The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner's application for a license to operate a child care facility should be approved.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for licensing child care facilities. On June 17, 2016, Ms. Gaines filed an application for a license to operate a child care facility in Babson Park, Polk County (County). She previously worked as a caregiver for two child care facilities in the County and desires to operate a new facility known as Brighter Beginnings Learning Center. To qualify for licensure, an applicant must meet the licensing standards in section 402.305(1), Florida Statutes. Also, section 402.305(2) requires that child care personnel meet minimum requirements as to good moral character based upon a level 2 screening as provided for in chapter 435. That screening includes a check to determine if the applicant has a report on the Central Abuse Hotline. The background screening revealed that Ms. Gaines has three reports on the Central Abuse Hotline. The incidents occurred in 2010, 2014, and 2015. Based on this information, and the underlying facts surrounding those reports, the Department informed Petitioner by letter dated June 30, 2016, that her application was denied. Petitioner timely requested a hearing. On July 12, 2010, the Department received a report that Ms. Gaines (then known as Ms. Hamilton) had grabbed and pinched several children at Hope Child Development Center in Frostproof, where she was working as a caregiver. The incident was investigated by Deanna McCain, then a child protective investigator (CPI), who testified at hearing. However, the report was not verified because there were no visible injuries on the children. The facility terminated Petitioner as an employee after the incident. Ms. Gaines began working as a caregiver at Our Children's Academy in Lake Wales around October 2013. On October 12, 2014, the Department received a report that a 13- year-old child under Ms. Gaines' supervision was left unattended in a sandbox in the playground while Ms. Gaines was on a personal cell phone call in a classroom. The child suffers from autism and epilepsy and is prone to having seizures. The child suffered a seizure during Petitioner's absence. Brandy Queen, a CPI who testified at hearing, was assigned the task of investigating the incident. Her investigation revealed the child suffered a severe seizure that lasted four minutes and caused her to vomit and defecate on herself. Based on interviews with Petitioner, a teacher who witnessed the incident, and the school principal, Ms. Queen classified the incident as verified. The child was found face down in the sandbox by a teacher, Mr. Swindell, who immediately contacted the school nurse to check the child. Mr. Swindell, who testified at hearing, established that the child was alone outside for around ten to 15 minutes and that Petitioner did not go back outside to check on the child until after she had awoken from the seizure. Throughout the episode, Ms. Gaines was making a personal call on her cell phone. The facility has a policy of no cell phone usage during student contact time. Prior to the incident, the principal had spoken to Petitioner around nine or ten times about inappropriate cell phone usage. After the incident, a Letter of Concern regarding cell phone usage was placed in Petitioner's file. The mother of the student testified at hearing and stated she had no concerns about the incident and described it as "overblown." She said her daughter suffers seizures two or three times a week without warning, but they are not life- threatening. She does not blame Petitioner for the incident. The mother was under the impression, however, that her child was left alone for only a very short period of time and Petitioner immediately went back to the playground to retrieve her. The mother admitted she would be concerned had she known that her daughter had been allowed to remain alone for ten to 15 minutes and that asphyxiation could be a potential result if the child was face down in the sand. On February 25, 2015, the Department received another report of possible abuse by Petitioner, who was still employed as a caregiver at Our Children's Academy. The report indicated that Petitioner had inappropriately dragged a non-verbal child with Down Syndrome from the classroom to the playground. Two school therapists were present during the incident and testified at hearing. They confirmed that Petitioner was working with the child in an effort to get him from the classroom to the playground swings. The child was frightened by the swings and resisted her efforts. Petitioner first grabbed the child by one arm, and when he dropped to the floor, she grabbed both arms and dragged the child on his stomach out of the classroom and into the hallway. She then dragged him down a set of wooden stairs and to the playground where she forced him to sit in the swings against his will. One of the therapists observed that the child was very upset and urged Petitioner to let him calm down, but Petitioner continued dragging the child to the playground. The frightened child urinated on himself. The incident was investigated by CPI Queen, who interviewed the Petitioner, principal, and two therapists. She observed minor bruising on the child's arms but could not say definitively that the bruising was caused during the incident. She also could not establish that the child would suffer long- term emotional trauma due to the incident. Because of this, she classified the report as unsubstantiated. This meant that something happened to the child, but she could not verify that the bruising was caused by Petitioner's actions. The facility terminated Petitioner as an employee after the incident. Petitioner downplayed her conduct and generally contended that she never harmed or failed to supervise the children assigned to her care. Petitioner has five children of her own, she has a passion for children, and she wants to put that passion to good use by operating a child care center. The Department based its decision to deny the application on the facts that underlie the reports, and not the reports themselves. This includes consideration of who was interviewed by the CPI, what the statements were, whether there were any inconsistencies, how the cases were closed, the applicant's employment history, and whether there appears to be a pattern of concerning behavior. Based on this information, a Department licensing official observed a pattern of concerning behavior on the part of Petitioner as well as inconsistencies between Petitioner's statements and those of persons who witnessed the incidents. The Department considers Petitioner to be a potential risk to children unless she is supervised.
