376628606-6-23-2026-20-CC-SSIO-DVNPDW-20260704111411

Community Care Licensing

COMPLAINT INVESTIGATION REPORT

Facility Number: 376628606
Report Date: 06/23/2026
Date Signed: 06/23/2026 03:27:28 PM

Unsubstantiated

STATE OF CALIFORNIA - HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY

COMPLAINT INVESTIGATION REPORT

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
COMMUNITY CARE LICENSING DIVISION
SAN DIEGO CC RO, 7575 METROPOLITAN DR., STE 110
SAN DIEGO, CA 92108

This is an official report of an unannounced visit/investigation of a complaint received in our office on
04/13/2026 and conducted by Evaluator Saul Zazueta

PUBLIC

COMPLAINT CONTROL NUMBER: 20-CC-20260413103728

FACILITY NAME:	ROJAS, LETICIA FAMILY CHILD CARE		FACILITY NUMBER:	376628606
ADMINISTRATOR:	LETICIA ROJAS		FACILITY TYPE:	810
ADDRESS:			TELEPHONE:	(619) 392-8015
CITY:	CHULA VISTA	STATE: CA	ZIP CODE:	91910
CAPACITY:	14	CENSUS: 6	DATE:	06/23/2026
		UNANNOUNCED	TIME BEGAN:	02:45 PM
MET WITH:	Leticia Rojas		TIME COMPLETED:	03:30 PM

ALLEGATION(S):

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Licensee did not contact authorized representative about daycare child illness in a timely manner.
Licensee did not pick up day children in a timely manner.
Licensee inappropriately speaks to daycare children.
Licensee inappropriately disciplines daycare children.
Licensee was not present in-home 80 percent of the time.

INVESTIGATION FINDINGS:

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

On 06/23/2026 at 2:45pm Licensing Program Analyst (LPA), Saul Zazueta conducted an unannounced complaint inspection regarding the above allegations. Upon arrival, LPA met with Licensee, Leticia Rojas and discussed the purpose of the inspection, the complaint process and was led on a tour of the facility.

During the course of the investigation, LPA conducted interviews with the licensee, staff, daycare children, and daycare parents. Facility roster and monthly menu plan were obtained and reviewed by LPA.

It was alleged that the licensee did not contact authorized representatives regarding a daycare child’s illness in a timely manner. LPA conducted interviews with the licensee, current and former staff, daycare children, and parents. Staff consistently reported that sick children are not accepted into care or are sent home promptly.Two of five daycare children recalled instances where either they or another child became ill and stated that parents were contacted for pick-up.

Unsubstantiated

Estimated Days of Completion:

SUPERVISORS NAME: Selina Siao
LICENSING EVALUATOR NAME: Saul Zazueta
LICENSING EVALUATOR SIGNATURE:	DATE: 06/23/2026

I acknowledge receipt of this form and understand my licensing appeal rights as explained and received.

FACILITY REPRESENTATIVE SIGNATURE:

DATE: 06/23/2026

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 3

Control Number 20-CC-20260413103728

STATE OF CALIFORNIA - HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY

COMPLAINT INVESTIGATION REPORT (Cont)

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
COMMUNITY CARE LICENSING DIVISION
SAN DIEGO CC RO, 7575 METROPOLITAN DR., STE 110
SAN DIEGO, CA 92108

FACILITY NAME: ROJAS, LETICIA FAMILY CHILD CARE	FACILITY NUMBER: 376628606
	VISIT DATE: 06/23/2026

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

Of the three parents interviewed, two expressed no concerns regarding communication, while one parent reported learning about incidents from their child rather than staff. Based on the information obtained, there is insufficient evidence to substantiate that the licensee failed to notify authorized representatives in a timely manner.

