<meta name="robots" content="noindex">
Department of
SOCIAL SERVICES

Community Care Licensing


COMPLAINT INVESTIGATION REPORT

Facility Number: 304310410
Report Date: 02/05/2025
Date Signed: 02/05/2025 11:09:04 AM

Unsubstantiated


STATE OF CALIFORNIA - HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY

COMPLAINT INVESTIGATION REPORT		CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
COMMUNITY CARE LICENSING DIVISION
ORANGE COUNTY CC RO, 750 THE CITY DRIVE, SUITE 250
ORANGE, CA 92868
This is an official report of an unannounced visit/investigation of a complaint received in our office on
09/26/2024 and conducted by Evaluator Archibaldo Silva
COMPLAINT CONTROL NUMBER: 06-CC-20240926091503
FACILITY NAME:LUPERCIO, GUADALUPEFACILITY NUMBER:
304310410
ADMINISTRATOR:LUPERCIO, GUADALUPEFACILITY TYPE:
810
ADDRESS:TELEPHONE:
(714) 641-4756
CITY:SANTA ANASTATE: CAZIP CODE:
92707
CAPACITY:14CENSUS: 6DATE:
02/05/2025
UNANNOUNCEDTIME BEGAN:
08:30 AM
MET WITH:Guadalupe LupercioTIME COMPLETED:
11:15 AM
ALLEGATION(S):
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
A daycare child was touched inappropriately while in care.
INVESTIGATION FINDINGS:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
On 2/5/2025 Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) A. Silva conducted an unannounced complaint investigation. This is a continuation of the investigation initiated on 9/27/2024. Upon arrival, the LPA met with Licensee Guadalupe Lupercio and informed Licensee of the purpose of the visit. A review of the Facility Personnel Report Summary shows all facility staff or individuals who require caregiver background checks have received a criminal record clearance and a child abuse index clearance or an exemption clearance. The census at the time of the visit was six children, including three infants.

The Department received a complaint on 9/26/2024 alleging a daycare child was touched inappropriately while in care. The Reporting Party (RP) stated that Child #1 (C1) disclosed to Parent #1 (P1) that a daycare adult staff touched C1 inappropriately. Per RP, an investigation was conducted, no arrests were made, and the results of a forensic exam were pending.

Continue on Page 2.
Unsubstantiated
Estimated Days of Completion:
SUPERVISORS NAME: Thuy Ho
LICENSING EVALUATOR NAME: Archibaldo Silva
LICENSING EVALUATOR SIGNATURE:

DATE: 02/05/2025
I acknowledge receipt of this form and understand my licensing appeal rights as explained and received.
FACILITY REPRESENTATIVE SIGNATURE:

DATE: 02/05/2025
This report must be available at Child Care and Group Home facilities for public review for 3 years.
LIC9099 (FAS) - (06/04)
Page: 1 of 5
Control Number 06-CC-20240926091503
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY

COMPLAINT INVESTIGATION REPORT (Cont)		CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
COMMUNITY CARE LICENSING DIVISION
ORANGE COUNTY CC RO, 750 THE CITY DRIVE, SUITE 250
ORANGE, CA 92868
FACILITY NAME: LUPERCIO, GUADALUPE
FACILITY NUMBER: 304310410
VISIT DATE: 02/05/2025
NARRATIVE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Page 2

On 09/27/2024, the LPA interviewed the complainant. The complainant stated that on 8/29/24 C1 disclosed they were touched inappropriately. The complainant said that prior to the initial disclosure, C1 exhibited changes in behavior unusual for a child C1’s age. The complainant added that on 8/30/24 they took C1 to the doctor because C1 said they had been touched on the genitals.



On 9/27/2024, the LPA interviewed Staff #1 (S1) and Staff #2 (S2) at the family daycare. S1 stated that male staff do not change diapers or take children to the restroom. S1 said that none of the staff help children clean their genitals when they use the restroom because the children who are potty-trained know how to wipe themselves clean. When asked about children who have restroom accidents, S1 said, “We don’t touch their private parts. If they have an accident, we help them change. We remove their soiled clothing and change them after cleaning them. We use gloves to clean them.” S1 claimed that S2 was out on August 27 and 28, when the incident allegedly happened. S1 disclosed that on August 25 and 26, “We noticed C1 had diarrhea because C1 went to the restroom multiple times and flushed the toilet.” S1 added that although C1 had diarrhea on August 25 and 26, no one helped C1 wipe after using the restroom. S1 disclosed that S2 helps with care and supervision and S2 sometimes receives the children in the morning, and added, "but I'm always here." S1 denied the allegation was true.