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 Petitioner's application for a license to operate a child care facility. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of October, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER 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 17th day of October, 2016. COPIES FURNISHED: Paul Sexton, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Families Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 (eServed) Trina Gaines Post Office Box 4024 Lake Wales, Florida 33859-4024 Cheryl D. Westmoreland, Esquire Department of Children and Families 1055 U.S. Highway 17 North Bartow, Florida 33830-7646 (eServed) Rebecca F. Kapusta, General Counsel Department of Children and Families Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 (eServed) Mike Carroll, Secretary Department of Children and Families Building 1, Room 202 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 (eServed)
The Issue At issue is whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalties 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 402.311 authorizes the Department to inspect licensed child care facilities. Section 402.310 authorizes the Department to take disciplinary action against child care facilities for violations of sections 402.301-402.319. Tiny Blessings is a child care facility operating pursuant to License Number C04DU0799. The facility is located at 4932 Blanding Boulevard, Jacksonville, Florida. Lawanda Jackson is the owner of Tiny Blessings. Jacqueline King is a family service counselor for the Department's child care licensing program. She is charged with inspecting day care facilities. Ms. King has worked for the Department for over 20 years. In addition to five years in her current position, Ms. King has worked as a child protective investigator on sexual abuse cases and has served as a juvenile probation officer. Ms. King conducted the inspections of Tiny Blessings that are at issue in this case. Count I On October 6, 2010, Ms. King conducted an inspection of Tiny Blessings. The facility's records appeared to show that employee Monalisa Tedtaotao had been hired on September 3, 2010, but that her background screening had not been completed until September 27, 2010. Ms. King noted that the facility's records indicated that Ms. Tedtaotao's 40-hour training program began on September 3, 2010. Ms. Tedtaotao testified she began work at Tiny Blessings on September 27, 2010, the day the background screening was completed. Ms. Jackson was adamant that Ms. Tedtaotao did not begin work at Tiny Blessings until September 27, 2010. She believed that Ms. King either mistook the date on Ms. Tedtaotao's job application for her starting date, or was intentionally misstating the facts in order to stack the alleged violations and close down Tiny Blessings.2/ The Department produced no witness who actually saw Ms. Tedtaotao working at Tiny Blessings prior to September 27, 2010. The only document in evidence showing the date of September 3, 2010, was created by Ms. King as part of her inspection report. It is noted that Ms. Jackson produced no payroll records or other evidence to verify Ms. Tedtaotao's starting date. As to Count I, the Department proved at most that Tiny Blessings' recordkeeping was inadequate. The Department did not prove that Ms. Tedtaotao worked at Tiny Blessings as an unscreened individual. Count II Ms. King testified that, at the time of the October 6, 2010, inspection, employee Tiffany Turner's personnel file was missing a mandatory document: CS-FSP 5131, "Background Screening and Personnel File Requirements" ("Form 5131"). The Department characterized this as a "filing problem," not a situation in which the employee had failed to undergo background screening. Ms. Jackson agreed that a Form 5131 was not in Ms. Turner's personnel file on the date of the inspection. Count III Ms. King testified that on or about October 12, 2010, the Department received a complaint that Ms. Jackson had been arrested for domestic violence but was still working at Tiny Blessings. Ms. King's investigation revealed that Ms. Jackson had been charged with domestic battery in violation of section 784.03(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2010), on October 6, 2010, and had pled no contest to the charge on October 7, 2010. The county court in Jacksonville withheld adjudication and placed Ms. Jackson on 12 months of probation with early termination contingent upon her completion of the Safe Families program and her having no contact with the victim. Under the provisions of section 435.04(3), Florida Statutes (2010), a plea of nolo contendere to an offence that constitutes domestic violence as defined in section 741.28, Florida Statutes, is an offence that disqualifies a person from occupying a position for which a Level 2 Background Screening is required. Ms. King testified that on October 12, 2010, she advised Ms. Jackson that her plea constituted a disqualifying offence. Ms. Jackson did not accept Ms. King's statement. Ms. King put Ms. Jackson on the phone with staff in the Department's background screening office, who confirmed Ms. King's statement. Ms. Jackson testified that she entered her plea only upon the assurance by the court and the assistant state attorney that the domestic violence charge was not a disqualifying