The Issue The issue raised by this proceeding is whether Petitioner, Aleta M. Daoust, should be licensed to operate an Emergency Shelter Home.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Aleta M. Daoust, seeks licensure of her residence as an Emergency Shelter Home (ESH). Petitioner resides in a 5-bedroom, 2-story wood-frame house, at 412 9th Street, West Palm Beach, Florida, with her husband and 4-5 of her own children. Petitioner has been licensed to operate an ESH, at her residence, since 1982. However, in March 1985 DHRS denied Petitioner's application for renewal of her license predicated on the assertion that her home had not received a satisfactory inspection report, that the quality of care previously provided to dependent children was inadequate, and that Petitioner has failed to provide evidence of financial ability adequate to provide appropriate care for dependent children. Petitioner's home was inspected by DHRS on September 5, 1984, and found satisfactory in all respects, except for the lack of an approved heating system. The home is heated by a wood burning fireplace. DHRS concedes that, except for the lack of an approved heating system, Petitioner's home is satisfactory for licensure, but that Petitioner's home could only be licensed from mid-March to mid-November. The gravamen of DHRS's denial is Petitioner's failure to demonstrate the financial ability to care for dependent children, and the adverse impact her lack of financial resources has had on the quality of care previously afforded dependent children. DHRS pays licensed ESH's a stipend of $50.00 a month for each bed reserved, and $8.00 per diem for children under 12 years of age, or $9.80 per diem for children over 12 years of age, for their food and other necessities. The ESH program is a reimbursement program, with payment made after the services are performed. Because of the nature of the program, reimbursement often takes up to 30 days. Consequently, the operator of an ESH must possess sufficient financial resources to maintain the home independent of DHRS support. The evidence is clear that Petitioner was always ready, willing and able to admit and care for dependent children. However, the evidence is also clear that operation of her home as an ESH placed a severe financial burden on Petitioner, which adversely impacted the quality of care she afforded dependent children. Petitioner's lack of financial ability was objectively demonstrated by her inability to provide diapers, or sanitary napkins, in sufficient quantity to satisfy the sanitary needs of her wards, and by her refusal to permit her wards daily baths.
The Issue The issue is whether the Beatrice Guardian Angel Daycare violated provisions of chapters 402 and 435, Florida Statutes (2012), and/or Florida Administrative Code Chapter 65C-22, such that its license should not be renewed.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for inspecting, licensing, and monitoring child care facilities such as the one operated by the Daycare. It is the Department's responsibility to ensure that all such facilities are safe and secure for the protection of the children utilizing those facilities. The Department inspects each licensed day care center three times a year: two unannounced routine inspections (to ensure compliance with the applicable laws and rules), and one renewal application inspection. In the event of a complaint, additional inspections and/or investigations are conducted. Ms. Giles owned, operated and directed the Daycare. The Daycare located on West Lancaster Road opened in November 2011, and was in continuous operation at all times material.6/ Ms. Giles opened the Daycare at this particular location after operating it at a different location. Luz Torres is a family service counselor for the Department. Ms. Torres is trained to inspect day care centers for initial applications, renewal applications and routine inspections. Ms. Torres is familiar with the Daycare, having inspected it several times while it was operational. Inspections of the Daycare revealed operational deficiencies during four inspections, dated February 15; June 20,; July 2,; and November 7, 2012. The specific deficiencies were set forth on inspection reports provided to Ms. Giles at the time of each inspection. Ms. Torres conducted a routine inspection of the Daycare on February 15, 2012 (inspection one). A number of areas of noncompliance areas included physical environmental issues, such as insufficient lighting, gaps in fencing, ground cover for outdoor equipment, and training. Other areas included: a lack of documentation of employee educational courses showing literacy and developmental course training, a 40-hour child care course, and 10 hours of in-service training; items in the first aid kit were missing; deficiencies in food and nutrition, such as unlabeled bottles and sippy cups; and deficiencies in children's health and immunization records, personnel records, and background screening. The Department issued an "Administrative Warning Notification" (notification) to Petitioner based upon the following violations: "[T]he facility's fencing, walls or gate area had gaps that could allow children to exit the outdoor play area. The gate was observed broke [sic] with gaps on both sides." This notification advised Petitioner that the "next violation of a licensing standard outlined in this notice, [would] result in an administrative fine." On June 20, 2012, Ms. Torres conducted a routine inspection (inspection two) of the Daycare. The noncompliant areas included: missing documentation for some children's immunization records; missing documentation of ten hours of in-service training for the Daycare's director; and missing documentation of background screening documents, including an affidavit of good moral character for employees. A second notification7/ (dated June 20, 2012) was issued to the Daycare following inspection two. This notification involved issues regarding a child's health and immunization records, and missing documentation for employees. One child's immunization records had expired. Four staff members were deficient regarding in-service training logs, and an additional staff member had not received the level two screening clearance. In response to a complaint (complaint one), Ms. Torres conducted an investigation of the Daycare on July 2, 2012. The Daycare was found to be out-of-ratio regarding the number of children to staff, and background screening documentation for level two screening for staff members was missing. In a mixed group of children ages one and two years old, the ratio of one staff for six children is required. At the time of the complaint one investigation, there was one staff per eight children. Although this ratio issue was rectified during the complaint one investigation, it was and is considered a violation. The documentation for the level two screening violation for the staff was not corrected during this investigation. A third notification was issued to the Daycare following the complaint one investigation. This notification involved the staff-to-child ratio, and the lack of background screening documentation. The Daycare was notified that the appropriate staff-to-child ratio must be maintained at all times, and the missing Level two screening documentation had to be resolved. This notification advised the Daycare that the "next violation of a licensing standard outlined in this notice, [would] result in an administrative fine." 8/ On August 1, 2012, the Daycare was notified that its license would expire on November 29, 2012. The Daycare's renewal application was due 45 days before the expiration date, or before October 15, 2012. The denial letter set forth that the Daycare's renewal application was filed on October 30, 2012.9/ In June 2012, Ms. Giles became aware that her daughter, Alexis Anderson, had a drug addiction problem when Ms. Anderson's baby was born addicted to drugs. Ms. Anderson and her two children were required to live with Ms. Giles while Ms. Anderson addressed her addiction problem. Ms. Anderson's two children attended the Daycare. Ms. Anderson would visit the Daycare to see her children. On November 7, 2012, as a result of another complaint (complaint two) being filed, DCF