complaint·February 13, 2026

Page 2 The Orange County Childcare Office received a complaint on 12/26/2025, with six allegations (1) Staff did not assist day care child with toileting, (2) Staff spoke inappropriately to a day care child, (3) Staff did not provide adequate supervision, resulting in unexplained injuries to a day care child, (4) Staff did not call a day care child by her name, and (5) Staff do not ensure children's belongings are kept clean and sanitary. During the investigation LPA interviewed the Reporting Party (RP) three staff, interviewed three parents, reviewed Incident/Accident Reports, reviewed Health Checklist, and Biting Report. Reporting Party (RP) alleges Staff did not assist day care child with toileting. RP stated child #1 (C1) had two accidents while at school. RP stated staff were reminded to give C1 reminders to use the restroom. RP mentioned not knowing the names of the staff that were reminded to give C1 reminders. On 12/30/2025 LPA interviewed three staff. One staff member stated they were informed to give C1 reminders after C1 had accidents. Another staff member stated they were not informed to give C1 reminders to use the restroom. On 02/06/2026, LPA contacted 11 parents via phone call. Out of 11 parents called, LPA was able to interview three parents. Parents interviewed did not divulge any information pertaining to the allegation, staff did not assist day care child with toileting. Based on the information gathered during interviews with RP, staff, and parents, there is not enough preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation did or did not occur. Reporting Party (RP) alleges Staff spoke inappropriately to a day care child. RP mentioned while having a conversation with staff #1 (S1) while C1 was present, the conversation was not positive. RP stated C1 was asked a question by S1 that was inappropriate. RP stated there were no witnesses to the conversation. On 12/30/2025 LPA interviewed S1. S1 stated there was never an inappropriate conversation. On 02/06/2026, LPA contacted 11 parents via phone call. Out of 11 parents called, LPA was able to interview three parents. Parents interviewed did not divulge any information pertaining to the allegation, Staff spoke inappropriately to a day care child. Based on the information gathered during interviews with RP, S1, and parents, there is not enough preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation did or did not occur. Continue to page 3 Page 3 Reporting Party (RP) alleges Staff did not provide adequate supervision, resulting in unexplained injuries to a day care child. RP stated child #2 (C2) has been bit twice. RP stated the bite did not break skin. On 12/30/2025, LPA reviewed the Biting Report provided by the child care center. The Biting Report reads “no broken Skin.” The Biting Report also gives an explanation as to when the biting occurred and how the biting occurred. The Biting Report mentioned children were separated immediately. The Biting Report was signed by both the teacher and family member of C2. On 02/06/2026, LPA contacted 11 parents via phone call. Staff stated they were in ratio when the incident happened. Out of 11 parents called, LPA was able to interview three parents. Parents interviewed did not divulge any information pertaining to the allegation, Staff did not provide adequate supervision, resulting in unexplained injuries to a day care child. Based on the information gathered during interviews with RP, S1, and parents, there is not enough preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation did or did not occur. Reporting Party (RP) alleges Staff did not call a day care child by her name. RP stated staff has been asked twice to call C1 by their full name and to not use nicknames. On 12/30/2025 LPA interviewed three. One staff mentioned staff were informed to call C1 by their full name. All three staff interviewed mentioned that since they were informed to call C1 by their full name, they’ve done so. LPA contacted 11 parents via phone call. Out of 11 parents called, LPA was able to interview three parents. Parents interviewed did not divulge any information pertaining to the allegation, Staff did not call a day care child by her name . Based on the information gathered during interviews with RP, staff, and parents, there is not enough preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation did or did not occur. Reporting Party (RP) alleges Staff do not ensure children's belongings are kept clean and sanitary. During staff interviews, staff mentioned there is a washer and dryer present inside the staff lounge. Staff mentioned if children forget their bedding, extra bedding is available and washed daily. Staff also mentioned children clothing is sometimes washed if the children have accidents. LPA contacted 11 parents via phone call. Out of 11 parents called, LPA was able to interview three parents. Parents interviewed did not divulge any information pertaining to the allegation, Staff do not ensure children's belongings are kept clean and sanitary. Based on the information gathered during interviews with RP, staff, and parents, there is not enough preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation did or did not occur. Continue page 4 Page 4 Children were not interviewed during this investigation. Based on LPA observation, documentation reviewed, interviews with RP, staff and parents, there was not enough evidence to substantiate the allegations. The Orange County Childcare Office has investigated the complaint alleging (1) Staff did not assist day care child with toileting, (2) Staff spoke inappropriately to a day care child, (3) Staff did not provide adequate supervision, resulting in unexplained injuries to a day care child, (4) Staff did not call a day care child by her name, and (5) Staff do not ensure children's belongings are kept clean and sanitary: although the allegations may have happened or is valid, there is not enough preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violations did or did not occur, therefore the allegation are UNSUBSTANTIATED. In the areas that were evaluated, no deficiencies were observed of the California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 12 at the time of the visit. A notice of site visit was given and must remain posted for 30 days. Exit interview conducted and report was reviewed with Director Elaina Estrada.