Skip to main content

Inspection visit

Incident investigation

CHILD EDUCATIONAL CENTER, CALTECH/JPL COMMUNITYLicense 1980034001 citation on this visit
1 citation recorded

Inspector’s narrative

What the inspector wrote

On 05/26/2026, at 1:45pm, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Shushanik Safaryan conducted a follow-up visit regarding an incident that occurred on 02/18/2026. Upon arrival, LPA met with Facility Representative Laura Navarette, who provided a tour of the facility. During the inspection, there were 60 children with 6 staff present. The facility reported the incident as required. On 02/18/2026, the Department received an Unusual Incident Report alleging that child 5 violated the personal rights of child 1. Based on information obtained, child 1 is currently enrolled in the licensed child care program, while child 5 is not enrolled. According to the Facility Director, child 5 was enrolled last year but is not enrolled this year. On 02/18/2026, child 5 was in the field area shared by the licensed child care program and the elementary school while waiting for their parent, who is employed at the school. The Director stated that when a non-enrolled child approaches an area designated for enrolled children, the child is instructed to remain with their parent or leave the area to locate their parent. This practice was confirmed by 5 out of 5 staff members interviewed. According to Staff 1, child 5 was playing with child 3 and child 4 when child 1 and child 2 entered the area. Staff 1 observed an interaction between child 5 and child 1 and reported that after hearing child 5 communicating with child 1 and child 2 in stern voice they made an eye contact with child 5 who toned down and walked away. Staff 1 did not witness the incident itself because they left for their break. LPA interviewed child 3 and child 4, who confirmed the statements they made to the Director and to child 1’s parent. Both children stated that they told child 1 and child 2 to leave the grass area where they were playing with child 5. When child 1 and child 2 did not leave, child 3 and child 4 reported observing child 5 lift child 1 and throw child 1 to the side, causing child 1 to fall onto the grass field. Page 1 of 2 Additional statements from Director and child 3 and child4 indicated that child 5 sometimes plays with enrolled children while waiting for their parents in the field area. LPA interviewed child 1’s parents, who stated that child 1 reported that child 5 lifted and threw them to the side. The parents declined LPA’s request to interview child 1. They further reported that child 1 was emotionally upset and did not want to go to school following the incident. The Director reported that she did not witness the incident and became aware of it only after being approached by child 1’s parent. The Director further reported that both child 3 and child 4, who were present during the incident, informed her and child 1’s parent that they observed child 5 lift child 1 and throw them to the side. LPA reviewed video footage from 02/18/2026. The footage showed child 3, child 4, and child 5 playing in the field area when child 1 and child 2 approached. LPA observed child 1 and child 2 walking backward as child 5 moved toward them, prompting them to step away. Later, child 1 and child 5 returned to the field area, where additional interaction occurred. Due to the quality of the footage, LPA was unable to determine whether child 5 lifted and threw child 1. There is no waiver on file permitting the licensed child care program to share the field area with the elementary school. According to the Co-Executive Director for the School-Age Program, the licensed facility does not have exclusive use of the field, and families or other members of the public may access the campus to play. It was also disclosed that the elementary school principal assists with coordinating events as needed, and the city oversees scheduling for sporting activities held on the field. Based on the LPA’s observations, interviews and records review, the following deficiency listed on the attached LIC 809D (deficiency page)is being cited in accordance with California Code of Regulations Title 22. Deficiency that are being cited need to be cleared to protect the children’s health & safety. Exit interview conducted and report was reviewed with the facility representative Laura Navarette on 05/26/2026. Page 2 of 2

Citations

1 citation recorded*CCLD

What does Type A vs Type B mean?

Type A. Serious citation. Imminent or substantial risk to children. The regulator requires corrective action immediately and may impose a civil penalty.

Type B. Lower-severity citation. Corrective action required, no imminent risk. The regulator monitors compliance on the next visit.

FAQ · About this visit

Common questions about this visit

What happened during the May 26, 2026 inspection of CHILD EDUCATIONAL CENTER, CALTECH/JPL COMMUNITY?

This was an other inspection of CHILD EDUCATIONAL CENTER, CALTECH/JPL COMMUNITY on May 26, 2026. 1 citation were issued: 1 Type B.

Were any citations issued to CHILD EDUCATIONAL CENTER, CALTECH/JPL COMMUNITY on May 26, 2026?

Yes, 1 citation was issued (0 Type A, 1 Type B).

What type of inspection was this?

This was an other inspection. other inspections are conducted by CCLD as part of their licensing oversight.

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.