complaint·February 18, 2026

Allegation- Staff did not provide adequate supervision to prevent day care children from throwing objects at one another. According to the RP, on 11/17/2025 at 5:15 PM, upon arrival to the facility C1 stated that C5 repeatedly threw an object at C1’s “private area,” and C1 then threw back a foam triangle. Per RP, on the same day C2 a lso informed RP that they observed C3 throw an object at C1. LPA conducted an interview with the RP. According to the RP, there were two incidents that occurred on the same day involving C1, C3, and C5. RP stated that during pick up S3 mentioned that C1 was crying when he was picked up after school; however, S3 did not mention anything about the above incidents. Per RP, C1 told them about the incidents that occurred that day which involved a block being thrown at them. RP recalled searching for a box and the foam piece the following day; however, C1 was able to find the alleged box that was thrown . Per RP, S3 informed them that a foam piece was not used as C1 revealed that something else was used. RP also revealed that C1 was not taken to the doctor since there were no visual injuries nor did the child express any pain. LPA conducted interviews with S1 thru S3. According to S1, they were not present on 11/17/25; however, they assisted with speaking to the children involved to gather information on what occurred on the same day of the incident. Per S1, children interviewed had different accounts of what happened and items that had been used or thrown. S1 stated that children identified 4 different blocks and could not confirm which block was used by each child. S1 also stated that C1 gave 3 different versions of what occurred . Interview conducted with S2 revealed that they were present on 11/17/25; however, during the incident they were in the kitchen preparing children a snack. S2 revealed that S3 was supervising the children. Per S2, C3 and C5 walked over to the kitchen counter. It is unknown why children approached S2 and not S3 who was said to have been supervising children . According to S2, t hey were informed that C1 got mad, grabbed a block and hit C3 and C5. In response both children hit C1. Per S2, they could not confirm what was thrown. Interviews conducted with S3 revealed that C3 and C5 were under a table and acknowledged that C3 likes to throw things at their sibling. According to S3, when C3 and C5 were under the table they were throwing things like sponges or little blocks but stated they were not hitting anyone. Per S3, while C3 and C5 were under the table, C1 happened to “go down” but did not see C1 get hurt. However, when S3 stood up, they observed C5 stand up and motioned to their stomach. Per S3, C1 did not appear to be hurt. Rather, C5 appeared to be the one to have gotten hurt. S3 also stated that they were discussing a prior incident that occurred at the elementary school with the parent of C1;however, C1 interrupted S3 and informed their parent of the incidents that had occurred at the facility. Page 2 of 4 Per S3, they were not withholding notifying the parent of C1 regarding the incident that occurred at the facility. LPA conducted interviews with C1 thru C5. According to C1 they approached C3 and C5 and asked them if they wanted to play. Per C1, C3 and C5 began throwing toys as he dodged the items. C1 stated that C3 threw a big wooden block and C5 threw a small car that hit his private area. Per C1, the area where he was hit began to hurt and all he wanted to do was to play. C1 acknowledged that he threw a soft blue block (little and rectangle); however, he couldn’t locate the soft blue block and believes someone took it home. According to C1, S2, S3, C2, and C4 observed the incident. Interview conducted with C2 revealed that they observed C1 approached C3 and C5 because he wanted to play with them. Per C2, they observed C3 throw a big box (block) and C5 threw another block at C1 which hit his private area. C2 stated that they witnessed the incident along with C4. C2 then stated that C1 notified S2 of the incident but C5 denied hitting C1 and S3 was not present during the incident. LPA attempted to interview C3 on 11/25; however, the child declined LPAs interview. During a subsequent visit on 12/03, S3 stated that C3 wanted to speak with LPA. According to S3, C3 wanted to speak with LPA regarding the incident and guided the child towards the LPA. LPA attempted to interview C3; however, the child immediately shared that C1 scratched C5, C1 hit C5 with a block, and C2 threw a block at C1. C3 denied throwing a block at C1 and also denied that C5 threw a block. Interview conducted with C4 revealed that C1, C3, and C5 were playing with the blocks when C1 damaged the blocks and C5 hurt his forehead. C4 was not able to clarify if the block thrown by C1 hit anyone; however, C4 stated that C3 was throwing blocks and C5 was throwing toys at C1 which hit their private area. Per C4, S1 and S2 were present during the incident while S3 was downstairs. Interview conducted with C5 revealed that they were playing with the blocks with C1 and C3 when C1 threw a block. According to C5, they got hit on the head with a block, then C1 hit himself and told C5 “why you hit me”. Per C5, C1 hit C3 and then his own private part. C5 denies throwing anything at C1 and denies that C3 threw anything at C1. LPA conducted Interviews with P2 who stated that they had concerns regarding care and supervision which resulted in children fighting in October 2025. P2 stated that the facility did not notify them of the incident and only told the parent to pick up their children. Due to the incident, the child was disenrolled. Messages were not returned by other parents contacted. LPA obtained pictures of a rectangular wooden block and a blue foam shaped as a triangle. LPA confirmed that there were blocks made of different material. According to S1, the facility was going to be removing several blocks. Page 3 of 4 This agency has investigated the complaint alleging “Staff did not provide adequate supervision to prevent day care children from throwing objects at one another.” Though the investigation found that there were conflicting accounts of what took place, all interviews conducted found evidence that children are in fact engaging in behaviors that caused a child or children to be hurt. This includes S3 admission that some of the children involved have been observed and known to throw things at each other. Based on interviews conducted, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met, therefore the above allegation is found to be SUBSTANTIATED. California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 12, Chapter 1, the following deficiencies are being cited (see attached 9099D). A notice of site visit was given and must remain posted for 30 days. An exit interview was conducted, and