complaint·October 23, 2025

Page 2 ***This is an amended report to correct the findings of the report previous completed on 10/23/2025.*** On 9/17/2025, the Orange County Regional Office (OCRO) received a complaint with one allegation Staff did not report incident to appropriate parties. Reporting Party (RP) claimed the facility staff did not report Child #1 (C1)’s suspected child abuse incident to all involved agencies. During the course of investigation, LPA interviewed six (6) staff members and six (6) parents. LPA obtained children’s roster, staff roster, and documents pertinent to the investigation. During interviews, LPA interviewed six (6) staff members, five (5) out of six (6) staff members stated that they informed the Director of any suspected abuse from a child. S2 stated that, regarding the suspected child abuse incident with C1, each teacher provided information that they gathered from C1 to the director, and the Director made the report to social service. LPA did not interview the children due to the children’s lack of knowledge about incidents being reported to different agencies such as community care licensing or social service agency. When interviewed, Director stated due to a phone conversation with LPA in which Director was informed to call Child Protective Services, therefore; they did not submit a written report regarding C1's alleged child abuse incident to the Department . LPA contacted 11 parents to interview, only six (6) parents responded. All interviewed parents stated they did not have any concern related to the allegation. During record reviews, there was no record of an unusual incident report submitted to the Orange County Regional Office. The Orange County Regional Child Care Licensing Office has investigated the complaint Staff did not report incident to appropriate parties. Based on the information gathered from LPA’s interviews and record reviews, the preponderance of the evidence has not been met. Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation of Staff did not report incident to appropriate parties, therefore, the allegation is UNSUBSTANTIATED. A notice of site visit was given and must remain posted for 30 days. Appeal rights were given. Exit interview conducted and report was reviewed with the Substitute Site Supervisor Oana Elias. Page 2 On 9/17/2025, the Orange County Regional Child Care Licensing Office received a complaint with one allegation Staff do not communicate with parent regarding child's care. RP stated facility staff did not communicate with parent regarding Child #1 (C1)’s progress. During the course of investigation, LPA interviewed six (6) staff members and six (6) parents. LPA did not interview the children due to the children’s lack of knowledge about incidents being reported to parents. LPA obtained children’s roster, staff roster, and documents pertinent to the investigation. During interviews, LPA interviewed six (6) staff members, six (6) out of six (6) interviewed staff stated that the facility communicate with parents regarding child’s care verbally during pick-ups and drop-offs. S2 stated that if parents ask questions regarding their child’s process, staff have honest communication on the child’s process. S4 stated that they communicate with the parent at pick-up and drop-off to share information regarding the child and with email or phone calls as needed. When interviewed, C1’s authorized representative stated they receive continuous communication from the school staff and as needed. LPA contacted 11 parents to interview, only six (6) parents responded. All interviewed parents stated they did not have any concern related to the allegation. Based on the information gathered from LPA’s interviews and record reviews, the preponderance of the evidence has not been met. Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation of Staff do not communicate with parent regarding child's care, therefore, the allegation is UNSUBSTANTIATED. A notice of site visit was given and must remain posted for 30 days. Appeal rights were given. Exit interview conducted and report was reviewed with the Substitute Site Supervisor Oana Elias.