offense and the plea would not affect her child care license. On November 3, 2010, Ms. Jackson's counsel filed in the county court a motion to vacate and set aside the judgment. In the motion, counsel stated as follows, in relevant part: The Defendant, by and through her undersigned counsel, raised the issue of the Defendant's fear of losing her daycare license as a result of pleading to the charge of Battery. The State Attorney and the judge both advised the undersigned counsel that the daycare license would not be affected. Upon reliance on same, the Defendant entered a plea of nolo contendere to the charge of Battery and was sentenced on the same day. On or about October 15, 2010, the Defendant was visited by an agent from the Department of Children and Families and advised that due to her plea of no contest to the battery charge and being sentenced on same, the Defendant's daycare license was subject to forfeiture and ineligibility. This came as a result in a change of law that took effect in July 2010 that mandates that either an adjudication of guilt or a withhold [sic] of guilt on a domestic charge, such as Battery, makes the license holder ineligible to run a daycare.3/ As of the date of the hearing in the instant case, the county court had not acted on Ms. Jackson's motion to vacate. On May 24, 2011, the court denied a May 17, 2011 motion filed by Ms. Jackson to "amend the record."4/ The Department sent Ms. Jackson a certified letter, dated December 1, 2010, advising her of her disqualifying offence and of the process contained in chapter 435 for Ms. Jackson to seek an exemption from disqualification. The post office tracking slip indicated that the letter was returned unclaimed on December 31, 2010. Ms. Jackson knew or should have known, no later than December 31, 2010, that she was disqualified from operating a day care facility. Ms. Jackson has never filed an application for an exemption from disqualification. Count IV K.J. is a four-year-old autistic boy. He has a six- year-old sister, A.S. Their mother is Annette Wiggins. K.J. and A.S. attend Oak Hill Elementary School ("Oak Hill"). During the period relevant to this proceeding, K.J. was enrolled in pre-kindergarten and A.S. was in kindergarten. During the latter part of September 2010, K.J. and A.S. were enrolled for day care at Tiny Blessings. Ms. Wiggins would normally drop off K.J. and A.S. at Tiny Blessings, and Tiny Blessings would transport the children to Oak Hill. Two days per week, Ms. Wiggins would pick up the children from school at the end of the day. Three days a week, Tiny Blessings would pick up the children when Oak Hill dismissed its students, and then Ms. Wiggins would pick up the children from Tiny Blessings. K.J.'s teacher at Oak Hill, Amalia Santiago, an autism specialist, testified that at the beginning of the school year, Ms. Wiggins was "heavily dependent" on the day care to provide transportation for the children. Ms. Wiggins works at Point West Cluster, a nursing home. Her regular work hours are from 7:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. Ms. Wiggins did not drop off her children at Oak Hill unless one of the children was sick, she was not working that day, or there was some special occasion. Ms. Wiggins testified that she always let Ms. Jackson and Ms. Santiago know whether she would be taking the children to Oak Hill. Ms. Santiago confirmed that Ms. Wiggins was scrupulous in informing her of the children's transportation arrangements. Ms. Santiago and Ms. Wiggins had a close working relationship because of their mutual concerns with K.J.'s autism. Ms. Santiago testified that in her experience, Ms. Wiggins had never dropped her children off at Oak Hill without personally leaving K.J. with her. Sharon McKahand is K.J.'s grandmother and Ms. Wiggins' mother-in-law. Ms. McKahand was sometimes responsible for picking up K.J. from school or from day care but never for dropping him off in the morning. Nancy Garrett is a fifth grade teacher at Oak Hill. She also is the extended day director at Oak Hill for early and after-school care. Ms. Garrett's responsibilities include overseeing children who are brought to Oak Hill between 7:00 a.m. and 8:05 a.m. because their parents have to go to work early. Ms. Garrett stated that there were approximately 55 children who stayed in early care during the early part of the 2010-2011 school year. Ms. Garrett is assisted by a paraprofessional named Barbara Johnson. Neither K.J. nor A.S. was enrolled in the early care program at Oak Hill. One day near the end of September 2010,5/ Ms. Garrett found K.J. and A.S. in a hallway at Oak Hill at a time close to 7:00 a.m. The children were not accompanied by an adult. Ms. Garrett did not know the children's names and had no idea how they got there. Philip Gardner, a special education teacher who specialized in autistic children, recognized K.J. and took the children to his classroom. Ms. Garrett noted that it was not quite light outside when the children were dropped off. She was there for early care, and Mr. Gardner was a well-known "early bird," but aside from them, there were very few people on the Oak Hill campus at seven in the morning. Ms. Garrett reasonably believed that because the children were "tiny," and K.J. had special needs, an adult should have been with the children. A couple