The Issue Whether the Respondent committed an act of violence or used force on any person except in the lawful protection of one's self or another from physical harm and, therefore, should have his license renewal as a Class "D" Security Officer denied pursuant to Section 493.6118(1)(j) and (2), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Michael S. Snow, was at all times relevant to these proceedings a licensed Class "D" Security Officer. The Respondent is the agency that licenses and regulates security officers pursuant to Chapter 493, Florida Statutes. On or about April 12, 2003, the Petitioner filed an application to renew his license as a Class "D" Security Officer. The Respondent advised the Petitioner by letter of its intent to deny his application; the Petitioner requested a hearing; and these proceedings ensued. Subsequently, the Respondent amended its letter of denial, and the letter of August 14, 2003, (Second Amended Administrative Denial of License), constitutes the charging document. That letter states that the application is denied because of the applicant's failure to qualify under Section 493.6118(1)(j), Florida Statutes, because the applicant committed an act of violence or used force on another person that was not for the lawful protection of himself or another. At the hearing, Union County Deputy Sheriff Terry Cranford was called to testify. Deputy Cranford identified an affidavit that he had prepared on November 24, 2002, in relation to an investigation in which the Petitioner was the alleged perpetrator of abuse of an 18-month old child. The affidavit, Respondent's Exhibit numbered 1, was prepared by the deputy after he had interviewed various witnesses in the case; however, the deputy did not observe any of the alleged conduct. The deputy did observe the child on November 22, 2002, during the course of his investigation. The alleged incident, which involved the Petitioner striking the child in the face, took place on November 21, 2002, some 24 hours earlier. The deputy did not mention in his affidavit any injuries he observed. The deputy did not testify at hearing to any injuries to the child. The deputy stated that the child was too young to provide any information on the incident. The deputy's investigative focus at the time he prepared the affidavit was on the mother of the child and another relative. He did not interview the Petitioner. All the information that he obtained about the Petitioner's involvement was through the Child Protective Investigator, Ms. Joiner. The Respondent called Janice Joiner, an investigator with the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), who testified regarding her investigation of the incident. Like the deputy, above, Ms Joiner did not observe the incident. It is clear from her testimony and that of the child's mother, that the child's natural father reported the incident. He picked up the child from the daycare on the afternoon of November 21, 2002, and raised questions about the red handprint on the child's face. As a result of the investigation, DCFS initiated a dependency action, which precluded with the right of the child's mother to have custody of the child during the investigation, legal proceedings, and subsequent mediation between attorneys representing the child's mother and father. As a result of the investigation initiated by the child's father, his ex-wife, the child's mother, had to agree to end her relationship with the Petitioner. Ms. Joiner testified regarding what the Petitioner told her. He admitted he struck the child while putting the child in his car seat, when the child grabbed his uniform epaulet and would not let go. Ms. Joiner opined that this was abusive, and stated that the doctor who examined the child said it was abusive. Ms. Joiner did not state upon what information she based this opinion. She mentioned the handprint she saw on the day following the incident, which she described as faint. The Petitioner entered pretrial intervention on the charges brought against him, and successfully completed the program which called for him, to among other things, attend parenting and anger management classes. He was never tried; has never plead or been found guilt of any offense related to this incident; and his civil rights were never affected.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department issue the Petitioner a Class D Security Officer's license. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of May, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STEPHEN F. DEAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of May, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael S. Snow Post Office Box 1131 MacClenny, Florida 32063 Michael T. McGuckin, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Division of Licensing Post Office Box 6687 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6687 Brenda D. Hyatt, Bureau Chief Bureau of Licensing and Bond Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 407 South Calhoun Street, Mail Station 38 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6687 Richard D. Tritschler, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6687
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent violated provisions of Florida Statutes and Florida Administrative Code relating to the operation of a child care facility, and, if so, whether sanctions should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the government agency responsible for licensing, inspecting, and monitoring child care facilities in Florida. At all times subject hereto, the Department was operating according to its statutory mandates. The Center is a child care facility located at 5034 18th Street, Zephyrhills, Florida. It operates under License No. C06PA0156 and is licensed for a maximum capacity of 67 students. The Center has been operating for approximately five years.1/ It is owned by Ms. Gollhardt and her daughter, Ms. Kirk. On July 22, 2011, the Department issued an Administrative Complaint against the Center. The Administrative Complaint contained allegations concerning four separate incidents over a four-month period, from September 2010 to January 2011. The incidents, as set forth in pertinent part from the Administrative Complaint, are as follows: On August 5, 2010, G.H., a staff member, was observed by another staff member to have slapped K.L., a three (3) year old child, across the face. Another staff member heard the incident and the child crying subsequent to the slapping. On October 6, 2010, a four (4) year old child, B.G., had been spitting on other children and had previously been disciplined for his inappropriate behavior. The child continued to spit and R.G., the owner/director, sprayed the child in the face with the liquid from a bottle that was being used to sanitize the tables. The liquid in the bottle was diluted bleach and water. R.G. stated the solution was 3 table spoons [sic] bleach to 5 gallons water. After conducting an investigation of an incident on November 29, 2010, it was determined that a staff member, T.C., used her hands to press down on a two (2) year old child's forearms to keep the child from getting up from the time out chair. On January 24, 2011, D.L., a five (5) year old child, had an accident and the owner/director needed to change his underwear. The child threw a fit because he wanted [sic] boxers and the facility did not have boxers to put on him. After conducting an investigation[,] it was determined that struggle [sic] the owner/director, R.G., had been observed dragging the child by the arms across the floor. A complaint form was drafted for each of the four incidents after the Department finished its investigation for each incident. The complaints were provided to the Center for review, and the Center signed an acknowledgement that it had received each of the complaints. After the first incident (the slapping of a child), the Department issued an Administrative Warning Notification dated September 22, 2010. The warning advised the Center that the incident was the first Class II violation against the Center within a two-year period. The Center was warned that another Class II violation within two years would result in a fine in the amount of $50.00. The warning did not include a process for the Center to appeal or contest the Department's findings. After the second incident (the spray bottle), the Department issued a Notice of Administrative Action dated October 13, 2010. The Notice advised the Center that the incident constituted the second Class II violation within a two-year period and