St. Jude Residential Care

Pros

• Cedar Park Care Home is described as a very special place.
• Cynthia Villasenor and her staff are praised for compassionate, comprehensive care.
• The home sits in a peaceful country setting with outdoor views and animals.
• With only a few residents, it feels like private nursing with prompt assistance.
• Families report being very happy with the environment, meals, and care.
• The facility is super clean, impeccably maintained, and tranquil.
• The staff are described as wonderful, attentive, and caring.
• The care is personalized and top-notch, including compassionate hospice support.
• Multiple reviewers call Cedar Park the best place for elder quality life care.

Cons

• Cedar Park allegedly charged significantly more than what was reasonable and customary for a short hospice stay, taking advantage of a vulnerable state.
• Mark allegedly made material misrepresentations about Cedar Park's rates, leading the reviewer to believe prices were lower and in line with industry standards.
• Mark allegedly omitted material facts concerning his dating relationship to Cynthia Villasenor.
• Mark, acting as a de facto Cedar Park agent, allegedly induced payment of several times the reasonable and customary charge for care.
• Cedar Park allegedly refused to refund $5,600 and did not respond to emails.
• The reviewer asserts Cedar Park used the family's emotional distress to overcharge.
• Pricing reportedly increased by about $1,000 once hospice care started, with unclear additional benefits.
• The reviewer claims the care was poor value, stating residents were fed very little and that caregivers could not speak English, implying poor quality for the money.
• A commenter warned never to place a loved one there, citing poor care, limited visiting hours, and staffing concerns.

Review

Cedar Park Personal Care Home presents itself in the hearts of its reviewers as a place of quiet beauty and intimate, small-scale caregiving. Several writers paint a picture of a home tucked into a peaceful country neighborhood, surrounded by acreage, horse ranches, and a manicured landscape that feels almost like a private retreat rather than a clinical facility. The setting is repeatedly described as serene and welcoming: a place where loved ones can sit on a covered porch, watch animals roam, and receive care in a setting that seems intentionally uncluttered by the bustle and crowding that can mark larger facilities. The combination of a home-like atmosphere and a low resident count - often noted as three or fewer - contributes to a sense of individualized attention and a "private nursing" feel. For many families, the appeal lies in the calmer pace, the attention to daily activities, meals, and emotional support, and the opportunity for residents to enjoy outdoor spaces in a less institutional environment.

Yet the testimonials are not uniformly favorable. A particularly stark account arises from a family member who faced a crisis of trust and affordability at Cedar Park. This reviewer describes being under hospital pressure to move a mother into hospice care and being guided toward Cedar Park by someone named Mark, who was associated with Silvey Manor at the time. The crux of the complaint is a claim of material misrepresentation and omission: the reviewer says Mark led them to believe Cedar Park's rates were lower and in line with industry norms, when in fact the charges turned out to be substantially higher. The initial payment - about $6,000 upfront for a 34-hour stay, roughly $176 per hour - became a point of contention, particularly in light of what the reviewer saw as a short, crisis-driven window to decide where the mother would receive care. The reviewer contends that this price was not reasonable or customary and that, after requesting a refund of $5,600, Cedar Park refused to reimburse or even engage in a discussion about the matter.

Compounding the perceived harm, the reviewer asserts that Mark had a very close dating relationship with Cynthia Villasenor, the owner, and that material facts related to that relationship were omitted during the decision-making process. The claim is that these misrepresentations and omissions occurred in a moment of acute vulnerability, and that Cedar Park, through what the reviewer characterizes as a de facto agency relationship, leveraged the emotional state to secure a higher-than-expected charge for a brief hospice-related stay. The reviewer emphasizes that the total outlay was not only financially burdensome but also emotionally distressing, suggesting that the facility used the urgency of the situation to extract funds well above what would be typical for comparable services.

In the same narrative, the reviewer notes a broader pattern they uncovered in their own research: many hospice facilities in the Austin area prorate charges by the day, rather than demanding a large upfront lump sum for a few hours of care. The implication is that Cedar Park's billing approach diverged from industry norms, and that the customer's expectations - and by extension, the decision-making window - were shaped by representations that turned out to be inaccurate. The contract and the billing method became points of contention, particularly when the reviewer sought a partial refund after discovering what they felt was a fairer, day-by-day pricing approach. The sentiment expressed is that, in an emotionally charged moment, Cedar Park did not respond with the transparency or flexibility the family felt it deserved.

Despite this strong negative account, Cedar Park is tempered in the public eye by a substantial body of positive feedback. Multiple reviewers speak glowingly of Cynthia Villasenor, portraying her as a compassionate, dedicated caregiver who provides exceptional, attentive care to both patients and their families. One reviewer highlights Cynthia's compassionate and attentive approach, noting that she met physical, emotional, and spiritual needs in a way that left a lasting, favorable impression on the family. Across several testimonials, the owner's hands-on care stands out as a defining feature of Cedar Park, with references to the emotional warmth and thoughtful, individualized attention that helped families feel supported during challenging times.

