Complaint·September 9, 2025

The complaint alleges Child #1 (C1) sustained injuries to their face at a water park with the daycare and Licensee let C1 go into the Lazy River unsupervised. Complaint also alleges Licensee took at least 10 children to the waterpark with Licensee's 14-year-old daughter to assist. During interviews conducted, Licensee, Licensee's assistant and three children in care stated that the Licensee only took 4 children to the waterpark and Licensee's daughter did not go to the waterpark with them. Licensee denied allowing C1 to go in the lazy river unsupervised and stated she was able to see C1 at all times during the visit to the waterpark. Licensee stated that C1 was observed to be doing summersaults in the lazy river and Licensee believes that is how C1 may have scratched their forehead. Licensee sent LPA pictures and video of the day at the waterpark showing C1 doing summersaults in the lazy river. LPA interviewed C1 who stated they received the injuries in the pool at the waterpark but did not remember how they received them. C1 also stated the lifeguard was watching C1 in the lazy river and C1 knows Licensee was at the lazy river but was unsure if Licensee was watching C1. Other children interviewed stated the Licensee was providing supervision to all the daycare children during the outing to the waterpark. Parents interviewed stated they are happy with the care and supervision their children receive at the facility. LPA interviewed an employee at another government agency who had knowledge of the allegation, who stated the agency "looked into the incident and the injuries that C1 received were determined to be caused by playing in the pool and normal child behavior and were not from any lack of supervision or any issues with the daycare provider". Licensee provided LPA pictures of C1 eating lunch before they left the water park and LPA did not observe any injuries to the face of C1 in the picture. Allegation #2: Licensee did not prevent child from causing injury to another child According to the complaint Child #2 (C2) was injured by another child in care and sustained bruises on their back and was bitten by another child while in care due to lack of supervision. LPA determined these incidents were investigated during a complaint received by the Department on 11/4/24. The complaint also alleges that C2 told the complainant they were hurt while being left alone by Licensee's 14-year-old daughter. During interviews conducted, Licensee stated their youngest daughter is 20 years old. Licensee, Assistant, and C2 Page 2 of 3 denied being hurt or left alone with Licensee's daughter. LPA observed Licensee's daughter to be fingerprint cleared and associated to the facility and has current mandated reporter training and current CPR/First Aid training and all the documents needed to be an assistant. LPA did not observe Licensee's daughter to be in the home during complaint investigation visits on 8/14/25, 8/21/25, and 9/9/25. Allegation #3: Licensee has uncleared adult supervising children Complaint alleges C2 was left alone in the bathroom with Person #1 (P1) who is not cleared to be at the facility. During interviews conducted the Licensee, Assistant, and three children stated P1 has not been at the facility during daycare hours. LPA confirmed P1 is cleared and associated to the facility, but has their own daycare at this time. LPA did not observe P1 to be in the home during complaint investigation visits on 8/14/25, 8/21/25, and 9/9/25. 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. There were no deficiencies cited on the above-mentioned allegations per California Code of Regulations Title 22. A notice of site visit was given and must remain posted for 30 days. Failure to comply with posting requirements shall result in an immediate civil penalty of $100. Exit interview conducted and report was reviewed with Licensee, Laura Diaz. Page 3 of 3