conducted an investigation of the Daycare. Ms. Giles reported that on two different occasions, two small bags were found at the Daycare. One small empty bag was found in the Daycare's common hallway. A second bag was found on a desk in the Daycare's office and contained a white residue. After the second bag was found and Ms. Giles was told by an employee what the bags might be used for ("people transport drugs in"), she suspected that Ms. Anderson might have left the bags at the Daycare. Also, after finding the second bag, Ms. Giles banned Ms. Anderson from the Daycare. There was speculation that the two bags contained an illegal substance; however, the two bags were discarded before any scientific testing could be done or any photographs could be taken. There is simply no proof as to what was in either bag.10/ There was no clear and convincing evidence that Ms. Anderson supervised or tended to children other than her own while she was at the Daycare. There was clear and convincing evidence that Ms. Anderson was at the Daycare on multiple occasions and had access to every room and child/children there. Ms. Anderson did not have the appropriate level two screening. In addition to investigating complaint two, child care regulations counselor Christina Bryant also observed inadequate ratios between staff and children, and a lack of qualified or unscreened individuals supervising children. Ms. Bryant observed one staff for five children in the zero to twelve month age group (ratio should be one to four), and she observed one staff to nine children, in the one-year-old classroom (ratio should be one staff to six children). Upon completing a review of the Daycare's record keeping, Ms. Bryant also found that background screening documents were missing for staff members. On November 14, 2012, Child Protective Investigator (CPI), Beauford White was directed to go to the Daycare and remove Ms. Anderson's two children from the Daycare.11/ When CPI White advised Ms. Giles he was removing the children from the Daycare, Ms. Giles became very emotional, and initially told CPI White he could not take the children. CPI White contacted his supervisor who directed CPI White to contact the Orange County Sheriff's Office (OCSO) for assistance in removing the children. Between the time the OCSO was called and when the deputy arrived, approximately 45 to 60 minutes, CPI White had obtained compliance, and Ms. Giles released the two children to his custody.12/ On Thursday afternoon, November 29, 2012, Ms. Giles was asked to attend a meeting on Friday, November 30, 2012, in the Department's legal office regarding the Daycare's license. Because of the short notice, Ms. Giles was unable to obtain an attorney to accompany her to the meeting on November 30, 2012. Ms. Giles attended the meeting by herself with a number of Department staff. Ms. Giles was given the following option: execute a relinquishment of the Daycare's license, or the Department would seek to revoke the license. Ms. Giles did not know the law. Ms. Giles executed the relinquishment13/ of the Daycare's license because she was thinking that "revoke sound[ed] horrible to" her. She did not want to relinquish her license, nor close her business, but she did not feel she had any choice in the matter. The totality of the circumstances under which Ms. Giles found herself renders the "relinquishment" less than voluntary. After this meeting, Ms. Giles returned to the Daycare and was present when Ms. Torres removed the Daycare's license from the wall. Mytenniza Boston, a Daycare employee, was also present when Ms. Torres removed the license. Ms. Giles did not tell Ms. Boston or any of the other Daycare employees that the Daycare's license had been relinquished, nor did she start notifying parents of the Daycare's closing. On Monday, December 3, 2012, around noon, Department investigators arrived at the Daycare and found children in the opened facility. Ms. Giles was at the Daycare making telephone calls to parents asking them to come pick up their child or children. The Daycare was open for business despite the fact that Ms. Giles had relinquished her license on Friday, November 30, 2012. On occasion Pervis Giles, Ms. Giles' then husband would walk to the Daycare to talk with Ms. Giles. Mr. Giles would also cut the Daycare's grass, unlock the Daycare's door for daily operations, and participate with Ms. Giles in making business decisions about the Daycare. Ms. Giles did not consider these activities to be working for the Daycare; however, common sense dictates otherwise. Ms. Giles has several children. At various times during the Daycare's operation, Ms. Giles' children were at the Daycare volunteering, cleaning up or helping with the Daycare children in some fashion. Ms. Giles' children did not have the required level two background screening as Ms. Giles did not know that her children needed to be screened. Ms. Giles' lack of understanding regarding who is required to be screened is troublesome. Ms. Giles has been in the daycare business for many years, yet she failed to comply with basic safety measures.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Families enter a final order DENYING the renewal application. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of July, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK 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 22nd day of July, 2013.
Findings Of Fact After respondent Debra T. Acosta and her husband Joe, a noncommissioned Air Force officer, the parents of Joseph M., 16 at the time of hearing, Jason M. (13), Shawn W. (9), and Tisouli (6), applied to HRS for a day care center license, they were required to have their fingerprints taken and to undergo a background check or "screening." The background check turned up a report of an investigation Air Force personnel had conducted on account of information Carla Burrell, formerly known as Carla Knight, had supplied. The first two numbered paragraphs of the report read: On 2 Mar 88, SSgt CARLA K. BURRELL, USAF Clinic, RAF Bentwaters (RAF), UK provided the following information: She arrived at RAFB from Eglin AFB (EAFB), FL on 21 Apr 85. She was stationed at EAFB from Jan 83 until Apr 85. While stationed at EAFB, her daughter, Angela Kristen Knight, female born: 21 Jan 80, VA, Civ, SSAN: 066-70-1577 (hereafter referred to as VICTIM) stayed with a babysitter during the day. The babysitter was identified as DEBRA ACOSTA, dependent wife of SUBJECT who resides at 318 Blackjack Court, EAFB, FL. DEBRA ACOSTA babysat for several families. After arrival at RAFB, VICTIM entered school and seemed to be worried about something but BURRELL wasn't sure of what it was. According to BURRELL, VICTIM received briefings in school about sexual abuse and was told it wasn't nice for adults to touch children in certain places. This led VICTIM to confide in BURRELL that while they had been stationed at EAFB, SUBJECT would make VICTIM and other young females being babysat by SUBJECT's wife take off their clothes and lie on the bed. On numerous occasions, SUBJECT had placed his hands on VICTIM's bottom and had placed his hands between VICTIM's legs. SUBJECT had touched VICTIM's vagina but had never actually penetrated her vagina. SUBJECT has done the same thing to other female children, but VICTIM stated SUBJECT didn't do anything to boys. In addition, VICTIM told BURRELL SUBJECT would drop his pants and underwear and would place his penis between the legs of the females but did not insert his penis into their vaginas. On 6 Mar 88, VICTIM was interviewed by SA STANLEY B. CRISP and SA BETTY J. WILKINS in the presence of her mother. VICTIM provided essentially the same information as was provided by her mother on 2 Mar 88. VICTIM provided the following additional information not previously reported by her mother. SUBJECT had made her and other young females go into the bedroom at the same time, sometimes even with DEBRA ACOSTA being at home. VICTIM stated however that DEBRA didn't know what SUBJECT was doing. At other times DEBRA wouldn't be at home when the incidents took place. VICTIM couldn't recall the names of the other children who were involved, but stated there were others in the bedroom at the same time. VICTIM stated SUBJECT had never hurt her and had never threatened her with harm. SUBJECT had told the children that they shouldn't tell anyone about what he was doing to them. VICTIM said she wasn't afraid of SUBJECT. The bedroom used was described by VICTIM as an upstairs, spare bedroom. SUBJECT had never made the children go into his bedroom. VICTIM had never told anyone about the incidents until she was told in school of the actions of SUBJECT were wrong. