complaint·September 4, 2025

S3 did acknowledge that C1 was crying because other children were taking toys away from C1. According to S3, July 17 th was a normal day. During the course of interviews conducted, S2 explained that S3 is a substitute staff member that is only at the facility when needed. S2, S5 – S6 acknowledge that S3 has a very loud voice that can be perceived as yelling. S5 expressed that S3’s tone of voice can come across as aggressive but, it’s just S3’s “personality”. According to S5, S3 has been previously spoken to about lowering their voice. S5 also mentioned that S3 can be very direct with children. LPA also interviewed Witness 1 (W1) who stated that they did not witness the incident, nor have they witnessed S3 yell at children in care. Interviews conducted with S2 -S6 and W1, did not provide corroborating statements that they witnessed S3 yell at children while in care. LPA did not interview children during the course of this investigation as children were nonverbal. LPA interviewed Parent 1 (P1) - Parent 3 (P3). All parents did not express any concern about the care and supervision the staff provides at the facility. LPA issued a technical advisory regarding S3 interactions with young children. LPA is advising that S3 and all staff should be provided with training/resources on developmentally appropriate communication techniques. Complaint alleged: Staff handled a child in a rough manner – Per complainant, they were notified that Staff 3 (S3) pushed Child 1(C1) down on July 17 th while in the classroom. LPA P. Ochoa interviewed Staff 1 (S1) – Staff 6 (S6). Staff 1 (S1) mentioned that they witnessed S3 push C1 onto a chair causing C1 to fall. S3 denied pushing any child in the classroom. According to S3, July 17 th was a normal day. S3 stated that they were singing and dancing with daycare children. Per S4, they have worked with S3 previously and have not witnessed any behavior from S3 that would pose a danger to children in care. S5 added that S3 is a substitute staff member and does not know the children like the regular staff and S3 can become inpatient with daycare children. However, interviews with S2 – S6, found they have not witnessed S3 handle children in a rough manner. LPA did not interview children during the course of this investigation as children were nonverbal. LPA interviewed Parent 1 (P1) - Parent 3 (P3). All parents did not express any concerns about the care and supervision the staff provided at the facility. P1 – P3 are happy with the facility. Based on interviews conducted, the above allegation is deemed UNSUBSTANTIAED. Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation did or did not occur. No deficiencies are being citied at this time. Page 2 of 3 A notice of site visit was given and must remain posted for 30 days during facility’s hours of operation. Failure to comply with posting requirements shall result in an immediate civil penalty of $100. An exit interview was conducted, and a copy of the report was provided to the Assistant Director, Geovanna Salazar Ezparza and Director, Shonna Clark. Page 3 of 3