complaint·August 29, 2025

were made and were unsuccessful; however, Additional co-complainant #2 was contacted and stated that "its old problem and no longer wants to continue with the complaint." and denied interview with LPA’s regarding the above allegations. Allegation #1: Staff hit child on the face and Allegation #2: Staff handle children in a rough manner. Reporting Party alleged that when C#1 was picked up, the C#1 had a mark on their face and disclosed that staff “Emily” and “Esther” had hit C#1. Reporting Party further alleged that children “are known to get hit” at the facility. Additional allegations were attached to this complaint stating that on 07/17/25 and 07/21/25, that C#1 had fingerprint shaped bruises reportedly caused by staff Emily and Esther on the face area. Co-Complainant #2 disclosed that on a prior occasion; they observed staff Emily drag a 5-year-old child to the restroom roughly while the child was vomiting. LPA's conducted staff interviews. All staff interviewed denied ever hitting, dragging, or roughly handling children. Staff reported that when children display challenging behavior, they redirect, speak calmly, and, if needed, provide an alternative activity. Staff denied witnessing any marks on face, bruises, or rough treatment of children. Staff confirmed that incident reports are completed, and parents notified if any marks are observed at drop-off or pick-up during daily checks. No disclosures or concerns were made by parents regarding the allegations. No disclosures were made by children regarding the allegations. LPA observed staff interacting with children respectfully, using calm voices, speaking at the child’s eye level, and redirecting children as needed. No inappropriate handling was observed during the visits. The employee handbook outlines discipline policies including calm redirection, discussion of feelings, providing reasonable alternatives, and age-appropriate time-outs (ex: quiet book area). Handbook clearly states no corporal punishment, humiliating, or frightening techniques are permitted. Based on observations, interviews, and record review, there is not a preponderance of evidence to support that allegation (1) Staff hit a child on the face and (2) Staff handled children in a rough manner. Therefore, the allegations are determined to be unsubstantiated. A finding of “Unsubstantiated” means that although the allegations may have happened or may be valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove that the alleged violation occurred. At this time, no deficiencies are being cited in accordance with Title 22, California Code of Regulations.An exit interview was conducted with Director Esther. A copy of this report and appeal rights were provided. Notice of Site Visit was issued and must be posted at the facility for 30 days.