complaint·January 9, 2026

Page 2 of 4 The Reporting Party (PR) reported on 11/24/2025 the facility staff informed RP that 4-year-old child, Child # 1 (C1) hit their head while playing in the wood chip area on the playground, resulting in a slight abrasion. RP stated the staff on the playground were not properly supervising the children. RP had instructed the staff that C1 should wear headband for head protection. R/P additionally reported that it was observed that C1 was pushed off a bike by Child # 2 (C2) on 11/25/2025. During the course of investigation, LPA interviewed eight staff members (S1, S2, S3, S4, S5, S6, S7, S8), eleven preschool children, and ten randomly selected parents of preschool children. The LPA also reviewed incident reports issued for C1 for the past 3 months. S1 stated they were notified that C1 fell face down on the floor in the wood chip area. S2 and S3 were present at the time of the incident. S1 reported observing a red mark on C1’s forehead. S1 stated that C1 was wearing headband as instructed at the time of the fall. S2 stated they were outside supervising children on the playground and were approximately ten feet away from C1 when C1 fell on 11/24/2025. S3 and S4 were also present on the playground supervising approximately twenty preschool children. S2 observed C1 fall face down in the wood chip area and stated that no children pushed C1. S2 reported that C1 likely tripped over the approximate nine-inch-high wooden barrier surrounding the wood chip area and fell forward onto the wood chip. S2 observed a red mark/scrape on C1’s forehead, washed the area, and informed C1’s representative. S2 stated C1 was wearing headband for head protection as it was instructed. S3 stated they were walking around on the playground at the time of the incident on 11/24/2025. S2 and S4 were also present on the playground supervising approximately twenty children. S3 observed C1 fall forward, face down, in the wood chip area. S3 was unsure of the exact cause of the fall but assumed C1 may have tripped over the wooden barrier surrounding the wood chip area. S3 stated that C1 was wearing a headband for head protection, however, the headband may have shifted during the fall. S3 observed a small Continued on page 3 Page 3 of 4 red/pinkish scrape on the C1’s forehead, applied ice to the area and C1’s representative was informed. S3 further reported a second incident involved C1 on 11/25/25. S3 stated S3 was walking around when S3 observed C1 riding a bike and falling off. C1’s representative was present on the playground and claimed that C1 was pushed by another child. However, S3 stated they did not witness any child pushed C1. S3 reported that S5 was also present on the playground and was closely observing what occurred during the 11/25/2025 incident. S3 confirmed that staff walk around the playground while children are playing to ensure proper supervision. S4 stated they were present with S2, and S3 on the playground supervising approximately twenty preschool children on 11/24/2025. S4 observed C1 fall in the wood chip area but was not close enough to determine the cause of the fall. S4 stated that C1 was wearing a headband and was lying face down in the wood chip area. S4 confirmed that staff walk around the playground while children are playing to ensure proper supervision. S5 stated S5 was not present on the playground during the 11/24/2025 incident involving C1. However, on 11/25/2025 S5 was present on the playground with S3. S5 stated S5 was walking around the playground when S5 observed C1 riding a bike. S5 reported that another child approached C1, wanted the bike, and pushed C1 off the bike, causing C1 to fall. S5 stated S5 was not close enough to intervene before the incident occurred. S5 reported that no injury occurred to C1. C1’s representative was present on the playground at the time. S5 stated that staff always supervise children both indoors and outdoors. S6, S7, and S8 stated they were not involved in the reported incidents with C1. However, they confirmed that staff move around the playground while children are outside and supervise children closely to ensure their safety. They stated that children sometimes fall on their own and may occasionally engage in disagreements, pushing, or physical contact with one another, but this does not indicate a lack of supervision. Staff stated they constantly teach children appropriate behavior and supervise them closely. The LPA attempted to interview eleven preschool children while they were playing on the playground. Nine preschool children were qualified and disclosed to LPA that their teachers walk around the playground while Continued on page 4 page 4 of 4 children are playing and that they inform teachers if someone hurts or bothers them. The preschool children did not report witnessing any child fall in the wood chip area and did not disclose any incidents of children being hurt at school. The incident reports reviewed for the prior months of the reported incident for September, October, and November 2025 indicated that C1 had one incident in September and one incident in October, both resulting in no injuries. The LPA also contacted ten randomly selected parents of preschool children. Of the ten parents contacted, three responded and reported no concerns regarding the above allegation. Based on interviews with eight staff members, nine preschool children, ten parents (3 of whom responded with no concerns), and a review of the incident reports for C1, there is insufficient evidence or witness statement to support that the incidents involving C1 occurred as a result of lack of staff supervision. This agency has investigated the complaint alleging “Child got injured due to lack of supervision', “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, therefore the allegation is UNSUBSTANTIATED. The director, Ivette Ceballos was provided with a copy of their appeal rights (LIC 9058) and their signature on this form acknowledges receipt of these rights. All appeals must be in writing and received by the Regional Office within 15 business days. A notice of site visit was given and must remain posted for 30 days. Exit interview conducted and report was reviewed with the director, Ivette Ceballos. End of report.