Other accounts focus on the quality of life and the everyday environment at Cedar Park. Families describe well-kept, clean facilities and a staff that is described as "wonderful and caring." The invitation to enjoy outdoor spaces - sitting on the porch, watching horses and other animals - appears repeatedly as a highlight, reinforcing the sense that Cedar Park offers a peaceful, home-like setting. Reviewers praise the home's cleanliness, the nutrition and meals provided, and the overall atmosphere that makes residents feel seen and valued. In several posts, loved ones recount how staff went above and beyond to ensure daily routines, activities, and social engagement contributed to a sense of community and well-being.

The mix of perspectives includes a chorus of gratitude from families who feel their loved ones thrived under Cedar Park's care. Testimonials recount long-term satisfaction: grandmothers who lived there for years with ongoing, attentive care; parents and relatives who appreciate the staff's dedication to everyday needs; and siblings who were reassured by the home's ability to balance independence and support. Some reviewers specifically mention the facility's small scale - only a handful of residents - which they interpret as enabling timely assistance, shorter waits for help, and a level of personalized attention that larger facilities struggle to match. The positive voices also reference the staff's empathy, the attention to nutrition, and the clear affection shown toward residents, reinforcing a sense that Cedar Park can be a nurturing home for many families.

Still other comments reflect a tempered, cautious voice. A few reviewers describe concerns they experienced or observed, including reports of limited visiting hours, scheduling quirks, and questions about how pricing is structured once hospice care begins. One reviewer recalls a specific critique of pricing increases tied to hospice status and questions about what extras, if any, were included for those higher charges. Another unhappy account claims that the care was not up to expectations and warns against placing a loved one there, citing insufficient food, limited staff presence, and language barriers among caregivers. Still others recommend careful due diligence and urge readers to listen to a broad range of experiences, including those who explicitly encourage relying on firsthand experiences rather than general impressions.

Taken together, the collection of reviews presents Cedar Park Personal Care Home as a place of strong contrasts: a setting of undeniable charm, warmth, and personal attention for many residents, paired with a narrative of financial and ethical controversy in at least one highly charged case. For some families, the home represents a sanctuary - an antidote to the impersonal feel of larger facilities, where staff are described as genuinely caring, the environment is tranquil, and the care resonates across physical, emotional, and spiritual dimensions. For others, the experience is shadowed by questions about pricing, transparency, and the integrity of transitions to hospice care, with claims that factors beyond care quality - relationships, representations, and contractual terms - played a decisive role in the financial outcome.

If you're evaluating Cedar Park, these reviews collectively suggest a thoughtful approach: weigh the documented care quality and the home's peaceful, intimate setting against the contested pricing practices and the concerns about communication and documentation raised by at least one family. As with any care decision, it may be prudent to seek direct conversations with the facility about pricing structures, what is included in hospice-related charges, and the process for refunds or adjustments. And it could be valuable to corroborate the information with hospital social workers, hospice coordinators, and other families who have recent experiences with Cedar Park, to form a well-rounded view that reflects both the warmth of the care environment and the complexities that accompany decisions during highly stressful times.

Parks

• Ranch Trails Park (0.8 miles)
• Champion Park (1.7 miles)
• Williamson County Regional Park (1.8 miles)
• Lakewood Park (3.1 miles)
• Rattan Creek Park (5.9 miles)
• Arboretum Park (6 miles)

Cafes

• Red Horn Coffee House and Brewing Co. (0.8 miles)
• Summer Moon Wood-Fired Coffee (2.5 miles)
• Starbucks (3 miles)
• Cuppa Austin (3.9 miles)
• 85 C Bakery Cafe USA (4.3 miles)
• Starbucks (4.4 miles)
• HTeaO (4.5 miles)

Restaurants

• Mandola's Italian Kitchen (0.9 miles)
• Whataburger (1.2 miles)
• McDonald's (1.3 miles)
• The League Kitchen & Tavern (2.5 miles)
• Freddy's Frozen Custard (2.6 miles)
• McDonald's (2.7 miles)
• Jack Allen's Kitchen (2.8 miles)

Physicians

• Retina Group of Texas (1.1 miles)
• Whitestone Pediatrics (2.5 miles)
• Aspire Allergy & Sinus (2.5 miles)
• Oncology Group (3.1 miles)
• Longhorn Imaging (3.4 miles)
• Pediatric Center of Round Rock (3.6 miles)
• Heart Hospital of Austin at St. David's Round Rock Medical Center (3.6 miles)

Places of Worship

• Jehovah's Witnesses (1.4 miles)
• St Vincent De Paul Catholic Church (3.1 miles)

Pharmacies

• CVS Pharmacy (2 miles)
• Walgreens (2.5 miles)
• CVS Pharmacy (2.5 miles)
• Walgreens (3.5 miles)
• CVS Pharmacy (3.8 miles)
• CVS Pharmacy (4.2 miles)
• H-E-B Pharmacy (4.4 miles)

Hospitals

• Cedar Park Regional Medical Center (2.7 miles)
• Round Rock Medical Center (3.6 miles)
• Scott & White Hospital (5.3 miles)
• Reliant Rehab Central Tx (5.6 miles)

Theaters

• Cinemark Cedar Park (2.9 miles)
• Alamo Drafthouse Lakeline (4.6 miles)
• Cinemark 14 Round Rock (5.1 miles)

Transportation

• MetroRail Lakeline Station (3.9 miles)