of the Department's "intent to impose an administrative fine as a result of this repeat Class II violation." The Notice advised the Center that it would receive a formal administrative complaint imposing the fine and that upon receipt of the administrative complaint, the Center would have 21 days to either pay or appeal the fine. According to the Department's witness, the action taken by the staff member constituted a "physical form of discipline that could have caused the child to be harmed." Following the third incident (teacher holding child in a chair), the Department issued another Notice of Administrative Action, this one dated November 30, 2010. This Notice advised the Center that the Department intended to issue an Administrative Complaint imposing a fine commensurate with a third Class II violation within a two-year period. The Notice had the same language as the prior Notice concerning appeal rights. Finally, after the fourth incident (the soiled boy), the Department issued yet another Notice of Administrative Action dated January 25, 2011. This final Notice advised the Center that the Department intended to impose a fine and to change the Center's license to probationary status. The Notice also advised that another Class II violation "within [two] years from the date of this report" would result in the Center's license being suspended, denied, or revoked.2/ The Notice again stated that an Administrative Complaint would be issued from which an appeal could be taken within 21 days. On July 22, 2011, the Department issued its promised Administrative Complaint setting forth allegations as to each of the four incidents. The Administrative Complaint provided the Center its first opportunity to contest or challenge the allegations set forth in the four previous notices or warnings. The Center timely filed a request for formal administrative hearing to contest the Department's findings. The four incidents will be discussed more fully below, including the Department's basis for its findings and the Center's explanation, mitigation or other response. Incident No. 1--Slapping a child This incident occurred on Thursday, August 5, 2010, while Ms. Gollhardt and Ms. Kirk were both out of town on family matters. A teacher, Gayla, was observed by another teacher slapping a child's face. The second teacher immediately contacted the owners via cell phone to report what had happened. Ms. Gollhardt had the observing employee do a written statement and place it in Ms. Gollhardt's lock box for safe keeping. Then Ms. Gollhardt verified that Gayla had left the Center for the day. Ms. Gollhardt returned to the Center and looked into the matter. She directed Gayla not to report back to work and then called the Department's abuse hotline to self-report the incident. Ms. Gollhardt then contacted Ms. Richey, the Department's counselor assigned to the Center. Ms. Richey came to the Center on the following Tuesday and conducted her own investigation of the matter. When it became clear that the incident had indeed occurred as reported, Ms. Gollhardt terminated Gayla's employment at the Center. From the day of the incident until she was terminated, Gayla had not been allowed back into the Center. The Department found out about this incident in two ways: First, a Child Protection Investigator ("CPI") notified Ms. Richey after the initial hotline call made by Ms. Gollhardt, i.e., after the Center self-reported the incident. Second, when Ms. Gollhardt contacted Ms. Richey directly to report the incident. There was no testimony from the parents of the child or from the terminated employee. Incident No. 2--The Spray Bottle As set forth in the Administrative Complaint, the child at issue, B.G., had been disciplined previously for spitting on other students. Ms. Gollhardt had written reports about B.G.'s behavior and sent the reports home with B.G. However, B.G.'s parents never responded to the reports or made any effort to discuss his behavior with the Center. On October 6, 2010, B.G. was again spitting on other children. Ms. Gollhardt tried to prevent B.G. from doing this by holding him in her lap as she sat and read a story to a group of students. This worked until the story was over and the students got up from the carpeted reading area. At that time, B.G. spat on another child. Ms. Gollhardt, who was standing nearby and holding a bottle in her hand, sprayed a mist towards B.G., who was three or four feet away, i.e., on the other side of a toy shelf from Ms. Gollhardt. Her intent was to get his attention and to show him that it was uncomfortable to have liquid of any kind involuntarily foisted upon you. The bottle was apparently set on a "mist" mode and there is insufficient evidence as to whether the liquid actually touched B.G. or not. The liquid was contained in a bottle that had been used to sanitize tables at the Center. The bottle contained water and bleach, but there is no competent evidence as to the ratio of the mixture. The Administrative Complaint alleges that Ms. Gollhardt said that the mixture was three tablespoons of bleach to five gallons of water, but that is the only evidence concerning the mixture. Nor was there any testimony provided as to the potential harm to a person that such a mixture might cause. If the mixture was as reported, there would seem to be a very minimal amount of bleach in the misted spray. Ms. Gollhardt prepared an incident report to show to B.G.'s parents, but she was not at the Center when they picked him up on the day of the incident. The next morning, when B.G.'s father dropped him off at school, Ms. Gollhardt told him what had happened and showed him the incident report. The father examined the contents of the spray bottle and indicated that no further action would be necessary. Later that day, Ms. Gollhardt advised the parents that if B.G. did not stop this behavior, they would have to find another place for him to go. The mother took great exception to this admonition, so she reported the incident to the Department. B.G.'s mother thereafter withdrew B.G. from the Center, and he has never returned. While spraying a water and bleach mixture at a child is never a good idea and is not condoned, it does not rise to the level of a punishment or discipline of the child. Incident No. 3--The Crying Chair The Center utilizes two different methods of dealing with children who are disruptive or act inappropriately. The Center uses the "time out" method, wherein they place a child in a designated place for a specified period of time so the child has an opportunity to think about their behavior. The Center also employ a "crying chair," which is a chair to which a crying child is directed to sit until they stop crying. The children apparently understand that they can get up from the chair as soon as they stop crying. The Center says the crying chair is a very effective tool. On November 29, 2010, a small, just-turned-two-year- old child (referred to as "Lisa"--not her real name) came to the Center late. She had been at a doctor's appointment with her grandmother and arrived at the Center at the time her class was playing on the playground. "Lisa" was upset that she could not stay with her grandmother and was crying and unruly when her grandmother left. After failing in her efforts to calm "Lisa" down, her teacher, Ms. Clemmer, placed "Lisa" in a crying chair on the covered porch adjacent to the playground. "Lisa" got up from the chair three or four times and continued to cry and act out. Ms. Clemmer placed "Lisa" back in the chair each time she got out and remembers that she "may have" placed her hands on "Lisa" when she directed her back to the chair. Ms. Clemmer does not remember any one return to the chair to be different from the others. Ultimately, "Lisa" calmed down, hugged Ms. Clemmer and went off to play with her classmates. Meanwhile, Ms. Dye was parked across the street from the Center waiting for her daughter's school bus to arrive. Ms. Dye said that children were not usually out on the playground when she picked up her daughter, but they were on this day. She was parked approximately 25 yards (75 feet) from the playground area. Ms. Dye does not remember any posts or other items obstructing her view. She does not remember a porch or covered area next to the playground. Upon hearing shouts or other noises, Ms. Dye turned to watch what was happening on the playground. Ms. Dye observed a little girl sitting in a chair and interacting with a teacher. The little girl got up from the chair three or four times, but each time a teacher would direct her back to the chair. The