Interview with Staff #2 (S2). LPA asked, do you know why I’m here today? S2 replied, “Yes, for the complaint about C1.” LPA asked, tell me about that. S2 said, “I told the cops and the social worker that this didn’t happen here. I don’t take C1 to the restroom.” LPA asked, what happened with C1? S2 said, “Nothing happened.” S2 explained that they remembered the previous allegation and that nothing happened before, and nothing happened about the current complaint. When asked direct questions about the allegation, S2 said they understood the allegation and the seriousness of the situation and denied that S2 touched C1 inappropriately saying “Nothing has happened here.” S2 denied the allegation was true.

Interview with Staff #3 (S3). LPA interviewed S3 on 11/19/24. When asked about the allegation, S3 denied the allegation was true and added that they “do not know” why the allegation was made and said, “I don’t believe that has ever happened.” S3 said that to the best of their knowledge, no child has been touched inappropriately in the daycare.

Continue on Page 3.

SUPERVISORS NAME: Thuy Ho
LICENSING EVALUATOR NAME: Archibaldo Silva
LICENSING EVALUATOR SIGNATURE:

DATE: 02/05/2025
I acknowledge receipt of this form and understand my licensing appeal rights as explained and received.
FACILITY REPRESENTATIVE SIGNATURE:

DATE: 02/05/2025
LIC9099 (FAS) - (06/04)
Page: 2 of 5
Control Number 06-CC-20240926091503
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY

COMPLAINT INVESTIGATION REPORT (Cont)		CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
COMMUNITY CARE LICENSING DIVISION
ORANGE COUNTY CC RO, 750 THE CITY DRIVE, SUITE 250
ORANGE, CA 92868
FACILITY NAME: LUPERCIO, GUADALUPE
FACILITY NUMBER: 304310410
VISIT DATE: 02/05/2025
NARRATIVE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Page 3

Interview with Staff #4 (S4). LPA interviewed S4 on 11/19/24. S4 said “I come in to work at around 8:30 AM to 9:00 AM. The people who are here in the morning before I arrive are S1, S2, and S3, before I come in. S2 leaves for work when I come in.” S4 added, “When I was present, C1 was not alone. C1 was with S1 or with me.” S4 explained that C1 used to arrive at the daycare between 6:00 AM to 6:30 AM. S4 continued, “Around August 28, S2 left as soon as I came in. I come in later because I have my own three children that I take to school.” S4 stated that they did not witness anything unusual or anything that would give the impression that S2 or another daycare staff touched C1 inappropriately.



On 9/27/2024, the LPA attempted to interview the seven children who were present at the daycare. Children C10, and C16 qualified for the interview. C10 identified S1, S2, S3, and S4 as the teachers. Child C10 disclosed that S2 watches movies with C10 and the other children. Child C16 identified S1, S2, and S3 by nickname. C16 disclosed that S1 and S2 pick up C16 and other children from school and explained that S2 picks them up most of the time. C16 said that when S2 picks them up from school, they “sit in the car and talk about stuff” while waiting for other children to come out. C10 and C16 did not provide any information that could help corroborate or dismiss the allegation. The rest of the children present did not qualify for an interview or were not interviewed because they were non-verbal due to their young age.

On 11/26/2024, the LPA called seven parents for an interview. The LPA reached and interviewed six parents. The parents interviewed provided positive feedback about the daycare and the staff. Some parents were aware of the ongoing investigation and expressed they had only positive or neutral things to say about the staff at the daycare. The rest of the parents could not be reached or did not respond to the Department's request for an interview.

Continue on Page 4
SUPERVISORS NAME: Thuy Ho
LICENSING EVALUATOR NAME: Archibaldo Silva
LICENSING EVALUATOR SIGNATURE:

DATE: 02/05/2025
I acknowledge receipt of this form and understand my licensing appeal rights as explained and received.
FACILITY REPRESENTATIVE SIGNATURE:

DATE: 02/05/2025
LIC9099 (FAS) - (06/04)
Page: 3 of 5
Control Number 06-CC-20240926091503
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY

COMPLAINT INVESTIGATION REPORT (Cont)		CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
COMMUNITY CARE LICENSING DIVISION
ORANGE COUNTY CC RO, 750 THE CITY DRIVE, SUITE 250
ORANGE, CA 92868
FACILITY NAME: LUPERCIO, GUADALUPE
FACILITY NUMBER: 304310410
VISIT DATE: 02/05/2025
NARRATIVE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Page 4

On 12/31/2024, the LPA interviewed a Senior Social Worker (SSW) assigned to the case. The SSW stated that the case was determined to be inconclusive because there was no evidence to substantiate the allegation.



On 9/27/2024, the licensee provided video footage from surveillance cameras installed in the front of the home. Upon review, the LPA observed the footage is dated 9/6/2024. The footage did not provide any information that could help corroborate or dismiss the allegation.

