Complaint Investigation Report

Records and interviews showed: C1 alleged that C2 had previously touched C1’s arm, hand, and/or leg in the classroom setting. C1 then alleged that during late July 2025, C2 used their hands to touch C1’s chest and genitals underneath their clothing, and that this occurred inside a bathroom stall of the day program’s public restroom. Upon later learning of the allegations from San Diego Regional Center (SDRC), Licensee conducted a timely and thorough investigation, which found no corroborating evidence.

CCLD’s own independent investigation of the alleged incidents did not yield evidence to corroborate that they occurred. C1 told LPA that they did not alert any day program staff on the dates of the alleged incidents, either to ask for help or to tell staff to what happened to them. C1 said there were no witnesses to the restroom touching. C2 denied the allegations, saying they neither touched nor spoke to C1 in the restroom. C2 claimed Clients #3 (C3) and Clients #4 (C4) were in the restroom and could corroborate that nothing inappropriate occurred. LPA interviewed C3, who denied seeing touching between C1 and C2 in the restroom. LPA interviewed C4 and determined that they were not able to be a reliable witness in this case. Staff unanimously reported seeing no instances of inappropriate touching in the classroom setting and having no knowledge to suggest inappropriate touching occurred in the restroom.

Records and interviews clearly showed that C1 and C2 were each ambulatory and able to successfully toilet themselves. C1 and C2 thus typically required no staff assistance/escorts to the restroom. In an abundance of caution, following receipt of the allegations, Licensee amended staff-client assignments to ensure that C1 and C2 were assigned to different classroom groups/cohorts. Licensee also started having a staff person post up in the public restroom during the transition periods to and from lunch every day.

Based on records and interviews, there does not exist a preponderance of evidence to establish that the alleged incidents against C1 occurred. Even if touching did occur in the restroom, there does not exist a preponderance of evidence to prove there was inadequate staff supervision in that setting, during the complaint time frame. The allegation is therefore Unsubstantiated, and no deficiency was cited for it.

An exit interview was conducted with Program Administrator Susana Levack, to whom a copy of this report and the Licensee/Appeal Rights (LIC9058 03/22) were provided.