little girl seemed to be trying to go over to a plastic playhouse where other children were playing. This interaction went on for ten or 15 minutes. Ms. Dye remembers that the last time the teacher brought the girl back to the chair, she "may have" yelled at the girl. Then, the teacher grabbed the child's upper arm, pulled her across the playground, and placed her roughly into the chair. She could not tell exactly, but it looked to Ms. Dye like the teacher may have pulled the student's ponytail, jerking her head backwards. Ms. Dye does not believe that what she observed was a teacher attempting to keep an unruly child from hurting herself. Ms. Dye reported the incident to the Department. Ms. Richey, a CPI, and a police officer were dispatched to the Center to investigate the allegations. When they came to the Center, they identified the victim as a black child with a ponytail. Ms. Gollhardt said she had no children with ponytails and only one black child in the two-year-old age group. She offered to wake the child from her nap, but the investigators said not to do so. The investigators eventually talked with Ms. Clemmer and with the child's mother. Ms. Richey remembers Ms. Clemmer being very nervous and saying that she placed a child in time out for not behaving properly. Ms. Clemmer remembers the incident a little differently than reported by Ms. Dye. She says that when "Lisa" was dropped off by her grandmother, the child was having extreme separation anxiety. Ms. Clemmer tried to calm "Lisa" by holding her and walking out to the fence so "Lisa" could wave goodbye to her grandmother. That didn't work. After "Lisa" continued screaming and crying, Ms. Clemmer took her to the crying chair, with which "Lisa" was familiar. The chair was located on a covered patio adjacent to the playground area. "Lisa" kept "flopping out of the chair" and running across the playground. Each time, Ms. Clemmer would redirect her back to the chair and try to calm her down. She does not remember any one of the interactions with "Lisa" to be more forceful or different from any other. The last time she sat "Lisa" down, however, Ms. Clemmer remembers placing her hand in the chair between Lisa's legs to prevent "Lisa" from flopping out of the chair. Eventually, "Lisa" had had enough crying and stopped being upset. She went over and hugged Ms. Clemmer, then ran off to play with the other children. That was the end of the matter. "Lisa" is still a student at the Center. Incidentally, "Lisa" is a child of mixed races (African-American and Caucasian); she has very short hair and does not have a ponytail. Ms. Clemmer holds an early childhood associate certificate, obtained after a six-month course of study. Her testimony was credible, and she appears to have the interests of her students as a priority. Based on the foregoing facts, there is no evidence that Ms. Clemmer "used her hands to press down on a two (2) year old child's forearms to keep the child from getting up from the time out chair" as alleged in the Administrative Complaint. Incident No. 4--The Boy with Soiled Pants On January 24, 2011, D.L., a five-year-old boy, was playing on the playground when he announced an immediate need to go to the bathroom. His teacher, Susan, took him inside to use the toilet. However, before getting to the bathroom, D.L. had a small bowel movement and soiled his pants. Susan and D.L. remained in the bathroom for a while and then Susan came out to report that D.L. was "having issues." Ms. Gollhardt then went in to see if she could help. She found the little boy screaming and fussing, upset, and refusing to cooperate. Ms. Gollhardt began to try to calm the boy down. D.L. was upset because he had been wearing boxer shorts and wanted a new pair to replace the ones he had soiled. Unfortunately, his cubicle did not contain any clean boxers. Instead, Ms. Gollhardt offered D.L. a pair of his brother's underwear, but they were briefs, and D.L. wanted no part of them. She also offered D.L. his own soiled underwear, because they were only slightly soiled and gave him the option of wearing a pair of his sister's pull-ups. He wanted none of those. As Ms. Gollhardt continued to try to reason with D.L., he became more agitated and upset. He tried to crawl behind the toilet and began kicking and hitting at Ms. Gollhardt. Ms. Gollhardt was eventually able to dress D.L. (although it is unclear which pair of underwear was placed on him). Then Ms. Gollhardt picked up D.L., wrapping her arms around him as he faced away from her and carried him out of the bathroom. As they left the bathroom, D.L. reached up and knocked Ms. Gollhardt's glasses off her face. When she bent down to retrieve her glasses, D.L. began to kick her. At that point, D.L. dropped to the ground in a sitting posture and refused to move. Ms. Gollhardt gathered her glasses and reached down, grabbing D.L.'s arm. When D.L. refused to get up, Ms. Gollhardt slid him across the floor as she held him by his arm. They went into a classroom where D.L. could be watched by another teacher and closed the door. Then Ms. Gollhardt came out of the room and left the door open as she placed a call to D.L.'s parents. While this was going on, Ms. Conner, another child's parent, arrived at the Center to retrieve her infant child. She saw D.L. in the bathroom kicking and screaming as Ms. Gollhardt attempted to dress him. She saw Ms. Gollhardt dragging D.L. three or four feet across the floor by his arm as D.L. whimpered. She remembers them going into a classroom and Ms. Gollhardt closing the door. She does not remember the door being re-opened as Ms. Golldardt made the phone call. After placing D.L. in the classroom, Ms. Gollhardt called his mother to come and get him at the Center. D.L.'s mother arrived shortly and discussed the situation with Ms. Gollhardt. She then talked calmly with D.L. and had him apologize to Ms. Gollhardt for his bad behavior. D.L. apologized and then hugged Ms. Gollhardt. D.L. and his four siblings are still students at the Center. Ms. Conner's testimony is somewhat suspect. She had been admonished by Ms. Gollhardt just prior to this incident for being behind on her child's tuition payments. Despite the alleged incident, Ms. Conner kept her infant and one other child at the Center until August of this year (2011). Further, Ms. Conner appears to have initially told the Department's investigator a different story, i.e., that Ms. Gollhardt dragged D.L. across the floor all the way from the bathroom into another classroom. The Center's Discipline Policy The Center has a policy concerning how it will administer discipline to its students. Each teacher is expected to comply with the policy. Each student's parent(s) must acknowledge receipt and review of the policy. It is the intent of the Center that its discipline policy be consistent with the Department's Basic Guidance and Discipline protocols. The Department's protocols distinguish between discipline and punishment. Discipline includes tools and actions used to teach a child a lesson or to redirect their behavior. Punishment is "more of a consequence" of a child's behavior and is used to control a child. Or, as stated by the Department's licensing supervisor, "punishment is an action that is taken by a caregiver in response to a bad choice. And it's a consequence of some kind of bad inappropriate behavior that a child is engaged in." There is no published definition of the distinction between discipline and punishment in the Department's rules, and its witnesses acknowledged there is a fine line between the two. According to the Center's policies, discipline is not to be associated with food, rest, or toileting. Nor should discipline be severe, humiliating, or frightening. Spanking or other forms of physical punishment are not to be used by a teacher. Enforcement of the Law The Department utilizes progressive enforcement when citing child care facilities for violations of statutes and rules. When looking at violations, there are three classes of violations to be considered: Class I violations are those which may endanger a child's life; they are the most severe. Class II violations address disciplinary actions, teacher-to-student ratios, and other practical aspects of operating a child care facility. Class III violations are those relating to paperwork or other less harmful matters. When looking at Class II violations, the Department will assign a progressively more serious sanction when multiple violations occur within a two-year period. For example, a single Class II violation may warrant only a warning; a second Class