The Issue At issues are whether Respondent committed the violation alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Department is authorized to regulate child care facilities pursuant to sections 402.301-402.319, Florida Statutes. Section 402.310 authorizes the Department to take disciplinary action against child care facilities for violations of sections 402.301-402.319. Ms. Hall owns and operates the child care facility doing business as Children of Liberty pursuant to License Number C04DU0101. The facility is located at 232 East 19th Street, Jacksonville, Florida. Ms. Hall testified that she has operated the facility for 21 years. C.R. was born on October 21, 2013. C.R. was four years old on August 27, 2018, the date of the event that precipitated the investigation in this case. L.S. is the mother of C.R. She enrolled C.R. at Children of Liberty from November 2017 through early August 2018. As of August 9, 2018, L.S. withdrew C.R. from Children of Liberty in order to enroll him in “big boy school,” i.e., the voluntary pre-kindergarten (“VPK”) program at North Shore Elementary School (“North Shore”). Because of his age, C.R. was not yet eligible to attend kindergarten in a Florida public school. See § 1003.21(1)(a)2., Fla. Stat. Therefore, C.R. was not a “school-age child” for purposes of Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C-22.008, or the “School-Age Child Care Licensing Handbook” adopted by reference therein. Supervision of C.R. was governed by the Department’s “Child Care Facility Handbook,” adopted by reference in rule 65C-22.001(6). L.S. is a full-time nursing student during the week and works at Panera on the weekends. She testified that her only support system in Jacksonville is her grandparents, both of whom are in precarious health. L.S. stated that it would be very difficult for her to take C.R. to VPK given her school schedule. She was hesitant to place C.R. on a school bus at his young age. She had hoped that her grandparents would be able to help her get C.R. back and forth from the North Shore VPK program, but her grandfather told her that he was unsure of their ability to do so. After discussing the situation with Ms. Hall, L.S. re- enrolled C.R. at Children of Liberty because Ms. Hall agreed to take C.R. to and from his VPK program. L.S. would drop off C.R. at Children of Liberty at 7:30 a.m. C.R. would be given breakfast and then be driven to VPK by 8:00 a.m. Ms. Hall then would pick up C.R. in the afternoon and keep him at Children of Liberty until L.S. could pick him up at 4:30 p.m. North Shore requires its students to wear uniforms. The uniform for North Shore is royal blue, navy blue, or white shirts, and black, khaki, or navy blue pants. Parents sometimes send their children to school out of uniform, but the school sends reminders home to inform the parents of the correct uniform colors. Children are not sent home for being out of uniform. C.R.’s first day of being transported to North Shore by Ms. Hall was August 27, 2018. L.S. brought C.R. to Children of Liberty that morning. C.R. was dressed in the uniform for North Shore. L.S. testified that she had made it clear to Ms. Hall that C.R. was attending North Shore. L.S. was taken aback that morning when Ms. Hall mentioned that C.R. would be attending Andrew Robinson Elementary School (“Andrew Robinson”). L.S. corrected Ms. Hall, reminding her that C.R. was going to North Shore. Ms. Hall said, “That’s right, that’s right.” Ms. Hall denied that any such conversation took place and denied that L.S. ever told her that C.R. was attending North Shore. Ms. Hall testified that when L.S. first broached the subject of C.R.’s needing school transportation, she told L.S. that she drove only to Andrew Robinson. Ms. Hall believed that L.S. understood that Andrew Robinson was the only option for transportation from Children of Liberty to school. Ms. Hall testified that on two occasions prior to August 27, 2018, L.S. asked her to pick C.R. up from school in the afternoon. On both occasions, Ms. Hall drove to Andrew Robinson and did not find C.R. there. She assumed that C.R.’s grandparents had picked him up. Ms. Hall stated that she had no reason to believe she had driven to the wrong school because she never heard a complaint from L.S. about her failure to pick up C.R. C.R.’s enrollment form at Children of Liberty indicated “Andrew Robinson” as the school attended by the child. However, this form was completed by L.S. well before she enrolled the child in VPK. The “Andrew Robinson” notation was made later, apparently by Ms. Hall, and is therefore at best indicative of Ms. Hall’s state of mind on August 27, 2018.2/ Ms. Hall drove another child, K.A., to Andrew Robinson every morning. K.A. was born on January 12, 2013. She was five years old on August 27, 2018, and eligible to attend kindergarten at a Florida public school. Therefore, K.A. met the Department’s definition of a “school-age child.” On the morning of August 27, 2018, K.A. was wearing the uniform of Andrew