complaint·December 19, 2025

The Reporting Party(RP) stated C1 was fully potty trained when incident occurred and does not require a diaper. RP also reported that C1 understands limited English and may have agreed with Staff #4(S4) without fully understanding the request. LPA was unable to interview C1. LPA conducted interviews with the Facility Representative (FR) Rosalina Lukban and a staff member S4. FR stated she was not aware of the incident until pick up time. FR explained that since C1 attends part time and C1`s assigned teacher was not present at the time,C1 was temporarily placed S4`s classroom. S4 stated that C1 was offered the opportunity to use the potty chair , however, C1 appeared shy and began crying. S4 reported that because C1 is still learning English, S4 pointed to a pull up and to the restroom to determine what C1 needed. According to S4, C1 pointed to the pull-up and verbally said “yes”. S4 acknowledged that parent consent was not obtained prior to placing the pull up on C1 and FR was unaware of the decision until parent arrived for pick up. Complaint alleged: Staff placed the child`s personal items into a trash bag. Reporting Party (RP) stated the child#1(C1) became upset and threw a toy, and the Director proceeded to place the child`s blanket and backpack into the trash bag. LPA conducted interviews with the Director and multiple staff members. During the interview , Director reported she was called to the classroom to assist in helping Child1(C1) calm down. According to the Director , C1 was upset and throwing toys into the trash can, which was confirmed by Staff 1(S1). The Director stated that C1 was then brought to the office area to calm down and to contact parents. Per Director`s statements C1`s behavior continued in the office, which was confirmed by Staff 6(S6).The Director stated that because C1 understands limited English, they attempted to demonstrate that placing toy in the trash is not appropriate by placing C1`s blanket into a white trash bag and stating how it feels . The Director stated their intent was not to humiliate C1, but to show how it feels when personal belongings are placed in the trash. The Director also reported that the blanket was placed into a clean white trash bag that is typically used to store children`s belonging prior sending it home on Fridays. This was confirmed by additional staff members. LPA also observed several white trash bags in the facility labeled with children`s names and containing children`s bedding. Page 2 of 3 Based on LPAs observations and interviews which were conducted and record review(s), the preponderance of evidence standard has been met, therefore the above allegation(s) is found to be SUBSTANTIATED. California Code of Regulations, (Title 22, Division 12 , Chapter 1 ), are being cited on the attached LIC 9099D. A notice of site visit was given and must remain posted for 30 days. Exit interview conducted and report was reviewed with the Director Rosalina Lukban on 12/19/2025. Copy of this report and appeal rights were provided. Page 3 of 3 During the investigation , LPA interviewed Director, staff members, children and parents. Per Staff#2(S2) they were supervising napping children when C1 observed putting his hands into his mouths. Per Staff#3(S3) statements they observed C1 putting their hands into their mouth during the nap time. Per S2 they gently removed child`s hand from his mouths to avoid C1 from getting sick. No disclosures were made by parents, staff members or children to support allegations above. Based on the investigation , although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation(s) did or did not occur, therefore the allegation is unsubstantiated. A notice of site visit was given and must remain posted for 30 days. Exit interview conducted and report was reviewed with the Director Rosalina Lukban on 12/19/2025. Copy of report and appeal rights were provided. Page 2 of 2