complaint·January 7, 2026

According to RP , C1 was the only one required to complete the activity and did not want to do it and despite verbally saying “no” they were required to continue. Additionally, RP reported , per C1 statements this was not an isolated occurrence and “push the wall” had been used repeatedly on multiple occasions. During the investigation, LPA interviewed staff members, and children. LPA could not interview C1, but according to the report provided by Glendale Police Department( GPD) , during the initial and forensic interviews C1 stated they had to push the wall and C1 was able to demonstrate by placing both hands on the wall. During the interview, Staff 1 (S1) stated “push the wall “ was offered and demonstrated to the children in S1`s classroom during the group time as a safe option when they are angry. The Licensing Program Analyst (LPA ) conducted interviews with multiple children from the S1`s classroom. Based on the children`s statements , they were not aware of the “push the wall” option , even when it was demonstrated to them by placing hands against the wall. Based on LPAs observations and interviews which were conducted and record reviews, 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 01/07/2026. Copy of this report ,deficiency page and appeal rights were provided. Page 2 of 2 .