II within a two-year period will result in a fine. Four Class II violations within a two-year period will result in a license being placed under probationary status. Five violations during a two-year period can result in denial or suspension of the license. The effect of a probationary license is serious. A facility with a probationary license is required to post its violation citations on the wall of its facility. A facility is not allowed to advertise while it is on probation. Facilities under probation forfeit their connection to the Early Learning Coalition (the "Coalition"), the entity that provides payment or subsidies for low-income families to place their children in a licensed day care facility. Ms. Kirk cooperated with the Department concerning its investigation into the four alleged incidents. She provided names of witnesses and even offered written statements from eyewitnesses. The Department did not accept the written statements, saying their investigation was complete. No further explanation was provided by the Department as to why they would not review additional information that may have led them to a more informed conclusion. Instead, the Department warned Ms. Kirk that the Center had better "straighten up" or they would be facing more severe sanctions. Ms. Kirk says that a Department representative told her the Department had talked with the Coalition. According to the representative, the Coalition said it had received numerous complaints about the Center and that the Center was not cooperating with the Coalition. Ms. Kirk was concerned about those comments. About one half of the Center's students are receiving subsidies through the Coalition. Loss of connection to the Coalition would be an extreme hardship for the Center. Ms. Kirk contacted the Coalition to find out if there was indeed a problem of some kind. Neither Ms. Kay Williams, the voluntary pre-kindergarten representative at the Coalition, nor her supervisor, Kim Bergeau (phonetically spelled), could verify that any complaints had been received concerning the Center. The Center has not been contacted directly by the Coalition about any complaints. Each of the four incidents discussed above was investigated by the Department, by CPI, and by local law enforcement. No evidence as to the findings or conclusions by CPI or law enforcement was entered into evidence as support for the Department's position, so there is no independent corroboration that the incidents occurred as alleged.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner, Department of Children and Families, upholding the issuance of the letter of warning against Respondent, Lil' Stars Learning Center, Inc., d/b/a Lil' Stars Learning Center, but dismissing the other allegations in their entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of December, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of December, 2011.
The Issue Whether the Department of Children and Family Services (Department) properly denied the renewal of Clay and Diana Merritt's family foster home license, No. 019917.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Children and Family Services is the administrative agency responsible for the licensing of foster homes under the laws of the State of Florida. The Department is responsible for investigating allegations of child abuse against citizens of the State of Florida. The Respondents, Clay Merritt and Diana Merritt were the holders of a foster care home license which was issued by the Department on January 27, 1997. That license was renewed in 1998 and provisionally renewed in 1999. During the period of time that the Respondents were a legally licensed foster home, three different children resided in their home, Amy C., Bo T. and Joe H. On January 27, 1999, an argument ensued between Respondents and Amy C. over Amy C.'s returning late from a date. During that argument, Amy stated that she would report the Merritts for sexual abuse if they did not relax their restrictions upon her. When the Respondents refused to relax their restrictions, Amy C. requested that she be removed from the home. The Department was called and Amy C. was removed from the foster home, and placed in a facility for run-a-way children in Gainesville, Florida. Very soon thereafter, Amy C. alleged that she had been sexually abused by the Respondent, Clay Merritt, on three occasions, all of which included sexual intercourse. The Respondent, Clay Merritt, denies the allegations in their entirety. Amy C. had been a prior victim of sexual abuse by her father, her brother, and her half brother. Amy C.'s father and her brother were convicted of sexually abusing her, and her father is still incarcerated. Amy C. testified at her father's criminal trial. Because of her prior abuse, Amy C. suffers from a number of mental disorders, to include post-traumatic stress syndrome, dysthymia, and attachment disorder. The child further evidences self-destructive behavior and vindictive behaviors against others. Susan Pierce counseled Amy C. for approximately nine months from early 1998 until the end of January of 1999. During that period of time, she developed a close therapeutic relationship with the child, and believed that the child was comfortable with her as a therapist. During that nine-month time period, the child never made any allegations of sexual abuse against the Respondent, Clay Merritt, although she discussed other instances of abuse with the counselor unrelated to the Respondents. Ms. Pierce felt Amy C. would have revealed abuse by Clay Merritt had such abuse occurred. The child lied on numerous occasions to her counselor and the Respondents. The child became increasingly interested in psychopathic murder, which was indicative of the disorders that were suffered by the child in Pierce's opinion. The child stated that she had been sexually abused by Clay Merritt in July, August, and September of 1997 and had a miscarriage in November or December of 1997. However, her diaries indicate that she had menstrual periods on October 25th and November 14th, 1997, thus precluding the possibility of pregnancy. The child further testified that the miscarriage was one of the most painful things she had ever encountered. The child stated under oath that she had not reported the miscarriage because "she did not want to hurt Diana's feelings." She stated to investigators that she did not report the abuse because she did not want to be taken out of the foster home. Throughout the period of time that Amy C. resided with the Respondents, she was a discipline problem. In June of 1998, Respondent, Diana Merritt, discovered Amy C. at home one afternoon with a boy with whom she had just completed having sexual intercourse. Diana Merritt took Amy C. to medical professionals for pregnancy testing and tests for sexually transmitted diseases. Diana Merritt counseled with Amy C. about the dangers of her conduct, and the Merritts maintained a closer watch upon the child. Amy C. refused to comply with the requests of the Respondents to restrict her sexual activities which led to numerous disagreements and arguments with Amy C. These arguments culminated in the argument of January 27, 1999, which resulted in Amy C.'s removal from the home. Amy C. was asked to take a voice stress test by the Sheriff's department, but she declined. The statements of Amy C. are contradictory with regard to specific facts. She gave two different dates for her alleged miscarriage: June and November 1997. She described severe physical trauma associated with the alleged miscarriage, but did not seek or receive medical assistance. She was subsequently examined and tested for sexually transmitted diseases as the result of an unrelated, consensual sexual relationship, and no findings were made indicating a prior, terminated pregnancy. Amy C.'s diaries are vague and unrevealing, except for the reporting the commencement of a menstrual period in October and in November. This is inconsistent with a reported miscarriage in December 1997. Because of the Amy C.'s prior abuse, resort to physical examination, or her description of details about the encounter is not helpful in resolving the her credibility. The allegations by Amy C. of sexual abuse by Clay Merritt are unsupported by any tangible evidence. Amy C.'s reputation for truth and veracity is not good. Her allegations are not supported by her diaries. Her allegations were made almost one and one-half years after the alleged events, and immediately after a fight with the Merritts. The Department's investigation revealed that the Merritts had spanked one of the other children on occasion in contravention of a Department policy banning corporal punishment. The Merritts did not deny this allegation; however, there was no evidence that these spankings were abusive. The spanking was a violation of agency policy; however, testimony was received that this type of conduct was generally not a basis for revoking a license by itself. The Respondent, Diana Merritt, is a licensed practical nurse who is employed by the Putnam County health Department. She has no prior criminal record, no prior child abuse record, nor has she had any legal difficulties in her life. The Respondent, Clay Merritt, is employed as a paramedic and firefighter. He is certified as a paramedic. He has never been arrested nor had any child abuse allegations filed against him in his entire life. The guardian ad litem for Bo T. testified that Bo T. was suffering as the result of his removal from the Respondents' home. Bo T. was the child who was spanked. His guardian ad litem favored placing the child back in the Merritt's home and care.