It was alleged that on 3/27/2026, the licensee did not pick up daycare children in a timely manner. LPA conducted interviews with the reporting party (RP), the child involved, other daycare children, and the licensee. The RP stated that the licensee was approximately 10 minutes late picking up their child,Child #1 (C1) after school. The licensee denied the allegation, stating that they were not 10 minutes late in picking up the C1. When interviewed, C1 stated that they waited approximately five minutes before leaving school and walked toward the daycare alone. C1 stated that they met the licensee along the way before reaching the daycare. Although the licensee may have been late, the exact duration could not be verified. There is not enough evidence to determine that the licensee failed to pick up children in a timely manner.

It was alleged that on 3/27/2026, the licensee spoke inappropriately to daycare children. LPA conducted interviews with the RP, the licensee, current and former staff, daycare children, and parents. The RP stated that the licensee yelled at C1 following the incident in which C1 walked to the daycare alone. The licensee denied the allegation, explaining that their voice is stern and may have been misperceived as yelling. When interviewed about the incident, C1 described the licensee as “kind of yelling” and clarified by saying that the licensee had raised their voice. Two other children identified to be present during the incident stated that the licensee did not yell at C1 and added that staff generally do not become upset with children. C1 also stated the licensee does not yell at other children but will raise their voice when children are not listening. No other children, staff, or parents reported concerns about inappropriate communication. There is insufficient evidence to determine if the licensee speaks inappropriately to children.

It was alleged that the licensee inappropriately disciplines daycare children. LPA conducted interviews with the licensee, staff, daycare children, and parents. The licensee and staff reported that time-out is the primary method of discipline used in the home. All five children interviewed confirmed that time-out is the only form of discipline they experience, and none expressed negative feelings toward the licensee or staff. Several children stated that staff make them feel happy. Parent interviews revealed no concerns about staff interactions or disciplinary practices.

SUPERVISORS NAME: Selina Siao
LICENSING EVALUATOR NAME: Saul Zazueta
LICENSING EVALUATOR SIGNATURE:	DATE: 06/23/2026

I acknowledge receipt of this form and understand my licensing appeal rights as explained and received.

FACILITY REPRESENTATIVE SIGNATURE:

DATE: 06/23/2026

LIC9099 (FAS) - (06/04)

Page: 2 of 3

Control Number 20-CC-20260413103728

STATE OF CALIFORNIA - HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY

COMPLAINT INVESTIGATION REPORT (Cont)

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
COMMUNITY CARE LICENSING DIVISION
SAN DIEGO CC RO, 7575 METROPOLITAN DR., STE 110
SAN DIEGO, CA 92108

FACILITY NAME: ROJAS, LETICIA FAMILY CHILD CARE	FACILITY NUMBER: 376628606
	VISIT DATE: 06/23/2026

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

Although the RP alleged that the licensee withholds food as punishment, no evidence was found to support this. There is insufficient evidence to determine if the licensee inappropriately disciplines children.

It was alleged that the licensee was not present in the home at least 80 percent of the time. LPA conducted interviews with the licensee, staff, daycare children, and parents. Interviews indicated that the licensee occasionally leaves the facility for medical appointments or errands but does not remain away for extended periods. All children interviewed identified the licensee as one of three staff consistently present. Parents also reported seeing the licensee during drop-off and pick-up times. While this does not conclusively verify that the licensee is present more than 80 percent of the time, there was no information that suggested they are gone for long periods of time. There is insufficient evidence to determine if the licensee is not present the required amount of time.

Based on interviews and records reviewed, LPA received conflicting information and was unable to determine, whether or not the allegations happened. Although the allegations may have happened or are valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violations did or did not occur, therefore the allegations are UNSUBSTANTIATED.

Exit interview was conducted and this report was reviewed with Licensee, Leticia Rojas. A Notice of Site Visit was provided and must remain posted for 30 days.

SUPERVISORS NAME: Selina Siao
LICENSING EVALUATOR NAME: Saul Zazueta
LICENSING EVALUATOR SIGNATURE:	DATE: 06/23/2026

I acknowledge receipt of this form and understand my licensing appeal rights as explained and received.

FACILITY REPRESENTATIVE SIGNATURE:

DATE: 06/23/2026

LIC9099 (FAS) - (06/04)

Page: 3 of 3