Complaint·May 15, 2026

It was reported that concerns existed regarding increased tuition following the family’s return from an extended absence, and that requests for policy clarification and updated admission agreement documentation were not adequately addressed. Concerns were also raised that fees were being charged inconsistently with prior agreements and that updated contractual documentation was delayed. Facility staff interviews disclosed that updated pricing adjustments were implemented facility-wide and that all families were required to sign revised admission and enrollment documentation reflecting updated rates. Facility staff stated that updated registration documents were provided in advance of the family’s return from extended absence and that enrollment could not resume until revised documents were signed. Facility staff additionally stated that the family declined to sign updated documentation and subsequently chose to disenroll. Records reviewed included multiple enrollment-related documents signed at various points during enrollment, including original admission paperwork, handbook acknowledgments, updated registration forms, and internal policy documentation related to vacation holds, tuition adjustments, and re-enrollment requirements. Facility staff stated that the disputed fees were consistent with updated pricing structures and standard policy, and that no unauthorized charges were assessed outside of facility policy. It was further stated that fee disputes centered on disagreement regarding policy interpretation rather than undocumented or hidden charges. Documentation reviewed confirmed that contractual and enrollment-related paperwork was maintained by the facility; however, conflicting information remained regarding, timing of policy communication, and interpretation of updated fee implementation. Due to conflicting information, it is determined there was not sufficient information evident to support the allegation that facility staff charged fees not listed in the preschool child’s admission agreement or failed to provide an admission agreement to the authorized representative in a timely manner. Continued on LIC 9099-C. Based on information obtained during interviews and records reviewed, it is determined that the allegation could not be substantiated or dismissed. 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. An exit interview was conducted and report was reviewed with Director Claudia Gonzalez. A notice of site visit was given and must remain posted on, or immediately adjacent to, the interior side of the main door for 30 days. Failure to comply with posting requirements shall result in an immediate civil penalty of $100.