Skip to main content

Inspection visit

complaint

AVALOS, MARIALicense 304313690
Clean visit · 0 citations

Inspector’s narrative

What the inspector wrote

On 9/15/2025 the Orange County Child Care Office received a complaint alleging Licensee hit day care child. Reporting Party (RP) stated the following: Child#1(C1) disclosed that Licensee hit C1 with an open hand three times on top of C1\342\200\231s head. C1 did not sustain any marks, bruises or injuries. During the investigation, LPA interviewed the Licensee, Staff#1(S1), 2 children, and 3 parents. The licensee and S1 denied the allegation. The licensee stated the following: C1 attended 2 days in the day care and did not return. Licensee called Parent#1 (P1) but got no response. 15 days later P1 called the licensee and told the licensee that C1 disclosed to P1 that the licensee had hit C1\342\200\231s head. The licensee told P1 that licensee did not hit C1 on the head. P1 had told the licensee that C1 will return to day care but did not return. The licensee stated they discipline children by talking to them or having them take a break. S1 stated the following: C1 stopped coming to the day care but was not sure why C1 stopped coming. S1 stated the licensee talks loudly because the licensee has a loud voice. S1 stated they discipline children by asking the children to sit at the table for them to relax. S1 indicated that they don\342\200\231t leave them for long until they calm down, it\342\200\231s usually less than 1 minute. LPA attempted to interview 2 children but only 1 child qualified to be interviewed; interviewed child did not disclose any concern. LPA tried contacting P1 but did not get a call back. The 3 interviewed parents did not divulge any information pertaining to the allegation or express any concerns regarding care of the children. Based on information gathered from LPA\342\200\231s interviews, the preponderance of evidence has not been met. Although the allegations may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violations Licensee hit day care child; therefore, the allegation is UNSUBSTANTIATED. Exit interview was conducted. Notice of Site Visit was posted during the visit. Licensee was informed that the notice of site visit must be posted for 30 consecutive days. Failure to post will result in civil penalties of $100. Appeal Rights were explained. Licensee was provided with a copy of the appeal rights (LIC 9058 01/16) 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. First level appeals should be sent to the regional manager to the address listed above. Page 2 of 2

Citations

No citations recorded on this visit

The inspector found no violations of California child care regulations during this visit.

FAQ · About this visit

Common questions about this visit

What happened during the December 11, 2025 inspection of AVALOS, MARIA?

This was a complaint inspection of AVALOS, MARIA on December 11, 2025. The inspection found no deficiencies and no citations were issued.

Were any citations issued to AVALOS, MARIA on December 11, 2025?

No citations were issued during this inspection. The facility was found to be in compliance with all applicable regulations.

What type of inspection was this?

This was a complaint inspection. Complaint inspections are triggered when someone reports a concern about the facility to CCLD.

SourceView on CCLDView original report

Share this reportEmail

Next steps

If this is your facility,claim this pageand add your response to the public record. Free.

Spotted an inaccuracy on this visit?Request a reviewand we will check it against the public record.

Researching this visit professionally?Book a 20-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.