Skip to main content

Inspection visit

Complaint

BONILLA FAMILY CHILD CARELicense 197415262
Clean visit · 0 citations

Inspector’s narrative

What the inspector wrote

Licensee stated that at no time while children were in care was their an uncleared adult providing care to children. Licensee stated that she recently had an applicant come in as a volunteer for 2 hours and observed the applicant work with children. Licensee stated that at no time was the applicant left alone with children. Licensee and the children were outdoors when the applicant was present. Licensee was observed the applicant at all times. Licensee was unable to offer a job to the applicant because applicant asked to include child care for their infant child. Licensee stated that they did not have a space for an infant within their capacity. Licensee stated that at no time are children inappropriately handled or yelled at while in care. Licensee disclosed that when children need support with behaviors that are not safe, Licensee redirects children to activities that the children can safely engage in. Licensee stated that in instances where children want the same toys or if a child make another child cry, Licensee has conversations with children regarding feelings and provides an activities that both children can engage in safely. During an interview with staff, no disclosures were made to support the allegations. During interview with parents, no disclosures were made to support the allegations. Parent #4 disclosed that the Licensee cares about the kids in care, provides ample activities to kids in care and very much likes the care provided to their children. Upon contact with the reporting party, reporting party declined an interview and ended call with LPA. During the investigation, LPA did not observe any evidence to support the allegations. Based on the investigation conducted by the LPA, it has been determined that although the allegations may have happened or are valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violations did or did not occur, therefore the allegations are unsubstantiated. The Notice of Site Visit must remain posted for 30 days during the hours of operation after each site visit by a licensing representative. Failure to maintain posting as required will result in a civil penalty of $100.00. A copy of this report, appeal rights, and Notice of Site Visit was provided. Exit interview was conducted with Mayra Bonilla, Licensee. ---Page 2 of 2

Citations

No citations recorded on this visit

The inspector found no violations of California child care regulations during this visit.

FAQ · About this visit

Common questions about this visit

What happened during the July 16, 2025 inspection of BONILLA FAMILY CHILD CARE?

This was a complaint inspection of BONILLA FAMILY CHILD CARE on July 16, 2025. The inspection found no deficiencies and no citations were issued.

Were any citations issued to BONILLA FAMILY CHILD CARE on July 16, 2025?

No citations were issued during this inspection. The facility was found to be in compliance with all applicable regulations.

What type of inspection was this?

This was a complaint inspection. Complaint inspections are triggered when someone reports a concern about the facility to CCLD.

Share this reportEmail

Next steps

If this is your facility,claim this pageand correct anything the record gets wrong. Free.

Researching this visit professionally?Book a 15-minute calland we will walk through what we have on file.

Data from CCLD public records. Last updated . If you believe any information is inaccurate, report it here.