of days later, Ms. Garrett was at Oak Hill at about the same time in the morning and heard "little knockings going on in the hallway." Upon investigation, she discovered K.J. and A.S. again alone in the hallway. This time, Ms. Garrett took the children to Ms. Santiago's classroom. Ms. Santiago and Ms. Garret asked the children who had dropped them off. K.J.'s language deficits were such that he was unable to answer. A.S. told Ms. Santiago that they had been dropped off by "the day care." Ms. Garrett then informed Ms. Santiago that this was not the first time she had found the children alone in the hallway. Ms. Santiago phoned Ms. Wiggins to alert her that her children had been found roaming the campus unattended and that A.S. said that the day care had dropped them off. Ms. Santiago testified that Ms. Wiggins was "livid" when she learned that her children had been wandering the campus unattended. Ms. Wiggins was at work when Ms. Santiago called her. Because she was unable to leave work to address the issue, Ms. Wiggins contacted Ms. McKahand and asked her to go to Oak Hill and make further inquiries into the situation. Ms. McKahand immediately went to Oak Hill. The receptionist at Oak Hill could not tell Ms. McKahand who had dropped off the children that morning. Ms. McKahand next went to Tiny Blessings. Ms. McKahand testified that Ms. Jackson stated that Tiny Blessings had dropped off the children that morning, but that they had dropped the children off on time and would never drop them off early. Ms. King testified that she learned of this incident while investigating a report that staff of the day care was physically abusive to a school-age child who arrived at Tiny Blessings early in the morning. Ms. King arrived at the day care early on the morning of October 13, 2010, to interview parents as they dropped off their children. She saw Ms. Wiggins dropping off K.J. and A.S. Ms. King noted that A.S. appeared to be of school age. She asked Ms. Wiggins whether the day care was transporting A.S. to school. This was significant to Ms. King because Tiny Blessings had told the Department that it did not provide transportation. Ms. Wiggins told Ms. King that Tiny Blessings had been providing school transportation for both children since the start of the school year. Ms. King then asked Ms. Wiggins if she had any concerns about the care her children received at Tiny Blessings. Ms. Wiggins proceeded to tell Ms. King about her children being dropped off at Oak Hill by Tiny Blessings and later being found wandering in the hallway at the school. Ms. King informed Ms. Wiggins that she would have to make other provisions for the transportation of her children to school, because Tiny Blessings did not have an employee who met the licensing standards to transport children. Ms. Wiggins told Ms. King that in that event she would remove her children from Tiny Blessings. With Ms. Wiggins' permission, Ms. King interviewed A.S., who told Ms. King that "Joe" drove her and K.J. to and from Oak Hill. Joseph Williams is Ms. Jackson's son and an employee of Tiny Blessings. Ms. King interviewed Mr. Williams, who admitted transporting children in his mother's vehicle but denied ever dropping off the children without ensuring they were released to school staff at the curbside pick-up and drop-off location. Ms. Santiago, who assisted in the curbside pick-up, recalled that a "young man" frequently picked up the children after school. Mr. Williams did not testify at the hearing. At the hearing, Ms. Jackson denied that Tiny Blessings ever dropped the children off early. Ms. Jackson testified that on many days the children could not have been dropped off early at school because Ms. Wiggins did not drop them off at Tiny Blessings until around 8:00 a.m. Ms. Jackson introduced Tiny Blessings' parent sign-in sheets for the period from September 20, 2010, through September 29, 2010. On September 20, Ms. Wiggins dropped off the children at 8:04 a.m. On September 21, 2010, Ms. Wiggins dropped off the children at 8:11 a.m. On September 22, Ms. Wiggins dropped off A.S. at 7:59 a.m.; the sheet indicated that K.J. was not dropped off at the day care. On September 23, the date that Ms. Santiago believed to be the second date on which the children were found wandering the school, Ms. Wiggins dropped off the children at 7:09 a.m. On Friday, September 24, Ms. Wiggins dropped off the children at 7:04 a.m. On Monday, September 27, Ms. Wiggins dropped off the children at 7:36 a.m. On September 28, Ms. Wiggins dropped off the children at 8:02 a.m. On September 29, Ms. Wiggins dropped off the children at 7:11 a.m. Ms. Jackson testified that on days when the children were brought to Tiny Blessings at around seven, they were given breakfast at the day care before being transported to Oak Hill. On days when Ms. Wiggins was running late, Ms. Jackson would drive the children directly to school. School staff persons would be waiting at the curb to take the children from the vehicle. Ms. Jackson testified that she had one child whom she had to pick up from the child's home no later than 7:30 a.m. By the time she returned to the day care at around 7:45, it would be time to transport school-age children such as A.S. Ms. Jackson stated that, within the strictures of her morning schedule, it would make no sense for her to drive K.J. and