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 7. In February of 1988, Mary Vinyard had given respondent and her husband a letter she and her husband had received from Ms. Burrell. Respondent's Exhibit No. 6. This letter reads: Tom and Mary, Remember me? . . . I'm sorry to say the reason I'm writing is because of a concern I have. I've had nothing but problems with Krissy ever since we got to England. She's doing very well in school, however her behavior has gotten to the obnoxious state. Recently she was referred to a child psychiatrist at Lakenheath (Bentwaters doesn't have one). The Dr. there seems to think part of Krissys problem is that there has been some sort of sexual abuse in the past. She makes up stories, so I have no way of being certain of what she says. Last week after talking to the Dr, on the way home, Krissy suddenly said there had been someone in Florida that had done things he shouldn't have done. She said it was Joe, Debra's husband. I at first couldn't believe it, but she went on to talk about things an 8 year old child really should have no knowledge of. I really don't know what to think however I really don't want to screw up anyone's life. We don't see the psychologist again until next week. I called him and told him of this new development, and he said after two years nothing could be done anyway. I don't believe that. The Air Force seems to be taking a rather relaxed view on this. The reason I'm writing you is to inquire if your children are still in Debra's care. Are you having any trouble with either of them, ightmares, bedwetting, whining? Please do write me back. An answer of any sort will help put my mind at ease. If it is just conjecture, no harm is done. If there is something going on, and Debra is still babysitting, it needs to stop. I just don't want any other parents to go through what I'm going through right now. You may or may not want to consider another babysitter. Please don't tell Debra I wrote, I always thought the world of her and I know the kids loved her. I don't wish to upset their family, especially if this turns out to be nothing; but I'm very suspicious. The day after the Vinyards gave this letter to respondent, Mr. Acosta took it to his commanding officer, Captain Gilmore, and protested his innocence. Captain Gilmore made a copy of the letter and launched the investigation that eventuated in the Office of Special Investigations (OSI) report, set out in part above. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 7. No action was taken against Mr. Acosta as a result of the Air Force's investigation. He has consistently denied Krissy's reported allegations, and did so under oath at the formal hearing in this case. After the OSI report came to HRS' attention, an HRS employee decided "that Debra could get licensed, to continue with the paperwork" (T.370) but as to her only. Eventually HRS did license Debra Acosta to operate Kare Free Day Care (KFDC) at 15 Eglin Street in Fort Walton Beach. KFDC opened in July of 1990. Nobody from HRS asked Mr. Acosta to agree to stay off the day care center premises and neither he nor Ms. Acosta agreed that he would. His presence during various HRS inspections elicited no official, contemporaneous response. T.406-7. Another Allegation Reported Michelle G'Sell dropped her four-year-old daughter Amber and her two- year-old son Adam off at the Acosta family home about seven o'clock in the morning on Mother's Day, May 12, 1991, in keeping with the arrangement she had made with Ms. Acosta the afternoon before, when she picked up her children at KFDC, after their first stay there. At quarter past three Sunday afternoon, Ms. G' Sell again picked Amber and Adam up at KFDC. Ms. Acosta had taken them (and her own two youngest children) to KFDC that morning after feeding Shawn and Tisouli breakfast. As Ms. G'Sell walked to her car with her children "around three steps out of the house" (T.113) Amber said, "Mommy, my twat hurts." Id. Asked when, the child "said when she pees." Id. According to her mother, when they had reached the car, Amber said, "He touched me," id., and, asked who had touched her, pointed to Mr. Acosta, who was standing on the roof of the KFDC building, "and said, 'Him.'" Id. But Jason and Mrs. Acosta (T.512) testified that Mr. Acosta was not at KFDC when Amber left, and Jason testified that his father had not been on the roof that day. T.313. The next morning Ms. G'Sell dropped Adam off at KFDC and signed Amber in, having arranged for her to be brought to KFDC later in the day. But, after somebody at work told her, "You must believe her, and you must report it," (T.115) she called her father and asked him not to take Amber to KFDC. She also reported to HRS that Mr. Acosta had sexually abused Amber the day before, and HRS began an investigation eventuating, according to HRS, in FPSS Report No. 91-050519, "alleging sexual abuse on a female child who was enrolled at KFDC . . . [allegedly perpetrated by] Joe A., the husband of D. A." HRS' Proposed Recommended Order, page 3. On May 17, 1991, Mr. Acosta was arrested on criminal charges of sexually abusing Amber, charges which remain pending. Admitted to bail on condition that he stay away from children under 18 years of age, he was rearrested for being in the presence of his own children. (Neither he nor Mrs. Acosta had realized that their children fell within the reach of the condition.) He has since been readmitted to bail and moved out of the family home. HRS also launched a separate, exhaustive investigation into the operations of KFDC which, while apparently not turning up any other allegation of sexual misconduct, gave rise to the allegations on the basis of which HRS seeks to revoke KFDC's day care center license. Husband Occasionally Helped Out While Anna Maria Root worked at KFDC in the winter and spring of 1991, Joe Acosta brought her eight-year old son to the Center after school, on the same run on which he picked up his own children. T.218. He may have brought another child, too, aside from the Root child and his own children. T.272. On two or three occasions Joe Acosta transported Shawn Holbert to school. T.379. He drove a brown van, "the one we were licensed to transport children in." T.379. After KFDC's initial licensure, Ms. Acosta requested an extension or expansion of the license to authorize KFDC to offer child care in the evening, but HRS denied the request. When KFDC closed for the day, children still there were taken to the Acosta home. A "couple of times," (Hoffman Deposition, p.9) Joe Acosta drove the van to the Acosta home after KFDC closed with as many as four or five children who were to be cared for there, id. 9, 56, "and Debra would stay and close up." Waller Deposition, p.14. Twice Mr. Acosta was alone with the children when Stacy Stowell collected her sons, Matthew and Aaron, at KFDC. T.12. But Lynn Hoffman, an employee, was never aware of his being alone with children. Hoffman Deposition, p.11. Nor was Julie Ann Merrill, who worked at KFDC from September to December 1990. Merrill Deposition, p.5, 20-21. It rarely happened. The morning after a fire at the Acosta home, Ms. Acosta sent Mr. Acosta to open up KFDC, and he was present when at least one child arrived, before either Ms. Acosta or Vicki Waller got there. Sole Supervisors Under Age and/or Uncertified When Vicki Waller, then 19 years old, began working for KFDC, neither she nor the Acostas were aware of the HRS rule forbidding leaving the children in the unsupervised care of anybody under 21 years of age. The three of them learned of the requirement in a 20-hour course they took together in the fall of 1990. Before that time, Ms. Waller had been left in charge mornings "from about 7:00 to 7:30," (Waller Deposition, p.6) and all day on one or two Saturdays. She was not left in charge after