Troy May Elaine Cohn’s parents say their baby was left alone with a teenager who is now charged with murder.
CLAREMONT, Calif. — The parents of a 4-month-old girl who died after being injured at a Claremont home daycare say the criminal case against a 17-year-old boy answers only one of the questions surrounding their daughter’s death.
Jasmyne Cohn and Anthony Owens want to know why their daughter, Troy May Elaine Cohn, was allegedly left without an adult beside her and how a teenager came to be alone with an infant in a child care setting. The parents have accused the daycare of negligence and called for accountability beyond the murder charge filed against the boy. Authorities have not confirmed their supervision account, and no public agency finding has established that the provider violated child care rules.
Cohn was at work June 29 when she was told to go to a hospital, according to interviews she gave after Troy’s death. She said she arrived to find that her daughter had suffered grave injuries. Cohn later described bruising and a fractured head, details that have not been independently confirmed through a publicly released autopsy or medical report. Her daughter was taken from Pomona Valley Hospital Medical Center to Children’s Hospital of Orange County, where she died.
The family’s account begins with an ordinary child care decision and ends with questions that remain unanswered a month later. Cohn and Owens had placed Troy at Middleton Family Child Care, a program operating from a house on Lynoak Drive. They said they believed the home was meant to care for young children and did not expect their baby to be left with a 17-year-old. They have not said they were warned that the teenager might supervise, handle or be alone with children.
Police have released a narrower account. Officers were called to the 1400 block of Lynoak Drive at about 11:38 a.m. for what was initially reported as a medical emergency. Once there, investigators determined that an infant had been thrown to the floor by a juvenile, the Claremont Police Department said. Firefighters transported Troy for emergency treatment, and officers arrested the juvenile at the residence. The department has not described the moments leading up to the alleged act.
That gap is central to the family’s concern. Police have not said whether a licensed provider was in another room, had left the property or believed someone else was watching the children. They have not said how many children were present or whether any adult witnessed what happened. No public statement identifies the teenager’s relationship to the operator, explains why he was at the home or states whether he had permission to participate in child care. Those missing facts prevent a complete assessment of the daycare’s role.
Public state records identify Middleton Family Child Care as a licensed family day care home and list a maximum capacity of 14 children. Family child care differs from a larger commercial center because the provider operates from a residence, where household members may also live or spend time. California licensing guidance tells prospective providers that people in the home must meet applicable requirements, including background-check rules in certain circumstances. The available record does not show that the teenager’s mere presence at the house was unlawful.
The more specific issue is supervision. California’s Community Care Licensing Division describes the protection of people in community care as its central mission, and state training materials call supervision a primary responsibility of family child care providers. Whether those standards were violated on June 29 cannot be decided from the family’s interviews alone. A licensing agency would need to establish who was responsible for Troy, where that person was and what occurred before police arrived. No completed administrative report on the death was found among the public sources reviewed.
Cohn has said the accused teenager should not have been in a position where he could be alone with children. News reports have described him as a 17-year-old boy with autism, based on KTLA’s reporting. Police did not mention a diagnosis in their releases. Autism does not itself establish violent behavior, diminished responsibility or an inability to be near children. The relevant unanswered questions concern the individual teenager’s needs, conduct and supervision, none of which can be determined from a diagnostic label.
The parents’ criticism of the daycare is separate from the allegation prosecutors filed against the teenager. On July 1, police sent their homicide investigation to the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office. Prosecutors then charged the boy with one count of murder. He was arraigned the next day at Pomona Superior Court and remained in custody as the matter moved into the juvenile system. He has not been convicted, and the government’s evidence has not been made public.
The murder count alleges individual criminal responsibility. It does not decide whether an adult failed to supervise Troy, whether a license should be suspended or whether the family could bring a civil claim. Criminal, administrative and civil proceedings use different standards and can reach different issues. So far, authorities have not announced a criminal charge against the daycare operator or any other adult connected with the home. No civil lawsuit identified in the reviewed sources has produced findings about negligence.
Changes at the Lynoak Drive property have added to the uncertainty. The Claremont Courier reported in early July that the house appeared vacant and was being offered for lease. A commercial broker said the tenant who operated the licensed daycare had been given notice to leave. The newspaper also reported that security cameras previously seen at the home were removed and that toys and child care supplies had been placed outside near a memorial. Those observations do not establish who controlled any recordings or whether relevant video exists. The daycare’s former tenants declined to be interviewed by the Courier. That has left the parents’ allegations without a detailed public response from the operator. It is not known whether the provider disputes that Troy was left alone, whether an adult was nearby or whether the teenager acted without warning. The absence of a public response should not be treated as an admission. It does, however, leave the central supervision dispute unresolved in the public record.
Troy’s name became public when police identified her in their July 2 update. A family fundraiser described her death as a devastating loss and sought money for funeral and legal expenses. Flowers and children’s items later appeared outside the daycare home. Those signs of grief contrasted with the limited official description of the child, whose life lasted four months and whose death is now discussed largely through a criminal case number and disputes about who was watching her.
The teenager returned to court July 17, but the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office released little information because he is a minor. California juvenile case files are generally confidential, limiting access to evidence, evaluations and hearing documents. That confidentiality serves legal protections for young people, but it also means Troy’s parents and the public may receive fewer immediate details than they would in a typical adult murder case.
The secrecy surrounding the juvenile proceeding does not prevent police or licensing officials from releasing separate investigative findings when legally permitted. Claremont police have said their investigation remains open and have requested information from potential witnesses. The department has not announced whether it is examining the conduct of daycare staff as a separate matter. State regulators have not publicly explained whether the license remains active or whether an enforcement action is pending.
For Cohn and Owens, the unanswered issue is not limited to what the teenager allegedly did. Their public statements focus on the chain of adult decisions that they believe placed Troy in danger before police and paramedics arrived. Until investigators establish who was responsible for watching the infant and why the teenager had access to her, the family’s broader demand for accountability will remain separate from the murder allegation now moving through juvenile court.
Author note: Last updated July 31, 2026.