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department enter a final order renewing the foster home license No. 19917 of the Respondents. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of March, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of March, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Lucy Goddard, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 1000 Northeast 16th Avenue, Box 3 Gainesville, Florida 32601 Richard J. D'Amico, Esquire 619 North Grandview Avenue Daytona Beach, Florida 32118 John S. Slye, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Samuel C. Chavers, Acting Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204B 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue is whether the teaching certificate of Scott Thomas Gray (Gray) should be permanently revoked or otherwise penalized based on the acts alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Gray held teachers certificate No. 541600 from the Department of Education for the State of Florida covering the area of emotionally disturbed students. The certificate was first issued on March 6, 1984, and was renewed and reissued until it expired on June 30, 1990. During the school years of 1983-1985, Gray was employed as an EMH teacher at Grove Park Elementary School in the Clay County School District. Gray resigned on June 10, 1985. Gray taught as an EMH teacher in the State of Georgia during the 1986-1987 school year. On November 27, 1986, Gray was arrested in Clay County, Florida, and charged with sexual battery. Gray posted bond of $10,002.00 and was released from jail. On December 12, 1986, Gray was charged by information with four counts of capital sexual battery and six counts of committing a lewd, lascivious and indecent act upon a minor. State of Florida v. Scott Thomas Gray, Case No. 86-925- CF, in the Circuit Court of the Fourth Judicial Circuit. Gray failed to appear for arraignment on these charges on December 18, 1986. Gray left the state and failed to appear for any court appearance on these charges. A Capias was issued for Gray's arrest for failing to appear. Gray was subsequently returned to Clay County to stand trial on these charges. Gray entered pleas of not guilty to all charges which were still viable after he had been returned to the state (three counts of capital sexual battery and two counts of lewd, lascivious and indecent acts on a child). These charges stemmed from various sexual acts which were perpetrated on children of ages 11 to 16 in Gray's classroom. On September 26, 1991, following a jury trial, Gray was convicted of three counts of capital sexual battery and of two counts of committing a lewd, lascivious, and indecent act upon a child. Gray was sentenced to terms of life imprisonment with a mandatory minimum of twenty five years per count, with the first two terms to run consecutively. He was also sentenced to two terms of fifteen years imprisonment for the two counts of committing lewd, lascivious and indecent acts on a child, to be served concurrently with the other sentences. Gray was charged with assault and battery in Clay County, Florida, on August 18, 1974, in Case No FL 046020. He also failed to appear in that case scheduled for October 22, 1974, and a Capias was issued. Despite the fact that these charges had not been resolved, in his three applications for teacher's certification, Gray answered "NO" to questions regarding arrests for any criminal charges which were pending against him. His false answers were sworn to by Gray as being true and correct.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that The Education Practices Commission enter a Final Order permanently revoking teaching certificate No. 541600 as issued to Scott Thomas Gray. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of March, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of March, 1992.
Findings Of Fact Richard L. Wahl submitted an application for an instructional position in the Pinellas County school system on December 5, 1973 (Exhibit 10), and was subsequently hired in 1974 to teach middle grade science. In Section IX of his application (Exhibit 10) Question 8 asking if he had ever been convicted of a misdemeanor, felony, or offense involving moral turpitude was left blank. By application dated January 3, 1984 (Exhibit 1), for certification by the State Department of Education as a general science teacher, in Section V inquiring if the applicant had ever been arrested or involved in a criminal offense, Wahl checked the "yes," gave the date and place of arrest for the offense of larceny-misdemeanor, and showed the disposition as "convicted conviction set aside" with notation "(see enclosures)." No enclosures were attached to Exhibit 1. By order of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana dated October 25, 1973 (Exhibit 3), Wahl's conviction entered December 15, 1972, was set aside and he was unconditionally discharged from probation. The conviction was for larceny of coins from coin changing machines at a bank where Wahl worked as supervisor, night maintenance (Exhibit 9). Wahl started teaching in Pinellas County schools in 1974 and continued until he was suspended in 1984. During this period he had no evaluation less than satisfactory. He was liked and respected by his peers who considered him to be a very good science teacher. Respondent and his first wife, Shirley Jones, were divorced in 1975 and have one daughter. Respondent, shortly after his divorce from Shirley, married his present wife who had a nine or ten year old daughter by a previous marriage. The daughter, Lisa Beck, lived with her mother. In 1978 Respondent began "tucking in" Lisa when she went to bed. On occasion he rubbed her back. This led to rubbing her buttocks and subsequently her vaginal area. On occasion Respondent placed his genitals in contact with Lisa's genitals, but no intercourse was attempted or contemplated by Respondent. This went on for several weeks on an irregular basis in late 1978. At this time Lisa was 10 or 11 years old. Respondent initially thought Lisa enjoyed the incidents or at least did not object until Lisa finally told him she wished he wouldn't do that. From that time forward no further abuse by Respondent of Lisa occurred. Some five years later Lisa told her mother that Respondent had fondled her, the mother told the Bishop of her church, and the Bishop accosted Respondent with the charge. Respondent readily admitted the incident to the Bishop and he and his wife were referred to a Family Services program run by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services with this problem as well as with other marital problems they were having. Respondent, his wife, and Lisa voluntarily participated in family counseling to improve the family relationship. After family counseling had begun Respondent was contacted by a detective in the St. Petersburg Police Department to ask him about his earlier fondling of Lisa. Again, Respondent readily admitted his transgressions. Word that a teacher was being investigated filtered back to the school system and the investigation leading to the charges here involved began. Two short articles appeared in the inside pages of the St. Petersburg Times on January 30, 1984, and July 20, 1984, reporting the allegations of child molestation made against Wahl and of his suspension without pay from his position as a teacher. Respondent was subsequently brought to trial on a charge of handling and fondling a child under the age of 14, to which he