A.S. to school before 7:45 a.m. Ms. Jackson testified that on the days in question, Ms. Wiggins must have dropped the children off at school herself. She noted that on September 22, Ms. Wiggins had not dropped both children off at Tiny Blessings because K.J. was sick. It is problematic that the Department could not definitely state the dates on which K.J. and A.S. were dropped off at the school. However, the Department has proven facts sufficient to establish Tiny Blessings' responsibility for the incident. Ms. Garrett and Ms. Santiago were absolutely clear that both K.J. and A.S. had been dropped off early at Oak Hill and been found wandering the halls of the school. Ms. Garrett witnessed this situation twice within a few days. These teachers had no motive to invent such a story. Ms. Santiago testified as to the shock and anger registered by Ms. Wiggins when she learned that her children had been found wandering the school, and that Ms. Wiggins always came in and spoke to her when she dropped off her children at the school. Ms. Wiggins' testimony was credible and consistent with Ms. Santiago's observations. Ms. Jackson's own records established that Ms. Wiggins left both children at Tiny Blessings on each weekday morning between September 20 and 29, with the exception of September 22, when only A.S. was left at Tiny Blessings. Therefore, Ms. Wiggins could not have dropped off the children at Oak Hill at around 7:00 a.m. on any of those mornings. The children could only have been left at Oak Hill by Ms. Jackson or some agent of Tiny Blessings.6/ The Department did not prove that the children were dropped off at the school by Mr. Williams. The hearsay statements of Mr. Williams and A.S. are the only evidence supporting a finding that Mr. Williams drove the children to school. Though she denied that anyone at Tiny Blessings would ever drop off the children without supervision, Ms. Jackson testified that she did most of the driving in the mornings. Mr. Williams drove mostly in the afternoons, picking up the children from Oak Hill. Counts V, VI, and VII Ms. King followed up her October 13, 2010, investigation with a visit to Tiny Blessings on October 14. During the follow up visit, Ms. King observed an individual named Trameka Monroe supervising the one-year-old children. Ms. King did not recognize Ms. Monroe and requested to see her personnel folder. The personnel folder showed no documentation that Ms. Monroe had undergone an employment history check, a part of the background screening the Department requires of child care personnel. Also, Ms. Monroe's folder contained no documentation of the required FBI/FDLE criminal records clearance. Ms. Jackson testified that Ms. Monroe had obtained background screening and that her local law enforcement clearance and FDLE/FBI clearance had been completed on October 13, 2010. She introduced a document produced by the Department stating that it had received Ms. Monroe's complete criminal history records and found nothing that would disqualify her from working for Tiny Blessings. The letter stated: "RESULTS VALID AS OF: 10/13/2010." However, the document also stated: "PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT CHECKS WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THE DETERMINATION/PROCESS." No evidence was presented that Ms. Monroe's background screening was ever fully completed. Ms. Jackson did not provide an employment history for Ms. Monroe. Ms. Jackson testified that Ms. Monroe was so anxious to start work at Tiny Blessings that she personally went to the Department's office on October 13 to have her background check completed. Ms. Jackson stated that the morning of October 14 was Ms. Monroe's first day on the job, and that it was a coincidence that this was the day Ms. King arrived at the facility. Ms. Monroe did not testify at the hearing. In the absence of any information in the personnel file confirming the status of Ms. Monroe's background screening, Ms. King instructed Ms. Monroe to leave the premises, which she did. Ms. Jackson testified that Ms. Monroe never came back "because of how rude Ms. King was." Ms. King also observed that the personnel file for employee Sarra Brown was incomplete. Ms. Brown had been employed previously at Tiny Blessings, but at some point she had been terminated and then rehired. Ms. Jackson provided no records to show the dates of the prior employment or how many days elapsed from the day Ms. Brown was fired to the date she was rehired. Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C- 22.006(4)(e)6. provides that child care personnel must be re- screened following a break in employment in the child care industry that exceeds 90 days. Because Ms. Brown's file lacked an employment history, Ms. King was not able to determine whether or for how long Ms. Brown had been out of the day care industry. Ms. King required Ms. Brown to leave the premises. The personnel files of both Ms. Monroe and Ms. Brown were missing completed Form 5131 and CS-FSP 5337, "Child Abuse & Neglect Reporting Requirements" ("Form 5337"). Ms. Monroe's file lacked the forms entirely; Ms. Brown's forms were incomplete. Ms. Brown later completed the forms in her file. Ms. Monroe did not complete the forms, possibly because she never came back to Tiny Blessings after Ms. King directed her to leave on October 14.
