complaint·April 14, 2026

Three staff (S1-S3) were interviewed on 3/10/26 and 3/16/26. S1 stated they were sitting on the edge of the playground with the slide to her left. S1 stated she was busy watching other children, and next thing she knew, C1 was on the ground. C1 did not cry or show signs of distress, so their parent was not contacted. S1 stated she watched surveillance video of the incident and acknowledged she should have gotten there sooner, but denied using her cell phone. S2 recalled a time when C1 fell, but didn’t remember any further details and didn’t observe it happen. S3 stated that she was sitting near S1 and may have been using her phone for dictating notes, and acknowledged more active monitoring of the situation might have helped prevent the injury. Four children (C1-C4) were interviewed 3/10/26. C1 stated that another child (C2) pushed C1 down on the playground, and the teacher ignored C1 when they said they were hurt. C1 said that the teacher was watching her phone and didn’t see me. C3 stated they have witnessed staff on their phone in the classroom. C4 stated they had witnessed staff on their phones on the playground. Three parents (P1-P3) were interviewed on 3/9/26. One parent stated that staff do not pay enough attention to children, and they have observed staff talking on the playground instead of watching the children. On 12/10/25, hospital records related to C1’s injury were received and reviewed. On 3/5/26 facility records, children’s records, and additional medical records related to C1’s injury were received and reviewed. On 3/12/26, copies of the surveillance camera footage were received showing footage from the outdoor play area on 1/28/25. The footage shows the playground over a period of approximately 48 minutes from two camera angles. S1 and S3 are both seen sitting near each other on the playground and taking out devices that appeared to be cell phones several times. When the incident occurs, C1 is seen on the slide with C2 behind them. C1 goes down the slide and falls off near the bottom landing on the bark. S1 and S3 do not seem to react, and S2 is on the opposite side of the play structure with no clear line of sight. C1 is on the ground for a few minutes before getting up and walking over to S1 and S3. Based on the evidence obtained, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met, therefore the above allegation is found to be substantiated. California Code of Regulations, (Title 22) 101229(a)(1), is being cited on the attached LIC 9099D: No child(ren) shall be left without the supervision of a teacher at any time. LPA Emily Curiel informed facility representative Fawn Uberschaer that this report dated 4/14/26 documents one Type A citation which shall be posted for 30 consecutive days as there is an immediate risk to the health, safety, or personal rights of children in care. Also, LPA Emily Curiel informed the facility representative to provide a copy of this licensing report dated 4/14/26 that documents any Type A citation(s) to parents/guardians of all children currently enrolled by the next business day or the next day the children are in care, and to any newly enrolled parents/guardians for 12 months from the date of this report. A signed Acknowledgement of Receipt of Licensing Report (LIC 9224), or other written statement, must be placed in the child's file for verification. Exit interview conducted and report was reviewed with the facility representative Fawn Ueberschaer. Appeal rights were provided. A notice of site visit was given and must remain posted for 30 days. Failure to comply with posting requirements shall result in an immediate civil penalty of $100.