pleaded nolo contendere, adjudication of guilt was withheld and Respondent was placed on five years probation (Exhibit 7). Subsequent to his divorce from Shirley Jones, which was an acrimonious one, Respondent has been sued by Jones when late on child support payments and has had difficulty in visitation rights with his daughter by that marriage. Jones, who apparently has also remarried, has attempted to induce Respondent to allow his daughter to be adopted which, so far, Respondent has refused. Following publication of the allegations involving Respondent's stepdaughter, Shirley Jones advised Petitioner that Wahl had in 1972 molested Jones' then 14 year old sister and that he had been convicted of larceny in Indiana in 1972. Shirley Jones' sister, Leslie Miskove, now 26 years old and married, testified that while she was visiting her sister, then married to Respondent, Wahl, on two occasions, touched her genital area. According to Miskove the first incident occurred while she and Wahl were lying on a couch watching television and Wahl touched her vaginal area with his hand. At this time her sister was in the bedroom. Miskove did not say anything to Wahl nor did she tell her sister. The second incident occurred while enroute to Florida. While Shirley and her baby were asleep on the back seat, Wahl was driving, and Miskove was lying on the front seat with her head on Wahl's leg. According to Miskove, Wahl put his hand inside her pants and inserted a finger in her vagina. Again she did not say anything and his hand remained inside her pants until she sat up a short time later. After Shirley Jones told Miskove about the child molestation charge against Wahl, which was filed in 1984, Miskove first revealed the 1972 incidents to her sister. Respondent denies either of those incidents occurred. No evidence was presented of any improper conduct involving Respondent with any of his students; and his principal did not consider Respondent a threat to any of the girls at his school even after he became aware of the charges against Respondent then being investigated. Exhibit 11, the deposition of Dr. Machler, was admitted as a late- filed exhibit. Several days after the transcript arrived but Exhibit 11 had not, a telephone call to the attorney revealed that he thought the original had been sent but that a second copy would be forwarded. Accordingly, all of the above findings were made without the benefit of the expert testimony contained in Exhibit 11. Dr. Machler's opinion of Respondent, based upon his psychiatric evaluation and counseling involving eight sessions for a total of five or six hours, is that Respondent is not now, and never has been, a pedophile; that Respondent is an honest, sincere individual who truly enjoys and strives to excel at, his role as a teacher; that Respondent is a passive aggressive person who has been intimidated by his two wives; that his current wife's rejection coupled with the proximity of Lisa as an extension of his wife, led to the fondling of Lisa; that this was an isolated situation and is unlikely to ever recur; that Respondent has never been a threat to female pupils in his classes and is not likely ever to be such a threat; and that the embarrassment and indignities brought on by these charges will make Respondent more circumspect than ever in the classroom because now he will feel like he is living in a fishbowl. Dr. Machler's deposition further confirms the Hearing Officer's conclusion that someone in the HRS Department of Family Services reported to the police the transgressions involving Respondent and Lisa when the family went to them for counseling after Lisa had disclosed the incidents to her mother and Respondent admitted they occurred. The conclusions of law were also prepared before Exhibit 11 was read by this Hearing Officer.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondent’s certifications as a Correctional and Law Enforcement Officer should be disciplined and, if so what penalties should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Fedrick Williams, was certified as a Correctional and Law Enforcement Officer on June 26, 1992, holding Certificate Numbers 55153 Correctional and 55152 Law Enforcement. He was employed by the Leon County Sheriff’s Office in 1992 as a Deputy. From 1992 until 1996 he served without incident. In 1996, Respondent took a leave of absence for two years. In 1998 he returned to the Sheriff’s Office and served without incident until he was criminally charged with Aggravated Child Abuse by Malicious Punishment, a second degree felony, pursuant to Section 827.02(2), Florida Statutes. The alleged violation of the lesser included offense of child abuse under that statute forms the basis for the discipline sought by the Department in this proceeding. B.B. is the biological son of Lisa Williams and stepson of Respondent. B.B. suffers from a growth hormone deficiency. Because of the deficiency, B.B. is required to take hormones as well as adhere to a special diet to help with his condition. However, even with treatment, B.B. is unusually small for his age and, during the time of these events, B.B. was approximately four feet, four inches tall and weighed approximately 63 pounds. The B.B. and his mother had a history of physical confrontation that, at times, resulted in both Department of Children and Family Services and police intervention. Indeed, in 2001, B.B. received two permanent scars from his mother’s beating him. B.B. was arrested for hitting his mother with a pogo stick. When B.B. was released from the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) his mother refused to pick him up. Respondent picked up B.B. from DJJ. B.B. also stole and forged checks from his mother on at least two occasions. Additionally, he threatened his cousin with a knife when he became angry at him. Things were so strained between B.B. and his mother that after the criminal actions involved with the incident related to this proceeding, B.B.’s mother voluntarily terminated her parental rights and gave up custody of B.B. to a relative. On the other hand, Respondent and B.B. had a good relationship. They did many things together and B.B. often came to Respondent for advice, help or just to talk. The termination of his wife’s parental rights and loss of his stepson greatly distressed Respondent and causes him heartache to this day. In fact, Respondent still communicates with B.B. and wishes he were home with him. Respondent’s disciplinary style was not generally physical. Witnesses described him as a gentle man. In fact, Respondent preferred to talk things out if there was a problem. He rarely utilized corporal punishment and always exercised restraint if he had to resort to such. Indeed, Respondent talked to B.B. and placed him on restrictions when B.B. forged his mother’s checks and threatened his cousin with a knife. On November 8, 2002 at about 6 p.m., B.B.’s mother discovered that B.B was sneaking and hiding candy and junk snack food in his bedroom. There were crumbs and packages from his food stash in his dresser drawers and around his room. As indicated above, the reason B.B.’s behavior was serious was that B.B.’s health required that he adhere to a diet that did not include junk food. B.B. had been warned on multiple occasions about eating candy and other junk foods. He had also been on restriction multiple times for such behavior. On November 8, 2002, B.B was either on or had just gotten off of restriction Respondent had placed him on for eating such junk foods. B.B.’s mother called Respondent into B.B.’s bedroom. Respondent first talked to B.B. and then got his service belt and swatted him at most four or five times across B.B.’s buttocks. There was no injury to B.B. at this time. He then talked to B.B. some more and left the room to take care of B.B.’s younger brother in the living room where the TV was on. Respondent has consistently denied injuring B.B. and has consistently reported the same facts as above. After Respondent left the room, B.B.’s mother entered the room. Respondent’s teenage daughter, who was doing her homework at the dining room table and could hear what was happening in B.B.’s room, heard B.B’s mother yelling and cursing at B.B., things falling off the furniture and loud banging noises around the room. Respondent was not in a position to hear what was occurring in B.B.’s room. B.B.’s mother testified that B.B. was not injured when she left B.B.’s room. Eventually, B.B. was sent to bathe and get ready for bed. Respondent’s daughter did not see any injuries to B.B.’s face when he left his room to