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 imposing a fine of $1,225.00 upon Lawanda Jackson d/b/a Tiny Blessings, and suspending License Number C04DU0799 until such time as the Department grants Lawanda Jackson an exemption from disqualification pursuant to section 435.07, Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of December, 2011, 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 12th day of December, 2011.
The Issue The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) seeks an administrative fine of $100 from the Wesley Child Development Center (Wesley) for violation of rules related to child supervision. The issues are whether the violation occurred and whether the fine is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Wesley Child Development Center II is a child care facility licensed by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) for operation at 42 East Jackson Street, Orlando, Florida. It is a pre-school facility associated with First United Methodist Church. On January 31, 1995, some time between 3:50 and 4:50 p.m., there were approximately seventeen (17) children and four (4) staff on the playground. The playground is confined with a sturdy, four-foot chain link fence. A.N. was a two-year old toddler on the playground; his teacher was Pat Vetter. A.N. had been playing with buckets and cars by himself near the fence and Ms. Vetter could see him through a play tunnel where two other children were playing. After he played alone for about 10-15 minutes, Ms. Vetter needed to start picking up toys. A.N. gave her his bucket. She turned from him and had taken about five steps when she heard him cry out with an angry cry. She turned back and saw him sitting on the ground with his legs out in front; he had been standing at the fence looking out at the parking lot. Ms. Vetter picked up A.N. and he stopped the angry cry, but continued whimpering. She consoled and held him until his mother arrived. There were no visible signs of any injury: no bruises, blood, scratches or swelling. When his mother picked him up, A.N. did not want to walk. She took him to a restaurant for supper, but later took him to the doctor for an examination. X-rays detected a spiral fracture of the child's femur bone. The cause of the injury remains a mystery to the child care facility staff, who were appropriately dismayed, and to the HRS staff who thoroughly investigated the incident. Dr. Seibel, the child protection team physician, conjectured that A.N. must have attempted to climb the fence, hooked his foot and fell, twisting his leg. No one observed the fall. Ms. Vetter was responsible for A.N.'s supervision and that of three other children on the playground. She was near him and aware of what he was doing. The accident occurred in the brief instant that she turned away to put up some toys; she did not leave the playground. The direct supervision staff to child ratio at the facility and on the playground was better than the 1:6 or 1:11 required by HRS' rules. There is no evidence that the staff were gossiping or engaged in any non-supervisory activity. There has never been a problem with supervision at this facility before, according to the HRS inspectors. No one contests that the child was injured at the facility. Ms. Vetter believes that he could not have had the fracture when he came to school that morning. Although other children have climbed on the fence, she has never observed A.N. trying to climb it. Still, the fence is the only plausible explanation for the injury.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter its final order dismissing the administrative complaint. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 27th day of October, 1995. MARY W. CLARK, 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 27th day of October, 1995. COPIES FURNISHED: James A. Sawyer, Jr., Esquire District Legal Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Suite S-827 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Elizabeth Jenkins Director Wesley Child Development Center II 142 East Jackson Street Orlando, Florida 32801
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a black female. She has been continuously employed by Respondent since February 14, 1972. Respondent has at all material times employed 15 or more employees for each working day in each of 20 or more calendar weeks. For several years, Petitioner was classified as a Public Assistance Specialist I and worked as a certification worker in the food stamp program administered by Respondent. In December 1984, Petitioner agreed with her supervisor, Dewey DeLoach, to serve as a second party reviewer for six months. The position required someone with superior experience and knowledge of food stamp eligibility criteria. In addition to selecting Petitioner on these grounds, Mr. DeLoach sought to make the assignment in order to remove Petitioner from client contact. On a number of occasions, she had been abrasive and rude to her clients. The second party reviewer is responsible for monitoring the work of all other food stamp certification workers in the office. Although somewhat prestigious, the job was stressful due to the monitoring duties. Employees generally did not want to be assigned to the job for more than six months, especially because, at the time, the pay was the same as that for a food stamp certification worker. Although Petitioner was competent as a food stamp certification worker, she had recurring problems with client relations. In one case, she asked a client seeking public assistance whether she was Jewish and, learning that she was, told her that Petitioner had never met a Jew who needed help. Petitioner then advised the client to get help from "her own" people. In July 1985, Petitioner returned to her certification duties, but four months later Mr. DeLoach reassigned her to the position of second party reviewer due to her continued difficulties in dealing with the public. In the same month, Petitioner was evaluated for a pay raise under the then new merit pay program. She was eligible for the raise as a result of the evaluations and recommendations from her immediate supervisor, her supervisor's supervisor (Mr. DeLoach), and the department head. Complicated administrative rules governed the merit pay program in 1985. Notwithstanding the favorable evaluations and recommendations, Petitioner's eligibility for a merit pay raise did not guarantee her a pay hike due to