Robinson. The Andrew Robinson uniform varies depending on the day of the week, but the uniform shirts are required to bear the school’s logo. However, as with North Shore, children are not sent home or disciplined for failing to wear the correct uniform. On this day, the Andrew Robinson uniform was green or pink shirts with khaki, blue, or black pants. Ms. Hall testified that she generally pays little attention to the uniforms the children are wearing. Her experience is that children often go to school out of uniform. The Children of Liberty transportation log for August 27, 2018, shows that C.R. and K.A. left the child care facility at 8:15 a.m. It is undisputed that Ms. Hall was driving the children in a van. Billing records for Ms. Hall’s cell phone show that she phoned or attempted to phone L.S. at 8:15 a.m. on August 27, 2018. The call lasted one minute. Ms. Hall phoned or attempted to phone L.S. again at 8:16 a.m. This call lasted two minutes. Ms. Hall had no explanation for why she phoned L.S. at the precise time she was also driving C.R. to school. She speculated that she must have been returning a call from L.S., but produced no documentation to support her theory. The Children of Liberty transportation log indicates that Ms. Hall dropped off C.R. and K.A. at Andrew Robinson at 8:18 a.m. Ms. Hall testified that she pulled up at the front of the school, made sure that the school patrol and teachers were at the drop-off point, and dropped off the children. Ms. Hall stated that C.R. told her that he knew where to go. She did not personally hand the child off to responsible school personnel at the drop-off point. Ms. Hall’s practice of dropping off the students was acceptable under Department standards for K.A., who was a school-age child. See Section 2.5.2, “Driver Requirements,” of the School-Age Child Care Licensing Handbook. However, C.R. was not a school-age child. Ms. Hall was required by Department standards to directly place C.R. into the care of an authorized individual from the school. See Section 2.4.1E of the Child Care Facility Handbook. Ms. Hall claimed that Department rules prevented her from leaving the van to ensure that an authorized individual took over supervision of C.R. However, the Department standard referenced by Ms. Hall requires only that the correct staff-to- child ratio be maintained during transportation. See Section 2.5.4.C of the Child Care Facility Handbook. Because Ms. Hall was dropping off both of the children in her van, nothing prevented her from exiting the van to make sure that C.R. was received by an authorized individual at the school. Had Ms. Hall escorted C.R. onto the Andrew Robinson campus, she likely would have learned the child was not enrolled at that school. The school patrol at Andrew Robinson realized that C.R. was not a student there. They brought C.R. to school staff, who took him to the main office. They looked through the child’s backpack and found paperwork indicating C.R. was enrolled at North Shore. They contacted their counterparts at North Shore, who in turn contacted C.R.’s family. L.S. testified that she learned of the situation from her grandmother, who had received the call from North Shore. She was not sure why they called her grandmother first, but shortly thereafter she got a call from the principal of North Shore. L.S. was informed that the school could not undertake the liability of transporting C.R. and that she would have to pick him up at Andrew Robinson and deliver him to North Shore. She drove to Andrew Robinson and picked up C.R., then headed to Children of Liberty to find out why Ms. Hall dropped her child off at the wrong school. C.R. was at the wrong school for at least an hour before his mother picked him up. Ms. Hall testified that L.S. cursed and threatened her bodily harm upon her arrival at Children of Liberty, although no physical altercation took place. L.S. conceded that she was very angry and used inappropriate language, though she said much of her anger was due to Ms. Hall’s refusal to take responsibility for taking C.R. to the wrong school. L.S. never took C.R. back to Children of Liberty after August 27, 2018. Ms. Hall testified that she believed C.R. was enrolled at Andrew Robinson. Her phone calls to L.S. during the drive to the school raise the question of whether she was in doubt about the matter. Her alteration of C.R.’s enrollment form, and her unlikely story about her two attempts to pick up C.R. at Andrew Robinson, also call into question her good faith belief that the child attended Andrew Robinson. As she stated repeatedly, Ms. Hall had no reason to drop off the child at the wrong school. Nonetheless, Ms. Hall took on the responsibility for C.R.’s safe transport to and from his VPK. Even giving full credit to her good intentions does not change the fact that she left C.R. at the wrong school and, in so doing, failed to supervise the child in accordance with the standards set forth in the Department’s rules and Child Care Facility Handbook.
