Complaint·September 26, 2025

(page 2) During the investigation LPA Lucero interviewed si x (6) staff, three (3) children, four (4) pare nts and obtained documents. During staff interviews, staff members reported being aware of, or having heard about, the alleged incident involving Staff #1 (S1) reportedly yelling at Child #1 (C1). Staff members clarified that at the time of the incident, S 1 was recovering from an illness that had affected their voice. As a result of this temporary condition, S1 had to speak more loudly than usual to ensure that children could hear them clearly. Staff further acknowledged that S1 is known for having a naturally firm and loud voice; however, they emphasized that this has never been perceived as a cause for concern or interpreted as yelling at children. LPA interviewed S1 regarding the alleged incident. S1 explained that the incident took place outdoors in the play yard, S1 could not recall the date. According to S1, th e facility’s protocol is that children are not permitted to share snacks in order to prevent unintentional allergic reactions, as children may be unaware of other children’s allergies. At that time, C1 w as seated at a table eating a snack. S1 observed C1 sharing their snack with other children. Due to the distance between S1 and C1 and given that S1 was still recovering from voice loss, S1 spoke in a louder tone to instruct C1 to stop sharing their snack. S1 reiterated that the directive was delivered in a firm, but not inappropriate manner and denied yelling at C1 or addressing the child with any form of mal-intent. The Director stated that they were first made aware of the alleged incident by a parent who provided a copy of a Yelp review referencing a staff member allegedly yelling at a child. Following this, the Director held an individual meeting with S1 to discuss the matter. Additionally, the Director conducted a staff meeting in which one of the topics discussed was the importance of tone of voice when interacting with children. The Director provided a copy of the staff meeting agenda, including the signatures of staff members who were in attendance. Additionally, the Director provided documentation of the individual meeting held with S1. The Director later informed LPA that S1 had submitted their resignation. The Director clarified that the resignation was for reasons unrelated to the alleged incident. LPA attempted to interview C1, however the interview could not be conducted as C1 was not very verbal. (Continue to page 3) (Page 3) LPA also attempted to interview five (5) additional children. Of the five, only three children were able to participate in the interview. The children interviewed did not make any disclosures and did not express any concerns regarding staff yelling. Phone interviews were conducted with four (4) parents. Parents interviewed expressed no concerns relating to the alleged incident. Based on LPA's interviews and records reviewed , it has been determined there was no preponderance of evidence supporting facility staff screamed at child in care . 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 found to be Unsubstantiated. Exit interview was conducted with Director Jose M artinez. The Notice of Site Visit was posted and must remain posted for 30 days. Failure to comply with the posting requirements shall result in an immediate civil penalty of $100. End of Report.