they learned of the rule against it. Ms. Waller did not have first aid or CPR certification when she took sole responsibility for children at KFDC. Chris Fitzpatrick worked as the only person caring for children at KFDC one Saturday, although she had not yet taken the first aid course she had signed up for. She also lacked CPR certification. Similarly untrained and uncertified, Denise Carla Yates had charge of the children by herself sometimes on Saturdays. Robin Lynn Bedmar was the only person responsible for the children on two or more Saturdays, even though her CPR certification had expired. Sometimes Sandra Lynn Hoffman, who did not have CPR training, was responsible for children at KFDC by herself, or shared responsibility only with Ms. Waller. Chris Fitzpatrick, Denise Caren Yates, Robin Lynn Bedmars and Sandra Lynn Hoffman were 21 or older, as far as the record shows, when they were left alone with the children. Occasionally Substandard Supervision Until a refrigerator was installed in the infant room, the worker supervising infants left them unattended in order to get milk from the kitchen. Similarly, in order to change an older (but disabled) child's diapers, the person responsible for his age group left his peers unattended to take him to a mat in another room. Sometimes only one KFDC employee supervised more than six infants for a full day. On at least four occasions, and possibly on as many as eight occasions (T.71; Waller Deposition p.9) there were more than six babies in the infant room, which had six cribs and two pallets, even after the playpen was removed at HRS's behest. T.71. Towards the end of the day infants along with older children, sometimes aggregating as many as ten or more, were left in the care of a single KFDC employee. Children played outside, sometimes without adult supervision. Twice, Jason Acosta was outside with children at KFDC "sort of keeping an eye on things while," (Waller Deposition, p.10) his mother was inside with other children. Respondent once asked Jason and Joseph to stay in the baby room with the children there. T.44. Hygiene The parents of two children complained to Ms. Acosta that their children's diapers were dirty when they picked the children up; and the grandmother of a third testified that, at least twice a week, he had "poopy pants" (T.30) when she came for him at KFDC, or at least by the time she had driven him some ten minutes away. Generally, children at KFDC with soiled diapers got fresh ones promptly. Ms. Acosta had extra diapers and clothes for the children on hand. Nutrition For every day a child who ate lunch failed to bring his own, KFDC charged his or her parents a dollar. But some or all of the food supplied these children came from the lunch bags sent with other children. Ms. Acosta or an employee opened the bags and divided the food onto plates without regard to the intended recipients' (or their parents') desires. Mornings and afternoons snacks were almost always provided to the children, but food with which to prepare snacks was occasionally unavailable to staff. The menu sometimes posted at KFDC was not always followed. Once, after two or three children drank from the same glass, respondent refilled it and gave it back to a child, perhaps unaware of its history. Before she obtained the KFDC license, Ms. Acosta registered her home as a family day care center, and the home was inspected by the fire department. T. 497. After her licensure, as before, Ms. Acosta cared for Kyle Dunbar, who has cerebral palsy, at her house, while his mother worked evening shifts. BreAnn's mother, Paige Kelso, also worked nights and left her child in respondent's care when she did. Respondent charged for taking care of these children and sometimes had them both in her home at the same time. Friends of her children spent the night sometimes, and she occasionally took care of a friend's two sons as a favor. Other Matters Ms. Acosta conducted several fire drills at KFDC but sometimes "the month would go by . . . [without one] and then she would write it in" (Waller Deposition, p. 58) anyway, as if one had actually occurred. T.113. Infants were not removed, even when fire drills did take place. Id. Whether falsified records of fire drills were ever submitted to HRS is not clear. Ms. Acosta and others on the KFDC staff relied on "time outs" as their principal disciplinary method. But Ms. Acosta once swatted a little girl's behind. The witness who testified to this incident also testified, "I'm not saying that the child did not like Debra [Acosta, the respondent] or was scared of Debra." Waller Deposition, p. 61.
Recommendation HRS proved several significant violations. But HRS did not prove, or even allege, that respondent's husband sexually abused a child or children. Instead, HRS alleged and proved that such allegations are the basis for pending criminal and (other) administrative proceedings. It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That HRS suspend respondent's day care center license for one year, with credit for the time already elapsed in which HRS has prevented respondent from operating a day care center. That HRS place respondent's license on probation thereafter for a period of at least two years, on condition that respondent comply with all applicable statutes and rules for two years; on condition that respondent not charge for children she cares for at her home; and on condition that Mr. Acosta stay off KFDC premises while children other than his own are there, and have no contact with children who are cared for at KFDC (other than his own), until and unless he is exonerated in both the criminal and administrative proceedings now pending. DONE and ENTERED this 22 day of May, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II 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 day of May, 1992. APPENDIX Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 17, 20 and 26 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 2, KFDC was licensed earlier than January 1, 1991. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 8, the court order was not in evidence. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 9, the substance is addressed in later proposed findings of fact. With respect to petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 14 and 15, the evidence did not show routine noncompliance. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 16, this occurred only rarely. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 18, it was not clearly and convincingly shown that the screening had not be completed. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 19, it was not clearly and convincingly shown that the children received less than what was nutritionally necessary. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 21, 23 and 24 were not proven. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 22, it was not clear that respondent "extended her day care license to her home without authority" as opposed to acting in good faith under supposed authority antedating issuance of KFDC's license. Vicki Waller did not see all those children at the same time, as far as the record shows. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 25, the credible evidence did not clearly and convincingly establish any improper discipline other than the swat. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 27, the violation consisted only of being in the presence of his own children. Respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18 and 20 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 7, an adult was inside when the boys were asked to watch the infants, but no adult was outside three or more times when one of the Acosta sons supervised. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 8, noncompliance with ratios was sometimes more than momentary. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 10, diapers were changed regularly. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 13, morning snacks were not always given. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 16, children whose parents did not pick them up at KFDC were also brought to the Acosta home. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 19, no improper discipline other than a single swat was proven. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 21, this is properly a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 John Slye, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 S. J. DiConcilio, Esquire Rodney M. Johnson, Esquire P.O. Box 8420 Pensacola, FL 32505-0420 Mary Koch Polson, Esquire P.O. Box 96 Fort Walton Beach, FL 32549