a copy of this report was provided to the licensee Lillian Aguilar. Page 4 of 4 Allegation- Staff did not pick up daycare children from school in a timely manner. According to the RP , on multiple occasions last year the facility staff failed to pick up their children from school within the ten-minute window after the end of the school day. Per RP, when this occurred, the elementary school contacted them, and RP contacted the facility. RP stated that staff would say they forgot or were running late to pick up the children. RP also stated that they could not provide specific dates of when it happened. According to the RP, they don’t have much information regarding the late pick-ups. RP couldn’t confirm dates; however, they stated it was between March and June of 2024. Per RP, approximately four or five times the facility staff arrived late to pick up their children. RP stated that children get dismissed at 2:35pm and school staff or principal wait with the children for about 10 minutes. If children are not picked up within 10 minutes they are taken to the office and parents are called. On one occasion (date/time unknown) the RP arrived at the children’s school at the same time as S2, but they were never told why the staff was late for pick-ups. Per RP, when they received a call from the school that the children were still there, RP would call the facility and would be told by the staff (unknown who) that they forgot to pick up the children and that they were on their way. RP also stated that in 2024 they had to constantly remind the facility to pick up the children and that they made another staff put an alarm so they wouldn’t forget to pick up the children. According to the RP, they do not have record of staff picking up children late. LPA conducted interviews with S1 thru S3. According to S1, the facility has a schedule of after school pick-ups that is followed by S2 and S3. Per S1, S2 does 3 set of pickups at different schools from 2:00pm - 3:00pm and stated that the schools are not far from each other, which allows S2 to arrive for pick up in a timely manner. According to S1, the facility staff is never late but if they were late staff would call the school. S1 also stated that if the staff is running late, it could be due to other children being held at school or car issues; however, it is rare and if they have car issues there is a backup plan which is calling a taxi. S1 denies that staff forget to pick up children. Interview conducted with S2 revealed that they pick up about 9 children at 3 different schools and leave to their first pick up at 12:50pm and children are out at 2:00pm. Per S2, they arrive from the first pick up to the facility at approximately 2:15pm and leave for the second pick up and arrive to school at 2:20pm. Per S2, they return again to the facility to drop off the children and head to the third and last pick up and arrive at school between 2:45pm – 3:00pm. According to S2, they are rarely late but if they are running late, they would contact S3. Per S2, they recall being late once for 3 minutes but not more than 10 minutes and if they are running late due to car issues S3 would be notified so they could call for a taxi. Interview conducted with S3 revealed that the facility has 2 staff assigned to pick up children after school. Page 2 of 4 Per S3, S2 picks up 9 children, and they pick up 5 children. According to S3, there are 2 cars available and if there were any car issues they have a backup plan which is to call for a taxi. Per S3, the schools are not far from each other and if staff is running late, they call the school. S3 also stated that only once S2 was late picking up children due to the car breaking down. Staff interviewed corroborated that the facility has 2 cars available for school pick-ups and the backup plan is to call a taxi if there are any issues with the cars. Staff also corroborated that the school is notified if they are running late; however, there was no clarification regarding staff notifying parents. Staff interviewed denied forgetting to pick up children or frequently running late. LPA conducted interview with C1 thru C5. According to C1, S1, S2, and S3 pick up children after school; however, C1 couldn’t say if staff pick up children late but stated that their legs get tired. Interview conducted with C2 revealed that S1, S2, and S3 pick up children after school and sometimes S3 is late; however, C2 could not tell LPA how late the staff is. Interview with C3 did not reveal any information that corroborates the allegation. Interview conducted with C4 revealed that the school bus drops him off at the facility. Interview conducted with C5 revealed that S3 picks up the children after school and is sometimes early; however, C5 did not provide additional information. LPA conducted interviews with P1 thru 9. LPA attempted to interview P1, P3, P4, P5, and P7; however, parents did not return LPAs call. LPA conducted an interview with P2 who stated that the school notified them that the children were not picked up. P2 could not provide dates or time of when their children were picked up late; however, it occurred in 2025. According to P2, the staff were always late due to being short staff and had other school pick-ups. LPA attempted to conduct an interview with P6; however, the parent declined the LPAs interview. LPA attempted to interview P9; however, the number provided was incorrect. LPA obtained and reviewed sign in/out sheets dated June – August 2024 and screenshots dated 06/24/24, 07/08/24, and 08/22/24. Screenshots revealed that the parent of C2 reached out to the facility to remind the staff that C2 would be out from summer school at 12:20pm. Parent then sent a follow up text message inquiring if C2 was picked up and staff confirmed C2 was picked up. On 07/08/24 parent of C2 sent a text message to staff and asked to remind S3 to pick up C2 from school. On 08/22/24 parent of C2 sent a text message to staff and asked if S3 left late again; however, staff responded they did not know. Upon review of the sign in/out sheets it was observed that on different dates children were signed in from 12:15pm - 4:00pm. Page 3 of 4 Based on records reviewed and screenshots, LPA cannot determine if children were picked up late from school. This agency has investigated the complaint alleging “Staff did not pick up daycare children from school in a timely manner.” LPA found conflicting statements regarding the allegation and therefore have found the complaint to be deemed UNSUBSTANTIATED. Meaning that, although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of the evidence to prove that the alleged violation occurred. A notice of site visit was given and must remain posted for 30 days. An exit interview was conducted, and a copy of this report was provided to the licensee Lillian Aguilar. Page 4 of 4