On 9/27/24, LPA obtained attendance sheets showing that Child 1 (C1) arrived before 7 AM on 7 days out of 21 days C1 attended the daycare in August 2024. The rest of the children who had an attendance sheet regularly arrived at around 7 AM or later, with few exceptions.

On 9/26/2024, the LPA received a copy of the local law enforcement report about the allegation. The report shows that law enforcement agency interviewed C1 on 8/31/24, during which the child stated “they did not know” if they had been touched inappropriately. On 9/2/24, C1 was interviewed by an Orange County Social Worker. Although the Social Worker was unable to qualify the child, the interview was still conducted and C1 disclosed that S2 touched their genitals in the classroom. The report states that C1 “initially said there were other kids but then stated [he/she] was alone.” On 9/03/24, a Forensic Senior Social Worker conducted a CAST forensic interview with C1, during which C1 responded “S4 takes me” when asked who takes you to the restroom. According to the report, C1 “seemed distracted. On multiple occasions, C1 got up from the couch and walked away around the room.” At the end of the CAST interview, S2’s photo ID was presented to C1 and C1 did not recognize S2.

The report also shows that on 9/03/24 law enforcement agency interviewed daycare staff S1, S2, S3, and S4 at the daycare. During the interviews, all four staff provided similar accounts of restroom usage at the daycare. All staff indicated that only S1 and S4 assisted children in the restroom, that potty-trained children entered the restroom alone, and that staff supervised the children from outside the restroom while the children used the restroom. S2 denied the allegation was true during the interview with law enforcement.

Continue on Page 5.

SUPERVISORS NAME: Thuy Ho
LICENSING EVALUATOR NAME: Archibaldo Silva
LICENSING EVALUATOR SIGNATURE:

DATE: 02/05/2025
I acknowledge receipt of this form and understand my licensing appeal rights as explained and received.
FACILITY REPRESENTATIVE SIGNATURE:

DATE: 02/05/2025
LIC9099 (FAS) - (06/04)
Page: 4 of 5
Control Number 06-CC-20240926091503
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY

COMPLAINT INVESTIGATION REPORT (Cont)		CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
COMMUNITY CARE LICENSING DIVISION
ORANGE COUNTY CC RO, 750 THE CITY DRIVE, SUITE 250
ORANGE, CA 92868
FACILITY NAME: LUPERCIO, GUADALUPE
FACILITY NUMBER: 304310410
VISIT DATE: 02/05/2025
NARRATIVE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Page 5.

The law enforcement agency reports concluded that because C1 did not provide a statement that S2 touched C1 during the forensic interview; all day care staff stated S1 and S4 take the children to the restroom; and there were no initial, abnormal findings reported by doctors at AltaMed or CHOC, there is no evidence or additional information indicating that a crime occurred, the case investigation will be classified as Inactive pending laboratory results. The case was also presented to the District Attorney and received a recommendation of documentation only.

On 1/24/24, the LPA received medical records from the initial examination. The examining physician could not determine whether C1 was touched inappropriately. The child was referred to a second examination. On 12/5/2024, the LPA received medical records documenting a second examination of C1 by a physician. Based on the medical records, the examining physician did not find abnormalities during the examination of C1.

On 1/8/2025, the LPA received an allegation investigation report from the County’s child protective services. The report concludes that “the allegation by S2 was determined to be inconclusive.” The determination was reached based on the statements by C1, the statements by S2, and the medical examination results, and because C1 “was unable to be qualified and did not make any disclosures” regarding the allegation. Per the report, “there is insufficient evidence to determine S2 sexually abused [C1] while at daycare.”



Based on the interviews conducted by the LPA, the interviews conducted by the law enforcement agency, the interviews conducted by the County’s child welfare agency, and the records reviewed, the preponderance of evidence standard has not been met. Although the allegation that a daycare child was touched inappropriately while in care 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 with Guadalupe Lupercio. The Notice of Site Visit was posted during the visit. The director was informed that the Notice of Site Visit must be posted for 30 consecutive days. Failure to post will result in civil penalties of $100. The director was provided a copy of their appeal rights (LIC 9058 01/16) and their signature on this form acknowledges receipt of these rights. First-level appeals should be sent to the regional manager to the address listed above. END.
SUPERVISORS NAME: Thuy Ho
LICENSING EVALUATOR NAME: Archibaldo Silva
LICENSING EVALUATOR SIGNATURE:

DATE: 02/05/2025
I acknowledge receipt of this form and understand my licensing appeal rights as explained and received.
FACILITY REPRESENTATIVE SIGNATURE:

DATE: 02/05/2025
LIC9099 (FAS) - (06/04)
Page: 5 of 5