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 finding that Respondent provided inadequate supervision in violation of Section 2.4.1E of the Child Care Facility Handbook, and imposing a fine of $250.00 upon Terri Hall, d/b/a Children of Liberty Child Care Center. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of May, 2019, 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 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of May, 2019.
The Issue Whether the after school child care program operated by the YMCA on the campus of Keeth Elementary School under a contract approved by the Seminole County School District, exclusively for children ages 5 Kindergarten and older, is required to be licensed as a child care facility, pursuant to the provisions of Sections 402.301-402.319, FLORIDA STATUTES(1988 SUPP.).
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, is charged with the responsibility to enforce the statewide minimum standards for the care and protection of children in child care facilities, as set forth in Secticns 402.301-402.319, Florida Statutes (1987). Petitioner, YMCA of Central Florida, Inc. (YMCA), is a not-for-profit corporation licensed in Florida. The YMCA is a local membership organization affiliated with the national YMCA whose primary purpose is to provide activities that contribute to the development of good character and good sportsmanship of children and other family members in Seminole County. For several years, the YMCA has operated an after school child-care program for children five years old and older on the campus of Keeth Elementary School. The program is staffed by a YMCA counselor who participates in the program as the child-care counselor. The program was licensed as a child day care facility under the name YMCA/Keeth School Age Child Care by HRS, License Number 987-1. Their current license to operate this facility expired in 1988. Keeth Elementary School is a public elementary school owned and operated by the Seminole County School District. The YMCA operates the program under an oral year-to-year agreement with the School Board of the Seminole County School District. On August 22, 1988, an inspection of the facility (the buildings and grounds of the Keeth Elementary School) by an HRS inspector revealed that the facility failed to substantially comply with the requirements of Chapter 10M-12, Florida Administrative Code, which would be sufficient to sustain the denial of the license renewal. By letter dated September 12, 1988, Respondent advised the Petitioner that their application for relicensure was denied. Petitioner was directed to cease operation within 15 days of receipt of this letter unless the cited deficiencies were corrected and Petitioner re-applied for a license.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's after school child-care program continue to operate without the requirement of a license from HRS, so long as they continue under contract with the School Board with the same terms and conditions as presently exist. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of May, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 18th day of May, 1989. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner. Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order does not contain specific findings of fact but consists primarily of legal argument which has been adopted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: William E. Ruffier, Esquire Sanders, McEwan, Mims and Martinez, P.A. Attorneys at Law 108 East Central Boulevard Post Office Box 753 Orlando, Florida 32802-0753 James A Sawyer, Jr., Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services District 7 Legal Office 400 West Robinson, Suite 911 Orlando, Florida 32801 Sam Power Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 =================================================================
The Issue The issues in the case are whether the Respondent violated applicable rules of the Florida Administrative Code, and whether a fine of $150 is warranted for the alleged violations.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Respondent was a Florida-licensed Child Care Facility located at 650 West Main Street, Bartow, Florida. On June 3, 2003, an employee representing the Petitioner conducted a routine inspection of the Respondent facility. Upon completion of the inspection, the Respondent received a copy of the inspection report. At the time of the June 3 inspection, some children were moving back and forth without supervision between their assigned areas, which resulted in the facility being out of compliance with staff-to-child ratio requirements set forth in the Florida Administrative Code. Applicable rules require that there be one staff member responsible for every four children between the ages of birth and one-year-old. At the time of the inspection, there were four children in the infant area, plus an additional two children beyond the age of one walking without supervision through the area. The older children were not directed to return to their assigned area by the one facility employee in the infant area. Because there was only one staff person in the infant's area, the facility was out of compliance with the required ratio. Applicable rules require that there be one staff member responsible for every six children between the ages of one and two years old. At the time of the inspection there were