Findings Of Fact Petitioners are licensed by Respondent to provide foster care to children in Petitioners' home. Substantially prior to the incidents in question, Petitioners received written materials from Respondent confirming that the foster children at all times remain under the supervision and control of Respondent and that Respondent's discipline policy "[p]rohibits any form of corporal punishment ...." On at least two occasions during the latter half of 1992, a representative of Respondent reminded Petitioners of the policy against corporal punishment. Despite numerous reminders of Respondent's policy against corporal punishment in a foster care setting, on January 29, 1993, Vivian Griffin spanked a 2 and 1/2 year old boy who was in their foster care. He had soiled his diapers during a visit by Mr. and Mrs. Griffin to a commercial lender. As Mrs. Griffin removed him from the office, she threatened, "I'm going to take you outside and I'm going to take your pants down." She took the toddler to her van where she struck the boy at least five to ten times with her bare hand in the area of his buttocks. The incident drew the attention of two office workers, one of whom went out to the van and intervened. When asked by the office worker if she could help, Mrs. Griffin responded, "He shit in his pants." Petitioners' parenting skills are deficient. Mrs. Griffin in particular has a high frustration level with the young children who have been placed in their home. During one home visit by a representative of Respondent, Mrs. Griffin followed around a two year old who was exhibiting normally inquisitive behavior in her home. Rather than remove objects that the toddler should not have touched, Mrs. Griffin hovered over the child, inappropriately threatening at one point a two-minute timeout if the behavior persisted. Both Petitioners have displayed a strong lack of affection, considerable nervousness, and much agitation with the foster children who have been placed with Petitioners. At the same time, Mrs. Griffin constantly resisted help offered by Respondent's representatives and instead complained about these and other persons available to help her. Respondent has offered Petitioners free day care, parenting classes, and individual counselling. But Mrs. Griffin refused to go to the parenting classes or take the children to day care. She reluctantly attended one or two sessions of individual counseling, but soon quit going.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a final order denying the renewal of a foster care license to Petitioners. ENTERED on April 20, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 on April 20, 1994. APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings rejected as not finding of fact. rejected as recitation of evidence and unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 3-5. rejected as recitation of evidence. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings 1-6. adopted or adopted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert L. Powell Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Attorney Kelly A. Lee P.O. Box 7946 Naples, FL 33941-7946 Elmer and Vivian Griffin P.O. Box 2544 Immokalee, FL 33934 Attorney Anthony N. DeLuccia, Jr. District 8 Legal Office Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services P.O. Box 06085 Ft. Myers, FL 33906
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent hereto, the Respondents were operating a shelter home in Opa Locka, Florida, pursuant to License 290-12-5 that had been issued by Petitioner. Respondent W.G. is the husband of Respondent G.G. On December 27, 1990, Petitioner received a report in its central abuse center in Tallahassee of alleged child abuse by Respondents at their shelter home in that Respondents were verbally abusing a 17-year-old female that had been placed in their shelter home. Protective services investigator David K. Welch immediately began an investigation of this alleged abuse. He visited the shelter home. Respondent G.G. was present in the shelter home when Mr. Welch made his visit to the home, but she was not in the same room with the children who had been temporarily placed in the custody of the Respondents. At the time of Mr. Welch's visit, Respondent G.G. was present in the home and was providing adequate supervision. Mr. Welch spoke with the Respondents about the allegations of verbal abuse and concluded that the allegations were "indicated". Mr. Welch found insufficient evidence upon which to base a conclusion that the allegation of verbal abuse should be closed as "confirmed". During the course of his investigation, Mr. Welch learned of reports from three other protective services investigators of allegations that Respondents often left the children who had been placed in their temporary custody without adequate supervision. The three reports, upon which Mr. Welch relied, were from Fidelis Ezewike pertaining to an incident on September 24, 1990, from Iris Silien pertaining to an incident on December 28, 1990, and from Michael Blum pertaining to an incident on an unspecified date in late 1990. At no time did Mr. Welch advise Respondents as to allegations of abuse in the form of inadequate supervision or ask them to explain the arrangements they make for the supervision of the children when they are both away from the foster home. The abuse report listed two victims of the alleged neglect, M.L., a female born in February 1974, and L.G., a female born in August 1975. Neither of these alleged victims testified at the formal hearing. Mr. Welch had no first had knowledge of the three incidents upon which he relied to close the report as a proposed confirmed report of child abuse based on neglect from inadequate supervision. Mr. Ezewike did testify as to the incident of September 24, 1990. Although he found children in the foster home temporarily without adult supervision when he arrived there, he later that day discussed the matter with the Respondents. Respondents explained their temporary absence from the foster home to Mr. Ezewike. Mr. Ezewike was satisfied with the explanation given by the Respondents and was of the opinion that the absence of the Respondents did not merit the filing of an abuse report based on the failure to provide adequate supervision.2/ Ms. Silien did not testify at the formal hearing. There was no competent, substantial evidence to establish that Respondents failed to provide adequate supervision to the identified victims on the date Ms. Silien visited the foster home. Mr. Blum did not testify at the formal hearing. There was no competent, substantial evidence to establish that Respondents failed to provide adequate supervision to the identified victims on the date Mr. Blum visited the foster home. Respondents' son-in-law testified that he was present at the foster home on the date of Mr. Blum's visit and that he explained to Mr. Blum that he was supervising the children temporarily at the request of Respondents. The uncontradicted testimony was that when Respondents have to be away from the foster home on a temporary basis, they entrust the supervision of the children in their custody to their daughter and her husband, who live in close proximity to Respondents and who had agreed to be responsible for supervising the children. Petitioner failed to establish that the temporary arrangements Respondents made for the supervision of the children in their absence from the foster home was inadequate.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered which amends FPSS Report No. 90- 1333485 to reflect the findings contained herein, which closes said report as unfounded, and which expunges the names of the Respondents as confirmed perpetrators from the central abuse registry. DONE AND ORDERED this 2 day of June, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2 day of June, 1992.
