her paperwork. This is not on her. I think she did a fine thorough job. I want to understand why more of a description can’t be allowed on a violation report. This is not on her to make that decision. I want an understanding and description of a supervision and when something is considered inaccessible to children when being supervised. This is a concern that providers do have. Parents read the Child Check and wonder if bags are just left carelessly around. This description is not accurate. This seems unfair that we don’t have a system of communication and warnings to help providers feel successful when working hard with children vs described as dangerous individuals. I welcome anyone to come out and correct me in anything. I want to do it right. Just because I didn’t understand this policy does not make children in danger when the area is supervised. I am a very small daycare. Only one child was present during this bag find. I respect my licensor and I feel comfortable discussing anything with Jelena. Jelena was not available to help me find the Dispute form and I hope this is acceptable to send this dispute in this manner. I hope you can reconsider changing this violation from Risk Level /Serious to Short Term. The matter has been addressed and corrected on site. Thank you for your consideration on this matter that is important to me for children and other providers. Sincerely Patricia Anne Vargas Pat’s FunCare Daycare Loving Children since 1992 3509 252nd PL SE Sammamish WA 98029 425-417-5333
Individual employees are shown by initials. The state’s report, linked above, names them in full.
Cost, hours and late pickup, a typical day, sick and biting policies.
Ask what changed after the one finding Washington DCYF ranked Serious in January 2025.It does not publish whether a finding was fixed.
Where every fact on this page came from, and when Shortlist last checked it against that source. Anything Shortlist could not source is named here rather than left blank.
Not yet reported: established, teaching approach.
Every state visit and complaint on file, shown in full and never edited. Open a date to read what the state wrote.
Do you run Pat's FunCare Daycare? Shortlist has no tuition, hours or ratios for it, because the state does not publish that. Add what is missing. It is free and takes about ten minutes.