six children in the one-year-old area, plus two additional children beyond the age of two who were playing in the area. The older children were not directed to return to their assigned area by the staff member present. Because there was only one staff person in the area, the facility was out of compliance with the required ratio. On December 2, 2003, an employee representing the Petitioner conducted a routine inspection of the Respondent facility. Upon completion of the inspection, the Respondent received a copy of the inspection report. At the time of the December 2 inspection, there were a total of six children in the infant area with one staff person present. Because there was only one staff person in the infant's area, the facility was out of compliance with the required ratio of one staff member responsible for every four children present. The Petitioner regards the failure to comply with staffing ratio requirements as a serious child safety issue. Lack of compliance with required staffing ratios poses the potential for injury or other harm to children who are left without sufficient supervision. By letter dated March 15, 2004, the Petitioner notified the Respondent of the proposed fine and set forth the following as the basis for the penalty: The Department proposes to fine your child care facility for violations of the Florida Administrative Code by authority of section 402.310, Florida Statutes. This letter is considered an administrative complaint for the purposes of section 120.60(5), Florida Statutes. . . . Inspections on June 3, 2003 and December 2, 2003 reflected repeat violations. On June 3, 2003, the infant and one year old groups were both over ratio. On December 2, 2003, during a routine child care inspection of your facility a Department licensing inspector found the infant room to be over ratio. This situation violates the Florida Administrative Code, Rule 65C-22.001(4), which requires a staff-to-children ratio as established in section 402.305(4), F.S. For these violations, the Department proposes to fine your facility the sum of $150.00. The Respondent testified at the hearing. The Respondent asserted that at the time of the inspections, adequate staff were present in the facility, but for various reasons were not in the areas being observed by the inspectors, and that ratio requirements were unmet for minimal periods of time. The Respondent also asserted that at the time of the inspections, there was a lack of barriers in the facility that would prevent children from wandering in and out of the age- related areas. Additional walls have now been constructed to prevent the children from wandering.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner enter a Final Order imposing a fine of $150 against the Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of July, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 7th day of July, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack Emory Farley, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 4720 Old Highway 37 Lakeland, Florida 33813-2030 Carla Meeks Ruth Johnson Best Academy 650 West Main Street Bartow, Florida 33830 Paul Flounlacker, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204B 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Josie Tomayo, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue At issue is whether Respondent committed the Class II violation alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what is the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Department is authorized to regulate child care facilities pursuant to sections 402.301 through 402.319, Florida Statutes. Section 402.310 authorizes the Department to take disciplinary action against child care facilities for violations of sections 402.301 through 402.319. Chappell operates at eight child care locations in Duval and St. Johns Counties, admitting children from the ages of six weeks to five years. Chappell also has an after school program for children ages five to eight, and a summer camp for children ages five to ten. Chappell is licensed to operate the Child Care Facility at 8400 Baycenter Road, Jacksonville, Florida, pursuant to License Number C04DU0093. The facility on Baycenter Road is commonly called Chappell’s Deerwood facility. Gretrell Marshall works for the Department as a Licensing Counselor. She inspects child care facilities and family daycare homes to ensure they are not operating in violation of Department standards. She has worked for the Department for two years. Ms. Marshall’s previous experience includes operating a family daycare home for two years, and seven years as the owner and director of a licensed child care facility in Jacksonville. She has worked as an infant and toddler development specialist and holds a bachelor's degree in psychology. On October 10, 2019, Ms. Marshall went to Chappell to investigate a parent’s complaint that a child at the facility was repeatedly biting other children. The Department’s rules require child care facilities to document all accidents and incidents that occur while a child is in the care of program staff. The incident reports must be completed on the same day the incident occurs. The documentation of the incident must be shared with the child’s parent or guardian on the day the incident occurs. Chappell’s “accident/incident report” form contained spaces for the name and age of the child, the names of the teachers and