The Issue The issue for disposition in this proceeding is whether Petitioner is entitled to licensure as a family day care home.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner resides in Lakeland, Florida. In the fall of 2002, she applied for a license to operate a family day care home in her residence. In the course of discharging its statutory responsibility of investigating applicants seeking licensure for family day care homes, a representative of Respondent, Gloria Mathews, an experienced child care licensing inspector, visited Petitioner's residence and discovered numerous instances of non- compliance with requirements of Sections 402.301 through 402.319, Florida Statutes (2002), and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 65C-20. Ms. Mathews talked with Petitioner, pointed out the various instances of non-compliance, and made suggestions regarding correcting the various instances of non-compliance. Ms. Mathews anticipated that upon Petitioner’s correcting the areas of non-compliance, Petitioner would notify her and request a re-inspection. She was not contacted by Petitioner for several months. On May 20, 2003, Francis Williams, an employee of Youth and Family Alternatives, a private, not-for-profit agency that contracts with Respondent to provide assistance to individuals seeking family day care licensure, went to Petitioner's home to provide guidance and assistance to Petitioner in her effort to obtain licensure. Ms. Williams determined that several instances of non- compliance continued. In addition, Ms. Williams noted that Petitioner was caring for five non-related children without being licensed and later discovered that a sixth child had gone unsupervised for more that 15 minutes while Petitioner, Ms. Williams, and five children were in the yard noting various non-compliant conditions and discussing required improvements. On July 28, 2003, Ms. Williams again visited Petitioner's home, found discrepancies, noted that Petitioner was caring for non-related children, and, in Petitioner's absence, discovered a substitute caregiver who had not been screened. On August 27, 2003, Ms. Mathews revisited Petitioner's home and discovered that she was not in compliance; she did not have health examination forms for all of the children. Ms. Mathews and Ms. Williams, both having extensive experience in family day care facilities, testified that they did not believe that Petitioner should be licensed based on her continuing disregard for the rules provided for the safety and protection of children. Petitioner had little to offer regarding the failure of her home to qualify due to the various instances of non- compliance and her violation of the prohibition of caring for non-related children without being licensed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Family Services enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for a family day care home license. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of February, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JEFF B. CLARK 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 26th day of February, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack Emory Farley, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 4720 Old Highway 37 Lakeland, Florida 33813-2030 Cassandra Napier 1535 Peavy Court Lakeland, Florida 33801 Paul Flounlacker, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204B Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Josie Tomayo, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations herein, the Petitioner, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, (Department), was the state agency responsible for the maintenance of a register of reports of abuse and neglect of children, the elderly and the disabled in Florida. Respondents, Clifford and Nancy Stephan operated a foster care home for children in St. Petersburg, under license issued by the Department. On August 13, 1993, J.B., a 2 1/2 year old boy, was placed as a resident in Respondents' foster home. J.B. is described as a rambunctious child who demonstrated behavioral problems but who had no documented clinical problems. The placement was made by Teresa Harris, a child protective investigator for the Department who, when she delivered the child, spent a lot of time with the Respondents describing him and his problems. The care packet she left with the Stephans did not, however, have his Medicaid card included with it. Without that card, the Stephans could not get medical care for the child under Medicaid. At the time he was delivered to the Stephans, J.B. had been abandoned and abused. He had some scars, (cigarette burns), and old abrasions as well as the normal lumps and bruises which might be expected on an active child of his age. After the placement, follow-up visits were made by either Early Service Intervention personnel or by Ms. Harris who indicated that some time during the following week, the Medicaid card was to be delivered by ESI. It was several weeks after the placement, however, before the card was actually delivered and during that time, Ms. Stephan made repeated requests to Department personnel for it. At the time of delivery, it had only 10 days remaining validity. According to Ms. Harris, during the week of September 20, 1993, Mrs. Stephan called, upset, saying that J.B. was acting up and had hurt himself when he dove into the couch and hit his face on a bar running across the back, giving himself a black eye. According to Ms. Harris, Mrs. Stephan also stated that they had had to lock J.B. in the bathroom when he became excited and had bruised himself when he hit himself on the toilet paper holder or rolled around on the floor. Mrs. Stephan categorically denies having placed J.B. in the bathroom, much less locked him there, and claims he would go in there himself for solitude and remain so long, they had to call him out. She notes the bathroom door does not lock from the outside - only from the inside. Taken as a whole, it is found unlikely that the Stephans would lock or even confine in any way a child as young as J.B. in a bathroom, the one room in the home where there is little softness but an abundance of hard, potentially injurious surfaces on which he could hurt himself. As a result of Mrs. Stephan's call, Ms. Harris went to the Stephan home on September 22, 1993 where, she claims, she asked Mrs. Stephan if she wanted J.B. removed from the home. According to Mrs. Harris, Mrs. Stephan said she did, but, again, Mrs. Stephan denies she was asked or indicated she did want him out. Ms. Harris also states that when she arrived at the home, early in the morning, she found J.B.'s things already packed and waiting. At this point, Ms. Harris observed an altercation between Mrs. Stephan and her eldest son in which the boy spoke rudely and provocatively to his mother. Mrs. Stephan did not respond in kind. At this same time, Ms. Harris also noticed that J.B. had two black eyes and bruises on his back. She already knew of the black eyes as a result of Mrs. Stephan's report of his dive into the sofa, but he also had on his back oddly shaped round bruises which concerned her. She told Mrs. Stephan she would have to call in and report the bruises and that Mrs. Stephan should expect an inquiry into how the child got them. Ms. Harris took J.B. from the Stephan home that day, taking him to her office where she showed the bruises to her supervisor. During the ride from the home to the office, she asked J.B. how he got the bruises and, she relates, he stated "Cliff did it." Other witnesses who discussed the bruises with the child, including Dr. Morris with the child protective team, indicate that J.B. indicated that "Charlie" did it. In light of the inconsistency, it is found that J.B. did not accuse "Cliff", (Mr. Stephan), but, more likely, "Charlie", another, also very aggressive foster child living in the home. That same day, the child was examined by Dr. Morris who discovered some of the old bruises he had noted in a prior examination conducted on August 4, 1993, before the child was placed with the Respondents. The doctor also noted some new bruises, however, on the face and on the back. The bruise on the face was consistent with the story told regarding the dive into the couch and could well be accidental. The bruises on the child's back were, however, in the doctor's opinion, consistent with an inflicted injury, (child abuse). These bruises were linear, uniform in shape and dimension, and not likely to have resulted from an accident. They are not compatible with either tumbling exercises on a hard floor or bites. Their location on the body supports that conclusion. The most common cause of this type of injury is a beating by a belt or cord. While it is hard to tell the age of the person who may have inflicted these bruises, they are not characteristic of play between young children. No evidence was presented to indicate how the bruises were actually inflicted. Their cause is unknown. The child does not indicate in any way that either Respondent administered them. Immediately after the report concerning J.B.'s bruises was filed, an investigation was conducted into the incident by a representative of the Department. At the time, there were at least 5 foster children in the home, including J.B.. The others were R.M., age 11; his sister, Sunshine, age 9; C.J., age 2; N.K., age 1; and T.H., age 1 1/2. All these children were