limited funds. As was the case with all other similarly situated employees, Petitioner was next placed on a prioritized list with other employees eligible for a merit pay raise. Each month, priorities on the list changed as a result of the addition of new persons, who, under uniformly applied rules, might receive a higher priority than persons already on the list. Each month, Respondent awarded the available merit pay to eligible employees based on their priority on the list. Pursuant to the merit pay rules, Petitioner was duly awarded a merit pay increase about one year after she had applied. As with other employees receiving merit pay hikes, Petitioner's raise was retroactive only one or two months prior to the award and not to the date of the application. In December 1985, and January 1986, Respondent refused to pay a travel voucher submitted by Petitioner for expenses incurred while she was on a temporary disaster assignment in Tallahassee. This decision, which was made by Deputy District Administrator Sidney McAllister, was consistent with Respondent's policies requiring advance approval of such expenses. There was no evidence that other employees were treated differently than Petitioner in this regard. Mr. McAllister rejected the travel voucher prior to his having learned that Petitioner had filed charges of racial discrimination in her employment with Respondent. At the time, Petitioner had filed a union grievance alleging a violation of the union contract in a manner that did not involve Petitioner's race; she had not filed any charges of race discrimination. In December 1985, Petitioner filed with Respondent a request-for- promotion form expressing interest in being considered for vacancies within Respondent as they arose. The purpose of the form was to simplify the application process for Petitioner by relieving her, for a period of one year, of the obligation of filing applications for specific job openings. The form that Petitioner originally filed with Respondent was returned to her on January 2, 1986, because it was improperly filled out. She added the missing information and returned the form to Respondent. Petitioner was seeking a position as a child support enforcement investigator. Respondent had recently obtained funding for 22 new positions in the Orlando office. Certain of these positions were to be filled effective the beginning of 1986, but most of them were not filled until later in 1986. Closing dates for applications for the first several positions to be filled were in October and November 1985, which had passed prior to Petitioner's filing of the incomplete request-for-promotion form. Filing the request-for-promotion form made Petitioner eligible to be considered for positions for which the closing date had not yet passed. Contrary to Petitioner's testimony, the form did not obligate Respondent to interview her, especially for positions for which the closing date had passed prior to the filing of the form. The next applicable closing date for applications for child support enforcement investigators was May 1986. Petitioner was notified by letter dated July 21, 1986, that she had been selected to fill one of the next available positions as a child support enforcement investigator. She began work on August 8, 1986, and occupies this job at present. Petitioner's initial rate of pay was $589.39 biweekly, which was what she was making at the time of the change in duties. However, this rate of pay was the third highest of those persons hired to fill the 22 newly created child support enforcement investigator positions. There was no evidence of racial discrimination in the hiring practices of Respondent in 1986 with respect to child support enforcement investigators for the Orlando office, which hired Petitioner. Four of the 22 persons hired in 1986 were black, one of whom received the highest rate of pay among the 22 new hires. There was no evidence that the procedures employed by Respondent to contact persons who had expressed interest in these positions were intended to discriminate on the basis of race or in fact discriminated on the basis of race. Child support enforcement investigators were first hired in the Orlando office in 1976. The evidence failed to establish the number of initial investigators, which was considerably less than the 22 new positions filled in 1986. The evidence failed to establish how many of the initial investigators were black, although at least one was. There was little if any turnover among those persons initially hired. The first significant openings occurred in 1986 when the 22 new positions were created. Following her employment as a child support enforcement investigator, Petitioner's son was involved in a child support enforcement matter that had apparently been pending at the time of her employment. He was eventually taken to court where the judge required that he purge himself of contempt by paying the entire child support arrearage of over $3000. In connection with this matter, Petitioner's son had to serve 172 days in jail. The substantial period of incarceration, together with the enforcement of the arrearage, negate Petitioner's testimony that Respondent participated in the prosecution of her son in retaliation for her filing a Charge of Discrimination with the Orlando Human Relations Department in February 1986. The Determination: Cause, dated June 28, 1988, cited as evidence of discrimination the hiring of Ms. Jane Downs, who is white, on or about January 17, 1986, for a position for which Petitioner was denied an interview. The failure of Petitioner to timely file a request-for-promotion form, with respect to the opening for which Ms. Downs was hired, precluded Petitioner from consideration for this opening, by operation of law. The Determination: Cause cited as additional evidence of race discrimination the failure of Respondent to hire any blacks for three other child support enforcement investigator positions or even interview a significant number of blacks for these positions. The failure of Petitioner to timely file the request-for-promotion form explains her exclusion from the interviews for these positions, which were among the first to be filled. Persons interviewed for these positions were selected without regard to race and, in most cases, without knowledge of the applicant's race. Moreover, when the race of the persons hired for all 22 persons is considered, there is no evidence of race discrimination.