other adults present, and the date and time of the incident. It had multiple choice check- boxes for location (classroom, playground, bathroom, cafeteria, or “other”); markings (abrasion, bite, bruise, bump, cut/tear, fracture, puncture, red mark, rug burn, scratch, sprain, or “other”); appendage (a list of 26 body parts); and first aid given (irrigate, antibacterial soap, bandage, ice pack, splint, or “other”). The form also included space for a narrative description of the accident or incident, and whether the parent was called. Ms. Marshall found several accident/incident reports that student E.W., a two-year-old boy, bit other children and a teacher between August 21 and October 4, 2019. On August 21, 2019, E.W. bit another student in the back while jostling for position in a line. The skin was not broken and the bite did not require first aid. Chappell recorded that the bite left bite marks. An August 27, 2019, incident report described two biting incidents on the same day. First, E.W. bit another student “just because” and pulled another student’s hair. Then, E.W. indicated to the teacher that he had to use the bathroom. The teacher took him to the bathroom but the child just ate toilet paper and urinated on himself. When the teacher tried to change his diaper, E.W. bit and kicked the teacher. For the August 27, 2019, incident, Chappell’s accident/incident report form left blank the first aid treatment space. The report noted the bites left bite marks. On September 11, 2019, E.W. bit another child in the back. Chappell’s accident/incident report recorded that first aid was administered, but did not specify the form of treatment. The report noted that the bites resulted in bite marks. Chappell reported that two biting incidents occurred on September 30, 2019. E.W. bit another student on the back during circle time. Later, when the students went outside to play, E.W. bit another child on the back without provocation. The teacher talked to him about being gentle with friends. The accident/incident report left blank the space for reporting first aid. On October 2, 2019, E.W. bit another student in the back. A different form, called a “behavior incident report,” was used by Chappell to record this incident. This form did not contain the check-boxes of the accident/incident report but simply provided space for a narrative “description of behavior incident.” The narrative stated that E.W. and other students were on the castle playhouse in the playground when E.W., “unprovoked,” bit another student on the back. Chappell did not record whether this bite left marks or required first aid. On October 4, 2019, at 12:40 p.m., E.W. bit another student on the right shoulder during play time in their classroom. The accident/incident report recorded that the bite left a bite mark. The space on the form to indicate whether the bite required first aid was left blank. A separate accident/incident report completed on October 4, 2019, documented that E.W. bit another student at 3:15 p.m., while the children were lining up at the door of the classroom. The report did not indicate whether there were bite marks or whether first aid was required. Chappell intended to suspend E.W. for one day on October 4, 2019. The school phoned the parents but was unable to get anyone to come in and pick up E.W. Therefore, the suspension was enforced on the next school day, October 7, 2019. The school warned the parents that another biting incident would result in the child’s permanent removal from Chappell. On October 23, 2019, E.W. bit another child at the school. Chappell expelled E.W. Nancy Dreicer, the Chief Executive Officer of Chappell, testified that there is a societal problem with small children being suspended and expelled from childcare centers. She stated that more children are expelled from child care centers in the United States than are expelled from grade schools and high schools. Ms. Dreicer testified that disciplinary expulsions were problematic for multiple reasons. Behaviors such as biting are common among two year olds, but a child that age learns nothing from being suspended or expelled from school. The parents are forced to find another child care facility and whatever behavioral issue is causing the child’s misbehavior is not addressed. The problem is merely pushed off onto a new child care facility. Ms. Dreicer testified that in 2019, Chappell received a grant from Hope Haven Children’s Hospital and the Community Foundation of Jacksonville to have a behavioral psychologist at the Deerwood facility to work with the children and to train the teachers in dealing with behavior problems. The psychologist worked with E.W., observing the child in the classroom, tracking the timing of his misbehavior, and looking for triggers to his actions. He worked with the teachers on how to identify triggers. Ms. Dreicer pointed out that suspending the child would have meant that the psychologist could not observe him. She noted that nothing approaching a serious injury had occurred, and added that the school would not have kept E.W. in the classroom if there was any possibility of his being a danger to the other students. She believed that E.W.’s behavior was improving, but that biting is such a natural part of a two year old’s development that it was very difficult to stop it completely. The Department has adopted a Child Care Facility Handbook (the “Handbook”), intended to be used on