removed from the home pending investigation. The investigation, when completed, failed to indicate who inflicted the bruises to J.B.'s back or how they were inflicted. The report was, therefore, closed without classification. Nonetheless, by letter dated November 23, 1993, the Department notified the Respondents that while they might again use their home for the shelter of children, only children 10 years of age and older would be allowed. This was unsatisfactory to the Stephans who are most drawn to the younger children. The Department's restriction was based on the conclusion that the Stephans showed favoritism to some of the children placed with them and on the assertion that certain children, about whom the Stephans had noted aberrant behavioral actions, ceased that behavior when removed from the Stephan home. Mr. Bonollo, the child protective officer who picked J.B. up at the Respondents' home and took him to the Department office noted that Mr. Stephan was quite upset by the removal of the children from the home. When he asked why this action was being taken, Mr. Stephan was told that it was standard Department procedure when an allegation of abuse is made. Mr. Davis, the Gardian ad Litem volunteer who is responsible for J.B., felt from the very beginning of the placement that Respondents did not like the child. They consistently complained about him, noting he didn't have proper clothing or proper paperwork, and Davis felt they liked the other children in their care more. He specifically concluded that N.K. and C.J. were more to the Respondents' liking and received more attention and affection from them. He admits, however, that from his observation, the Respondents were no more harsh in their approach to J.B. than to the other children. Since J.B. was removed from the Respondents' home, he has been doing much better, but he is also six months older than he was at the time he lived there. This might have something to do with the change. According to Ms. Cremer, the protective services worker who oversaw the Respondents' operation, all the children there were given adequate care, food and attention. There seemed to be a good bonding and affection shown by Respondents to the younger children, however, to whom this witness also feels they showed favoritism, blaming J.B. for things the younger ones did. She was bothered by the fact that the Respondents discussed the older children's behavior in their presence, commenting about destruction of property, wasting of food, and cutting the bed with a knife, for example. While she never saw any physical abuse by either Respondent, Ms. Cremer felt their reporting of the older children's misconduct was abuse. Respondents deny showing any favoritism to any child though there is some indication they wanted to adopt C.J.. Departmental policy in cases of this nature, where abuse is alleged and the report is later closed without classification, is to submit a copy of the report for review by an administrator who can, and did here, make the decision to restrict the age and type of children who can be accommodated in a foster home. The decision to restrict children to those 10 and up was made in this case because there were issues in doubt regarding the care of the children even though there was no confirmed report of abuse. Authority for the Department to make that decision is found in Rule 10M-6.025, F.A.C.. The decision was made to place with Respondents only children who were more verbal and more visible and better able to report what happened to them. Here, since so many of the children in the home were unable to accurately verbalize and tell the story, and because the licensing investigator recommended no children under 10, the file was forwarded to L. Britt, a Senior Operations Program Administrator who made the ultimate decision on the restriction. That decision was made on the basis of the report of investigation, the meeting with staff members, the family dynamics, and the increased risk factor for children under 10. Both Departmental rules and pertinent statutes require foster parents to immediately report any injuries to children and this was not done here. Since the decision to restrict as to age was made, the initial restriction against all children has been removed and Respondents have been offered foster children who meet the criteria set in the remaining restriction. Respondents have refused, however. Child care experts from agencies other than the Department, who are familiar with Respondents and how they operate their foster home, indicate Respondents are caring and responsible parents. Their home is set up for children who are treated like family. Mr. Stephan, though big, is not intimidating. In discipline he was firm but not frightening. They impressed Debra Dahl, a representative of the Pinellas Association for Retarded Children, which placed four children with Respondents since 1991, as being caring, very nurturing and very aware of the children's needs. Any children she has placed with Respondents have thrived. Mrs. Stephan worked with children for 9 years while residing in New York, and after moving to Florida, became a substitute care provider for a day care center. She has been licensed as a foster parent, with her husband, for 4 years. They have taken the required training and attend continuing education courses in the field. It has been Mrs. Stephan's experience that most children act up a bit when they come to a new home. Usually, however, the aberrant behavior abates after a while. Prior to the arrival of J.B., the only report of bad behavior the Stephans made was concerning S.M. They also, at one time, had a foster child run away from the home and report abuse, but upon investigation by the Department, the report was classified as unfounded. In addition, a report of neglect was filed against them when, upon the advice of a specialist, they took a child off a particular medication, because of bad side effects, two days before he was to be seen by the physician who had prescribed it and who made the report. This report, too, was classified as unfounded. All foster children are supposed to be taken to a doctor within 3 days of placement. In this case, however, because the Department representatives had failed to provide the child's Medicaid paperwork in a timely manner, Respondents did not feel they could take him. A Department representative took the child to a doctor one time and returned him with a prescription for medication, but again, because Respondents did not have the Medicaid paperwork, they did not feel they could have it filled. When they advised the Department worker of this, they were, allegedly, told to forget it because it was for a mole. J.B. also got the same fever all the other children got, but they could get no treatment for him without the paperwork. This pertinent Medicaid paperwork was not provided until 10 days after J.B. came into the Respondents' care and, even then, it was good only for 10 days. Without that paperwork, Respondents could not get medical care for the child without paying for it themselves. The attitude that medical care will be withheld from a child if public funds are not provided immediately is disturbing. In this case, it is fortunate that no serious illness or injury was involved. There is no evidence, however, to indicate what the Respondents' response would have been in a more serious case.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Respondents' protest against the restriction against placing children under the age of 10 in their foster home be denied. RECOMMENDED this 28th day of March, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of March, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 93-6588 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: Not a Finding of Fact but a stipulation between the parties confirming a previous determination made by the undersigned to change the designation of the parties. & 3. Accepted and incorporated herein. 4. & 5. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 12. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. & 15. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Not a Finding of Fact. More a recitation of and comment on the evidence. Not a Finding of Fact but a recounting of the testimony of a witness. FOR THE RESPONDENT: Not a Finding of Fact but a stipulation between the parties confirming a previous determination made by the undersigned to change the designation of the parties. - 4. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 9. Accepted and incorporated herein. 10. & 11. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 17. Not Findings of Fact but recitations of testimony. 18. - 20. Accepted. Accepted. Not a Finding of Fact but a recitation of testimony. Rejected. A probability of abuse, (injury caused by someone), was indicated, but the identity of the perpetrator was not determined. COPIES FURNISHED: Frank H. Nagatani, Esquire David Jon Fischer, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services District V 11351 Ulmerton Road Largo, Florida 34648-1630 James L. Berfield, Esquire Ameri-Life Towers First Floor East 2536 Countryside Boulevard Clearwater, Florida 34623 Robert L. Powell, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Kim Tucker General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue in the case is whether the registration of Thorpe Lindsay's family day care home should be revoked.
