Complaint·June 23, 2025

RP alleged, “Staff did not prevent children in care from causing injuries to another child in care. and “Staff are not providing adequate supervision to day care children” LPA, Tuba obtained from the Assistant Director a statement from S4, as well as interviewed S4 who stated that there was an incident that occurred between C1 and C2, however did not observe any injuries during that time. LPAs interviewed C1 who disclosed that C2 did scratch C1's arm, however LPAs were unable to interview C2 to confirm. LPAs interviewed S1, S2 and S3 who had conflicting stories as to what exactly occurred on 4/8/2025. Based on LPA, Tuba’s observation of the incident that took place between C1 and C2 it was not clear if there may have been blind spots on the playground, however LPA Tuba consulted with the Director and Assistant Director, Rodriquez that staff should always spread themselves out as best practice and since the playground is a big area then certain parts of the playground can be closed or equipment can be moved. According to (AS3) a meeting was conducted with parent of C1 of the incident that had occurred and S4 was present during the meeting who had supervised C1 and C2. S4 stated that she did not observe any injuries to C1, however C1 did have scratches on the inner part of their arm and facility was unsure how that had occurred. Based on interviews with C1, S1, S2 and S3 the allegations, “Staff did not prevent children in care from causing injuries to another child in care.” and “Staff are not providing adequate supervision to day care children.” is deemed UNSUBSTANTIATED. Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation did or did not occur. A Notice of Site Visit was provided and must be posted for 30 days. An exit interview was conducted, and a copy of this report was provided to the Assistant Director, Alicia Rogriguez. page 2 of 2 RP alleged, “Staff did not report incident(s) to authorized representative” During the interviews S1 recalled that C1 had fallen during play time but was not sure if that is when the scratches occurred. Parents of C1 had reached out to S5 but S5 did not recall the incident occurring at the Enrichment Program that C1 attends in the morning time, however S1 did recall C1 falling that afternoon and had sent a message using the app Class Dojo to Parents of C1. S1 stated in the message that C1 was observed falling on the playground blacktop and the time stamp of copies obtained by the LPAs showed 8:32 pm on 4/8/2025. The facility closes at 7:00 pm. which is past the time to notify parents. The staff including the assistant director could not locate an incident report written to parents on that day. During an interview by LPA, Ortiz (P2) stated that sometimes the facility tries to inform the parents of incidents. There were no other disclosures made from S2, S3, S4, S5, P1 or P3. A copy of the Health & Safety regulations was provided to the facility for record keeping. Based on interviews conducted the above allegation is deemed SUBSTANTIATED. During interviews it was disclosed by S1 and P2 that Staff did not report incident(s) to authorized representative. A finding of Substantiated means that the preponderance of evidence standard has been met. The following deficiency listed on the attached LIC 9099-D (deficiency page) are 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. A Notice of Site Visit was provided and must be posted for 30 days. An exit interview was conducted, and a copy of this report was provided to the Assistant Director, Alicia Rodriguez. page 2 of 2