conjunction with sections 402.26 through 402.319. The Handbook has been adopted by reference in Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C-22.001(6).1 The Introduction to the Handbook states, “To protect the health and welfare of children, it is the intent of the Legislature to develop a regulatory framework that promotes the growth and stability of the child care industry and facilitates the safe physical, intellectual, motor, and social development of the child.” Section 2.8 of the Handbook, titled “Child Discipline,” provides, in relevant part: The child care facility shall adopt a discipline policy consistent with Section 402.305(12), F.S., including standards that prohibit children from 1 The cited rule references the May 2019 edition of the Handbook. However, the version of the Handbook provided on the Department’s website and through the hyperlink provided in the rule as published in the Florida Administrative Register is dated December 2019. To further complicate matters, the version of the Handbook introduced at the hearing was dated October 2017. The October 2017 and December 2019 editions are identical in all respects relevant to the determination in this proceeding, which leads to the inference that the May 2019 edition is likewise identical. being subjected to discipline which is severe, humiliating, frightening, or associated with food, rest, or toileting. Spanking or any other form of physical punishment is prohibited. The child care facility operators, employees, and volunteers must comply with written disciplinary and expulsion policies. Verification that the child care facility has provided the parent or guardian a written copy of the disciplinary and expulsion policies used by the program must be documented on the enrollment form with the signature of the custodial parent or legal guardian. * * * E. A copy of the current[2] disciplinary and expulsion policies must be available for review by the parents or legal guardian and the licensing authority. Providers must have a comprehensive discipline policy that includes developmentally appropriate social-emotional and behavioral health promotion practices, as well as discipline and intervention procedures that provide specific guidance on what child care personnel should do to prevent and respond to challenging behaviors. Preventive and discipline practices should be used as learning opportunities to guide children’s appropriate behavioral development …. (emphasis added). Pursuant to section 2.8.A of the Handbook, Chappell has adopted and implemented a discipline policy, titled “Child Management Behavior Protocol.” Chappell’s policy sets forth the following mission statement: Chappell recognizes the importance of promoting acceptable behavior and methods of discipline within the child care setting. We believe that all 2 The word “current” is not in the October 2017 edition of the Handbook. This is the only relevant difference between section 2.8 in the October 2017 Handbook and section 2.8 in the December 2019 edition of the Handbook children have the right to expect positive approaches to discipline, which foster self-esteem, respect, tolerance and self-control. Behaviors which injure people either emotionally or physically or damage property are real problems to adults/staff and the other children. These behaviors must be dealt with in an appropriate manner. After setting forth a catalogue of acceptable and unacceptable methods of discipline to be applied in specific instances of misbehavior, the Chappell discipline policy next stated the process to be followed “In The Case of Persistent Inappropriate Behavior” as follows, in relevant part: The child’s parents/caregivers will be involved at first hit, kick, thrown toy, etc. The Director will discuss the situation with the parents/caregivers in an attempt to find the possible cause of the behavior. The Director and the parents/caregivers will together develop strategies for dealing with the unwanted behavior, which could be implemented at home. Should it be necessary and with the consent of the parent/caregiver, advice and assistance will be sought from relevant external specialists to address the matter. After two incidences in one week, which caused or could have caused injury to self or others, the child will be suspended for one day, and after five such incidences the child will be suspended for a week. However, if the Director at any time feels the behavior is extreme and dangerous to other children or teachers, the child will be removed from the Center. This may be a temporary or permanent expulsion…. There was no question that the Chappell discipline policy meets the requirements of the Handbook. The Class II violation alleged by the Department is that Chappell failed to follow its own discipline policy in the case of E.W., thereby violating section 2.8.B of the Handbook, which requires child care facilities to “comply with written disciplinary and expulsion policies.” The Department points out that the Chappell discipline policy specifies that after two incidences in one week that “caused or could have caused injury,” the child will be suspended for one day, and that five such instances will result in one week’s suspension. The Chappell policy gives the Director discretion to remove a child for extreme or dangerous behavior. The Department notes that the policy does not give the Director discretion to waive the stated discipline