In order for there to be a question of borer, there has to be a basic level of ta’arovet,[1] from within which one wants to choose between different types. Is this condition fulfilled here? In defining a ta’arovet, even relatively large objects, such as different pieces of fish on a platter, can be considered intermingled and subject to the laws of borer if they are not separate enough from each other.[2] While it is not always easy to determine to what degree items must be separate, a typical platter of candies is very likely a ta’arovet.
Let us now consider another factor that can eliminate the issue of borer: the lack of contrast between the items. According to the great majority of poskim,[3] prohibited borer pertains only when at least two different types of objects are intermingled. If there is only one type and a person wants some of it now and some later, the laws of borer do not apply.[4] In your case, there was only one type of candy in the ta’arovet, and you might thus claim that borer was not relevant.
However, even when there is only one type present, if some of the objects are considered pesolet (undesired objects), borer applies to them. Accordingly, the Rama[5] rules that it is forbidden to remove spoiled vegetable leaves (pesolet) from among good leaves of the same type. The Magen Avraham[6] identifies several gradations in the matter. If the pesolet is inedible, there can be Torah-level borer when the proper procedure is not followed. If the pesolet is edible but not readily so, it is only Rabbinic-level borer. If the food is totally edible, but some pieces are less desirable than others, there is no borer in selecting among the more and less desired items of the same type.[7]
If the laws of borer indeed apply to your case (i.e., the licked candy was pesolet), you had a problem that needed to be solved, as one may not take out the undesired from the desired[8] – which is what you did. Under what circumstances would the candy have been, or not been, considered pesolet?
If your daughter were to have removed the licked candy from the platter herself and she could have eaten it (even if in the end she did not), we could argue that from her perspective, it was a totally edible piece of candy, and there was thus no issue of borer. Moreover, you could have taken out the candy in order to give it to your daughter to eat, even if you personally would not eat it after it was licked.[9] However, the fact that something is edible for one person does not lessen the borer problem when the selection is performed by and on behalf of one for whom it is not edible.[10]
If, as it sounds from your question, you did not want to let your daughter eat the candy, what could you have done? Even when one ideally prefers not to use something, he may take it out to use it due to the particular circumstances. For example, one may remove a bone from fish if he sucks the bone before throwing it out; it is not required for him to be enthusiastic about sucking fish bones.[11] Therefore, you could have taken out the candy and eaten it yourself. Even if you would not have eaten the candy as it was, you could have taken it out, washed it, and then eaten it soon thereafter.
According to the consensus of authorities, you also could have taken out a group of several candies, including the licked one. This is based on the Taz,[12] who says that one may remove a fly from a drink if he also removes some of the drink along with it.[13]