bathe. While in the bathroom, B.B. went to the bathroom window and climbed out. The bathroom window was high as it relates to the B.B.’s height of four feet and four inches. The window was not large enough for B.B. to have crawled through in an upright manner so that he could land on his feet once outside. On the outside and under the window there was a three foot wide thorny rose bush and a brick ledge. It is highly likely that B.B. hit both the bush and the ledge on his way down from the window. Both obstacles could have caused long strap-like bruises to B.B.’s body as well as injury to his eye and other abrasions. Respondent’s home was surrounded by fairly thick forest. The forest appears to be thick enough to have also caused bruising or other injuries to B.B. B.B.’s foot prints were found leading away from the house towards the woods. B.B. traveled about six miles through thick forest to the James’ property. He climbed into Mr. James’ truck and went to sleep. At some point, B.B.’s absence was discovered. B.B.’s mother reported B.B. as a runaway on the evening of November 8, 2002. A lengthy search by Respondent and the police ensued which was not successful. B.B. was discovered the next morning by Mr. James when he was leaving for work. Mr. James brought B.B into his home and left him with his wife. Both neighbors observed that B.B. had several bruises on his arms and a very swollen black eye. According to Ms. James, B.B. had an eye that was swollen shut and had red marks above his eye extending to his hairline. One of the James’ called the police to report that they had found a child. When asked by Ms. James’ who had hit him. B.B. reported that his mother had hit him and caused his injuries. B.B. was not present and did not testify at the hearing. The effort used by the Department to secure B.B.’s presence at the hearing was minimal given the importance of B.B.’s role in these events. The Department’s efforts consisted of four telephone calls on Friday, August 25, 2006 that resulted in a message being left. There was no response to these calls. On Monday, August 28th and on Tuesday, August 29th, the Department again unsuccessfully called and left messages. One such call seemed to be interrupted by the phone being picked up and then hung up. Other than that one interruption, the Department offered no proof that anyone actually received the messages left on the answering machine. No subpoena of B.B. was attempted by Petitioner. No certified letter was sent to secure the presence of B.B. by Petitioner. Counsel for the Respondent made Petitioner aware of B.B.’s whereabouts several weeks before the hearing. No one from the Department traveled to that location to try to find B.B. No continuance was requested in order to locate B.B. The Department’s efforts, or lack of effort, to secure B.B.’s presence at the hearing do not demonstrate that B.B. was unavailable for the hearing. Instead the Department offered into evidence the transcripts from B.B.’s deposition taken as part of Lisa Williams’ criminal case, case number 2202 CF 4227-B1. This deposition was taken Tuesday, October 14, 2003, and was offered as Petitioner’s Exhibit numbered three. The deposition indicates that Respondent was responsible for B.B.’s injuries. Although Respondent was criminally charged based on similar fact evidence, the deposition of B.B. was not part of Respondent’s case and Respondent was not a party to that criminal case. The motive for Respondent to fully and adequately develop the testimony of B.B. was not as vital as it would be had the deposition been conducted for Respondent’s own case. Moreover, B.B.’s accounts of the evening of November 8 vary widely as to which parent was responsible for his injuries. Little credit is given to any of B.B.’s statements regarding the events of November 8, 2002. Deputy Hunter picked B.B. up from the James’ residence. He took B.B. to Tallahassee Memorial Hospital’s emergency room where the child was interviewed and extensively photographed. The photographs showed a variety of bruises and abrasions over B.B.’s body and a very swollen eye. Some of the bruises were long strap-like marks. Crime Scene Detective Patrick Lyons met with B.B., Deputy Hunter, and a member of the Child Protection Team at the emergency room. There were dozens of photos taken by Detective Lyons. One of the interviewers was Cynthia Y. Burns, RN. She stated that B.B. stated that his step father hit him in the eye. B.B. was also interviewed by Elain Sofkis, RN. He made a similar statement to her. The lead investigator was Detective Derek Terry of the Leon County Sheriff’s Department. On November 9, 2002, B.B. variously told Detective Terry that his stepfather beat him with a belt and hit him in the face with the belt, after which his mother immediately jumped on him and punched him in the face 20 or more times. A short time later, B.B. stated that he was hit 20 times with the belt, after which his mother entered his room and punched him in the stomach and chest, but not the face. Detective Terry never went to the house where the alleged abuse occurred. Again, B.B.’s statements are not credible. On November 9, 2002, Respondent was criminally charged with Aggravated Child Abuse of B.B. Shortly thereafter, Respondent was terminated from his position with the Leon County Sheriff’s Office at the recommendation of the Career Services Board. The termination was conditioned upon the Respondent pleading to or being convicted of Aggravated Child Abuse or any lesser included offense in his criminal case. At the conclusion of the criminal case Respondent plead to two counts of disorderly conduct, which are misdemeanors of the second degree. Respondent entered his plea because he could not financially afford to continue the legal process and he wanted to return to work at the Sheriff’s Office. Since disorderly conduct was not a lesser included offense of aggravated child abuse, Respondent was reinstated to his former position without pay for the time missed from work in 2004. In the final analysis, the evidence presented at this hearing did not demonstrate that Respondent committed any acts of aggravated child abuse or child abuse. The more credible evidence demonstrated that Respondent did not cause any injury to B.B. and that the injuries that B.B. had on November 9, 2002, were either inflicted by his mother or B.B.’s encounter with the environment outside the house and his subsequent long trek through the woods in the dark. Moreover, the evidence did not demonstrate that Respondent’s moral character was impaired or diminished by these events. The only thing Respondent did was spank his stepson with a belt. He did not injure him or maliciously punish him. Therefore, the Administrative Complaint should be dismissed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, enter a final order finding Respondent not guilty of violating Section 943.1325(6) or (7), Florida Statutes, and dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of February, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of February, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph S. White, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Deveron L. Brown, Esquire Brown & Associates, LLC The Cambridge Center 223 East Virginia Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Michael Crews, Program Director Division of Criminal Justice Professionalism Services Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue Whether CAP Head Start – Gibson Center (“Respondent”) committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint issued by the Department of Children and Families (“the Department”) on February 12, 2018.