schedule. Ms. Marshall calculated that under Chappell’s written policy, E.W. should have been suspended for one day after the two biting incidents on August 27, 2019, and again following the two biting incidents on September 30, 2019. Chappell did not suspend E.W. on either occasion. Ms. Marshall calculated that in the space of the five days between September 30 and October 4, 2019, E.W. was involved in five biting incidents. Ms. Marshall testified that, under Chappell’s policy, E.W. should have been suspended for one week. Chappell gave E.W. a one-day suspension on October 7, 2019. Ms. Dreicer conceded in the abstract that biting is an act that could cause injury to another child. She did not concede that E.W.’s biting was injurious or threatened actual injury to the other children at the child care facility. It was a developmental behavior issue that the facility’s staff and a psychologist were attempting to correct. Chappell ultimately decided that it had to expel the child, but only after making every effort to correct the biting behavior. Chappell argued that neither the Department’s Handbook nor Chappell’s policy defines the term “injury.” Ms. Marshall believed that a bite is always an injury. It leaves a mark, however temporary, and requires some treatment. Chappell noted that none of the bites recorded in its accident/incident reports broke the skin of the other child or required treatment of any kind. Ms. Dreicer and the staff of the Deerwood facility made a determination that E.W.’s behavior presented no danger of injury to the other children. Chappell argues that, whatever the literal language of the written policy, the director of a child care facility must be allowed to exercise discretion on a case-by-case basis in making disciplinary decisions. Chappell points to section 2.8.E of the Handbook, with its admonitions that a comprehensive disciplinary policy must be “developmentally appropriate” and that discipline practices “should be used as learning opportunities to guide children’s appropriate behavioral development.” Ms. Dreicer forcefully made the case that suspending or expelling a two year old teaches nothing and abdicates the facility’s responsibility to the child. Neither party appeared to take note of another section of the Chappell disciplinary policy. The undersigned observes that, while the language of the Chappell policy quoted above appears to prescribe a rigid disciplinary process admitting no exceptions, another portion of the policy gives Chappell discretion as to when the disciplinary process commences: After an incident, our first step: We will tend to the injured child to see if medical attention is needed. We will give the child who hit, kicked, etc. an opportunity to apologize and provide comfort. We will notify both sets of parents and prepare an incident report (Attachment 1). DCF requires the report be signed by a parent or caregiver the day of the incident. If behaviors persist, Chappell will follow the process management flow chart. (Attachment 2)[3] (emphasis added). 3 The referenced attachments were not part of the record. From the context, the undersigned has inferred that the referenced “flow chart” was a graphic representation of the disciplinary procedure quoted at Finding of Fact 26 above. The underscored language, read together with the title of the discipline policy, “In The Case of Persistent Inappropriate Behavior,” gives Chappell discretion to determine when the child’s behaviors have reached the stage of “persistence” warranting commencement of the disciplinary process. The Department did not account for this discretion in finding that Chappell violated section 2.8.B of the Handbook. Ms. Dreicer’s testimony was consistent with the Chappell disciplinary policy. Though the facility eventually expelled the child, it exercised the discretion afforded by the policy to determine whether the child’s behavior was potentially injurious and whether the behavior was persistent enough to warrant invocation of the disciplinary process. Clear and convincing evidence was not presented that Chappell committed the Class II violation alleged by the Department.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Families enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of May, 2020, 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 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of May, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Nancy Drier Chappell Schools, LLC 8400 Baycenter Road Jacksonville, Florida 32256 Lacey Kantor, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Families Building 2, Room 204Z 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 (eServed) David Gregory Tucker, Esquire Department of Children and Families 5920 Arlington Expressway Jacksonville, Florida 32231-0083 (eServed) Jesse Nolan Dreicer, Esquire Tassone, Dreiver & Hill 1833 Atlantic Boulevard Jacksonville, Florida 32207 (eServed) Chad Poppell, Secretary Department of Children and Families Building 1, Room 202 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 (eServed) Javier Enriquez, General Counsel Department of Children and Families Building 2, Room 204F 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 (eServed)
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner should revoke Respondent's license to operate a child care facility for failing to provide documentation of the director's credential or training.