Findings Of Fact The Department is responsible for the registration and supervision of family day care homes, pursuant to Section 402.313, Florida Statutes (2007). Respondent, Thorpe Lindsey, has been registered to operate a family day care home at 2306 Savoy Drive, Orlando, Florida, since December 18, 2006. 3. On June 27, 2007; July 13, 2007; and July 26, 2007, Respondent allowed an unscreened and unapproved substitute, Sheneka Henderson, to be alone with and supervise children in the family day care home. Respondent was not present in the home on at least two of these occasions. On all three occasions, Respondent appeared after the Department's protective investigator or child care licensing supervisor noted his absence and the presence of Ms. Henderson as the caregiver.2 On July 13, 2007, Respondent was cautioned in person about the repercussions of allowing unscreened personnel to supervise children. On September 14, 2007, the Department issued an Administrative Complaint against Respondent, seeking to impose a civil penalty in the amount of $500.00 for the three instances of using an unscreened and unapproved substitute caregiver. Respondent refused to accept service of the Department's certified letter. The copy of the Administrative Complaint sent by regular U.S. Mail was not returned to the Department, and Respondent never sought a hearing or otherwise contested the allegations of the Administrative Complaint. Aside from the problem of unscreened personnel, Respondent also had a recurring problem of caring for a number of children greatly in excess of the ratios allowed by statute in his family day care home. Under any circumstances, a family day care home may provide care for no more than ten children. See § 402.302(7), Florida Statutes (2007). On June 27, 2007, the Department sent a certified letter to Respondent noting that on the previous day, the Department had received a report that Respondent was caring for between 30 and 40 children. The letter cautioned Respondent that he must immediately reduce enrollment and submit a written plan to the Department by July 10, 2007, identifying the names and birth dates of the children for whom Respondent would continue to provide care, as well as the names and birth dates of the children whom Respondent eliminated from his roster. Respondent never provided the required documentation to the Department. The Early Learning Coalition of Orange County is a public/private partnership established to ensure that children enter school ready to learn. In coordination with the Department, the Early Learning Coalition provides health and safety inspections for anyone receiving school readiness funding. Because Respondent received such funding, Eric Allen, an inspector for the Early Learning Coalition, made regular visits to the family day care home. On July 6, 2007, Mr. Allen made a routine visit to Respondent's home and found several violations, including a ratio violation, the presence of unscreened volunteers caring for children, chemicals under kitchen and bathroom sinks without door locks on the cabinets, and uncapped electrical outlets. On July 9, 2007, the Early Learning Coalition sent a letter to Respondent outlining the violations and requiring their correction pending a re-inspection of the family day care home. On July 20, 2007, Mr. Allen conducted a routine visit to Respondent's home and again found the home to be out of ratio. On July 26, 2007, the Early Learning Coalition sent a letter, signed by Donna J. Williams, director of quality services, to Respondent that stated the following, in relevant part: This letter will clear up any confusion as to the number of children you are legally allowed to care for. As a family home provider, six (6) is the maximum number of children under the age of five you are allowed to have in care at one time. If an infant is present, the maximum number of children allowable at one time is five (5). I am enclosing the state ratio chart so you may be clear on the number and age of children you are legally allowed to have in your care at one time. Since this falls under our Non-compliance Policy, you are hereby on notice that if there is any other incident where you are found in non-compliance with any Level I violation, the parents of school readiness funded children will be contacted and given the opportunity to transfer as you will be ineligible to receive school readiness funds for a period of one year. On September 7, 2007, at approximately 3:45 p.m., Mr. Allen again visited Respondent's registered family day care home. Mr. Allen found a note on the front door stating, "We are on a field trip," with contact information for parents at the bottom. Mr. Allen noted that the contact numbers on the note did not match the contact information on file at the Early Learning Coalition. He also noted that all of the windows of the house were covered with blinds or cardboard. Mr. Allen testified that he had made several prior attempts to visit the home in recent days, but that on each occasion was met with a note claiming the children were out on a "field trip." He was about to walk away from the house when he heard a baby crying inside. He rang the doorbell and knocked on the door but received no response. He called out to whomever was inside the house, "This is Eric from the Early Learning Coalition. I can hear a baby crying. You need to open the door or you are violating your provider agreement and you are in danger of being de-funded." There was still no response from inside the house. Mr. Allen walked around to the back door. He knocked on the window of the rear childcare area and repeated his warning. After several minutes, a car pulled up to the home. A woman got out of the car and approached the front door. Mr. Allen asked if she was there to pick up a child, and she answered affirmatively. She rang the doorbell but no one answered. Mr. Allen offered to call the contact number, but the woman just turned and drove away. Mr. Allen called the Early Learning Coalition's office and asked the administrative assistant to verify and call the contact number for Respondent's home. When the assistant called the number, a woman who identified herself as Respondent's sister answered and stated that the children were out on a field trip. Mr. Allen then called the contact number and asked Respondent's sister where the children were. She stated they were on a field trip to Pizza Hut. Mr. Allen told her he could hear a baby crying inside and that if the door was not opened he would call the police. Respondent's sister hung up the phone. Just as Mr. Allen's phone conversation concluded, approximately 25 minutes after he first arrived at the house, the woman in the car returned. As the woman walked up to the front door, the door was opened by Toshiba Lindsey, another of Respondent's sisters, who was holding a baby she said was her son. Mr. Allen showed Ms. Lindsey his identification and asked her why he had been left outside trying to get someone to open the door for nearly a half hour. Ms. Lindsey claimed to have been sleeping and not to have heard the knocking. Mr. Allen entered the home and started down the hallway, but Ms. Lindsey forbade him from entering one of the rooms. Mr. Allen could hear a child crying inside the room. He demanded to know whose child was behind the door. Ms. Lindsey denied there was anyone in the room. For several minutes, Mr. Allen attempted to convince Ms. Lindsey to open the door, but she continued to say that she could not open it. Mr. Allen told her to call Respondent, who was not in the house. Mr. Allen spoke to Respondent and told him that he would call the police if Ms. Lindsey did not open the door. Respondent hung up on him. Mr. Allen called 911 and requested an officer to come to the house and open the door. A moment later, the door to the room opened and another woman, Sheneka Henderson, emerged with 13 children. Neither Ms. Lindsey nor Ms. Henderson had been background screened or trained to act as caregivers. Mr. Allen recorded the names and ages of the children, then left the home. Respondent never showed up at the house while Mr. Allen was there. On September 10, 2007, the Early Learning Coalition sent Respondent a letter notifying him that he would be ineligible to receive school readiness funds for a period of one year, based on Respondent's repeated violations of mandatory state ratio requirements.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Family Services enter a final order revoking the registration of Thorpe Lindsey to operate a family day care home. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of April, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 10th day of April, 2008.