Findings Of Fact The following Findings of Fact are based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing, matters subject to official recognition, and the entire record in this proceeding: The Parties and Relevant Provisions of Law The Department is the state agency responsible for licensing child care facilities in Florida and ensuring that those facilities comply with requirements imposed through the Florida Statutes and the Florida Administrative Code. In order to fulfill that duty, the Department conducts routine and complaint inspections. Every facility receives three routine inspections a year. If the Department learns that a facility may have committed a violation, then the Department conducts a complaint inspection within 48 hours of receiving the information. The Department classifies violations as Class I, Class II, or Class III. Rule 65C-22.010(1)(d)1., defines Class I violations as those that “are the most serious in nature, pose an imminent threat to a child including abuse or neglect and which could or [do] result in death or serious harm to the health, safety or well-being of a child.” Rule 65C-22.010(1)(d)2., states that Class II violations “are less serious in nature than Class I violations, and could be anticipated to pose a threat to the health, safety or well-being of a child, although the threat is not imminent.” Rule 65C-22.010(1)(d)3. provides that Class III violations “are less serious in nature than either Class I or Class II violations, and pose a low potential for harm to children.” If a facility commits three or more Class I violations within a two-year period, Rule 65C-22.010(2)(e)1.b., mandates that the Department shall suspend, deny or revoke the facility’s license. Section 39.201(1)(a), Florida Statutes, requires that [a]ny person who knows, or has reasonable cause to suspect, that a child is abused, abandoned, or neglected by a parent, legal custodian, caregiver, or other person responsible for the child’s welfare, as defined in this chapter, or that a child is in need of supervision and care and has no parent, legal custodian, or responsible adult relative immediately known and available to provide supervision and care shall report such knowledge or suspicion to [the Department] in the manner provided in subsection (2). Section 39.201(2)(a), requires that [e]ach report of known or suspected child abuse, abandonment, or neglect by a parent, legal custodian, caregiver, or other person responsible for the child’s welfare as defined in this chapter, except those solely under s. 827.04(3), and each report that a child is in need of supervision and care and has no parent, legal custodian, or responsible adult relative immediately known and available to provide supervision and care shall be made immediately to [the Department]’s central abuse hotline. Rule 65C-22.001(11)(b) specifies that “[f]ailure to perform the duties of a mandatory reporter pursuant to Section 39.201, F.S., constitutes a violation of the standards in Sections 402.301-.319, F.S.” Respondent is a federally funded, nonprofit agency with its corporate headquarters in Pensacola, Florida. Respondent has 190 employees and four core programs, the largest of which is a Head Start program serving 935 children in Escambia County. The Gibson Center in Pensacola is a Florida-licensed childcare facility and part of Respondent’s Head Start program. The Gibson Center cares for 190 children every school day and transports 160 children to and from its facility on buses. The September 20, 2017 Incident On September 20, 2017, a bus dropped off children at the Gibson Center, but the bus driver and her aide failed to conduct a complete visual sweep3/ to ensure that all the children had left the bus. As a result, no one realized that a five- year-old child, J.H., was still on the bus until the children arrived at their classroom. The bus driver briefly left the bus to retrieve a stapler from her car, drove to the “bus pen,” and began completing paperwork. After the aide called the driver to inquire if J.H. was still on the bus, the driver found J.H. asleep on a seat and unbuckled. J.H. was unattended on the bus for approximately five minutes. The bus driver and aide disclosed the incident to their supervisors. The September 28, 2017 Incident On September 28, 2017, Shenevia Jones, a bus driver’s aide, conducted a visual sweep to ensure that all of the children were off a bus but failed to notice that a four-year- old child, M.J., was hiding under a seat. M.J. remained on the bus while it took 20 minutes to complete an additional route. Upon the bus’s return to the Gibson Center, Ms. Jones discovered the child after he sprang from under a seat and said “ta dah.” Respondent’s Actions Following the Incidents Respondent’s upper management met on September 21, 2017, to discuss the September 20th incident and decided that a review of the loading and unloading procedures would be conducted with drivers and aides on September 22, 2017. In addition, the Executive Director would discuss the incident with all employees on September 23, 2017. After the September 28th incident, Respondent’s management decided that a more robust response was necessary. As a result, Ms. Jones was suspended for three days without pay, and Respondent rewrote its procedures for loading and unloading buses.4/ According to Respondent, these new procedures were “site specific” in that larger facilities such as the Gibson Center had different procedures than smaller ones.5/ Deborah Nagle, Respondent’s Director of Compliance, Governance, and Head Start, reported both incidents to the regional Health and Human Services (“HHS”) Office in Atlanta, Georgia via an October 6, 2017, e-mail. As a federally-funded, non-profit agency, Respondent receives funding from HHS. HHS issued a report on February 15, 2018, finding that Respondent violated a federal regulation prohibiting a child care program from leaving a child behind in a classroom or on a vehicle. Ms. Nagle and Doug Brown, Respondent’s Executive Director, discussed whether the incidents amounted to “neglect” within the meaning of Chapter 39 and determined they were not reportable events. In October of 2017, the Department issued a new handbook to child care facilities, and this handbook contained a section about reporting neglect. After reviewing the aforementioned section, Ms. Nagle sent an e-mail to Roger Thompson, the Department’s Supervisor of Child Care Regulation in Escambia, Santa Rosa, Okaloosa and Walton Counties, on Friday, December 8, 2017,6/ describing the incidents: I have attached 2 incidents we had with children on the bus along with the revised procedure. We had reported this to our Regional office and have worked with our Training and Technical Assistance to complete a corrective action plan and put enhanced monitoring in place. All staff will be trained on Jan. 2 when we return from the Christmas break on the revised procedures. I felt it necessary to send this information to you after reading the new Field manual which lists items we must have in policy on reporting on page 27. I will be out of the office until Dec 15th, but will be able to retrieve e-mail while traveling. Mr. Thompson responded on Monday, December 11, 2017, with the following message: Was the Hotline called on the incident? Also, that needs to be addressed in the [corrective action plan]. Anything like this needs to be reported immediately to the Hotline. Not reporting can resort in an additional Class I violation. Ms. Nagle responded 13 minutes later by stating the incidents were not reported. Just over an hour later, Ms. Nagle transmitted the following inquiry: I have a question. Is what happened considered an abuse report? To my knowledge there has not been any specifics on what is reported other [than] injury to a child or a report from a parent or other staff member that there was abuse []. We did not consider these as reportable, but due to the new field guide thought it necessary to inform you. So far every call we have made to the hotline when it was deemed an abuse situation was only taken as information. Mr. Thompson responded five minutes later with the following: Remember . . . it isn’t always ABUSE. It is anything that possibly fits Abuse and/or Neglect. This was NEGLECT. If you contact Paula Doty at the Gulf Coast Kids House, she will do a great training for free at your location. She goes into the details. It would be great for your staff, in-service training credit, and it may head some of this stuff off at the pass. The Department’s Investigation Mr. Thompson initiated a complaint investigation, and two Department employees, Casey Gully and Shacondra Primm, inspected the Gibson Center on December 13, 2017. During that inspection, one of Respondent’s teachers showed Ms. Primm a hole in the floor of a modular classroom unit. Approximately one week prior to the inspection, the teacher’s foot had fallen through the floor, resulting in a 6 inch by 12 inch hole about 3 to 4 feet from the classroom’s entrance. At the time of the inspection, a trashcan and caution tape covered the hole. Respondent was in the process of collecting bids to have the hole fixed over the Christmas break.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Families issue a Final Order imposing a $1,000.00 fine on Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of September, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S G. W. CHISENHALL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of September, 2018.