Findings Of Fact Carlin and Susan Towels created Respondent in 1990. Their daughter, Angel R. Towels, began working part-time taking care of children at the facility in 1998. Ms. Towels was sixteen-years old at that time. In 1999, the minimum standards for child care personnel included a requirement for the director of a child care facility to be credentialed by January 1, 2000. See § 402.305(2)(f), Fla. Stat. (1999). Additionally, the statute mandated that the director's credential would become a required minimum standard for licensing of child care facilities by January 1, 2003. Id. Prior to November 2003, the Leon County Health Department was responsible for inspecting child care facilities and issuing licenses to them in Leon County, Florida. Respondent has been licensed by the Leon County Health Department as child care facility for many years. In 2000, Ms. Towels began working full-time as part of Respondent's staff. She became the licensed owner and operator/director in 2002. Ms. Towels has never been credentialed to act as Respondent's director because she has not completed a required course of study that would earn her a Child Development Associate (CDA) degree, certificate, or equivalent recognition. Ms. Towels' father was never credentialed to act as Respondent's director. He completed the CDA class but he never passed the examination for the required class entitled Behavior, Observation, and Screening (BOS). In February 2002, the Leon County Health Department sent Ms. Towels a document entitled "Reminder Notice of Director Credential Requirement." Ms. Towels signed the document indicating that she was aware of the need for Respondent's director to be properly credentialed by January 1, 2003, pursuant to Section 402.305(2)(f), Florida Statutes (2001). In 2002, the Legislature amended the statute requiring credentials for directors of child care facilities as a condition of licensing. Section 402.305(2)(f), Florida Statutes (2002), required directors to be properly credentialed by January 1, 2004, instead of January 1, 2003. The most recent license issued to Respondent by the Leon County Health Department was effective January 9, 2003, through January 9, 2004. The license authorized Respondent to care for a maximum of 23 children based on the square footage in the facility. At some point in time, the Leon County Health Department amended the license, authorizing Respondent to care for a maximum of 19 children. The Leon County Health Department amended the license at Respondent's request. Respondent made the request based on the mistaken belief that documentation establishing its director's credentials would not be required for a facility that cared for no more than 19 children. Around November 2003, Petitioner assumed the duties previously performed by the Leon County Heath Department relative to inspections and licensing of child care facilities in Leon County, Florida. In an on-site visit in November or December 2003, Petitioner's staff discussed the need for Respondent's director to be properly credentialed by January 1, 2004. In a letter dated December 31, 2003, Petitioner reminded Respondent of the minimum standard licensing requirement for credentials beginning January 1, 2004. The letter requested Respondent to provide Petitioner with a copy of its director's credential or the director's training transcript within 10 business days. The letter advised that Petitioner would issue Respondent a provisional license, not to exceed six months, if Respondent failed to provide the required documentation. According to the letter, if Respondent failed to comply with the credential requirement within the provisional- license period, Petitioner intended to initiate administrative action to revoke Respondent's license. In a letter dated January 28, 2004, Petitioner again advised Respondent that it was not in compliance with the statute. Petitioner's letter requested Respondent to provide monthly updates on the director's progress toward earning a credential or the facility's progress in hiring a director with the appropriate credential. The letter clearly stated that if Respondent's director was not credentialed at the end of the provisional-license period, Petitioner would take action to revoke Respondent's license. Petitioner enclosed Respondent's provisional license with the January 28, 2004, letter. The provisional license was effective January 2, 2004, through July 2, 2004. The provisional license authorized Respondent to care for 23 children based on the square footage of the facility as stated in Respondent's most recent application for renewal of license. In a letter dated June 1, 2004, Petitioner once again reminded Respondent the director's credential was a minimum licensing requirement. The letter asserted Petitioner's intent to revoke Respondent's license if Respondent did not comply with the requirement for a credentialed director by July 2, 2004. On or about July 12, 2004, Petitioner issued an Administrative Complaint. The complaint alleged that Respondent's director was not properly credentialed and that Petitioner intended to revoke Respondent's license. After Petitioner issued the Administrative Complaint, Petitioner continued to contact Respondent to see if Respondent was making progress in complying with the credential requirement. There were two telephone contacts in July 2004, on-site visits in August and November 2004, and a re-inspection most recently on January 6, 2005. In July 2004, Ms. Towels registered for a course equivalent to the CDA degree. However, she dropped out of the class before completing it. In January 2005, Ms. Towels enrolled in another CDA class, which she had not completed by the time that the hearing commenced. The class Ms. Towels is attending is approximately a one-semester course that students may complete within six months.
Recommendation Based on the forgoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a final order revoking Respondent's license. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day March, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 1st day of March, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Mary Ellen McDonald, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 2639 North Monroe Street Building A, Suite 100A Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Angel Towels Luv-A-Lot Child Care Center 2501 Lake Bradford Road Tallahassee, Florida 32310 Joe Garwood, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204B 1371 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Josie Tomayo, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204B 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