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether part of Petitioner's lottery prize should be withheld and used to pay an allegedly outstanding debt for child support.
Findings Of Fact On April 15, 1990, Petitioner submitted a claim to the Department of the Lottery (Lottery) on a ticket he held for the Lotto drawing of April 14, 1990. The ticket reflected that Petitioner had correctly selected five of the six numbers drawn on April 14 and rendered him eligible for a prize of $4,334.50. On May 4, 1990, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (DHRS) certified to the Lottery that Petitioner owed $3,625.00 in Title IV-D child support arrearage. By letter dated May 9, 1990, the Lottery notified Petitioner that DHRS had advised it of the outstanding debt and that, pursuant to Section 24.115(4), Florida Statutes, it had transmitted the prize amount to the Department of Banking and Finance (DBF). Petitioner was further advised that DBF would notify him shortly regarding the distribution of the funds. By letter dated May 15, 1990, DBF notified Petitioner that it was in receipt of his prize from the Lottery and that it intended to apply $3,625.00 of the award toward the unpaid claim for child support. Enclosed with that letter was State of Florida warrant number 2537015 in the amount of $709.50 payable to Petitioner. This warrant was a partial payment of the lottery prize and represented the difference between the amount of the prize and the amount of chld support that HRS had certified as being due. In a letter received by DBF on May 30, 1990, Petitioner disputed that any obligation was outstanding and requested a formal hearing. On July 18, 1990, DHRS notified DBF that Petitioner's child support arrearage had been reduced by $2,154.82 as a result of an IRS tax refund interception. That letter indicated that, as a result of the interception, DHRS had calculated the amount of the Petitioner's outstanding child support obligation to be $1,470.18. In the letter, DHRS specifically relinquished its claim to the additional $2,154.82 it had originally certified. By letter dated July 30, 1990, DBF transmitted to Petitioner State of Florida warrant number 0129960 in the amount of $2,154.82. This warrant was a partial payment of the lottery prize and reduced the amount of the prize being held by DBF to $1,470.18. On July 18, 1991, General Master Helen T. Erstling entered a Recommended Order On Determination Of Arrears which concluded that as of July 11, 1991, Petitioner owed $1,568.68 in child support arrearage. That Recommended Order provided that DBF was authorized to release to DHRS up to $1,568.68 of Petitioner's lottery proceeds. On August 13, 1991, Circuit Court Judge George E. Orr of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Dade County, Florida, entered an Order Upon Recommended Order On Disputed Arrears which ratified and adopted the Recommended Order of the General Master. The arrearage calculated by the General Master and adopted by the court was calculated as of June 11, 1991, and established that, as of that date, Petitioner owed $1,568.68 in Title IV-D child support arrearage. Petitioner, the party responsible to make such payments, offered no proof at the hearing in this case to establish that such sum has been paid and/or is no longer owing. This arrearage exceeds the remaining amount of the lottery prize being held by DBF.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Department of Banking and Finance enter a final order dismissing the Petitioner's request for formal hearing, and that it pay to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services the $1,470.18 remainder of Petitioner's lottery prize in partial satisfaction of Petitioner's debt for child support. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 16th day of October 1991. J. STEPHEN MENTON 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 16th day of October 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Lawrence Fowler Apt. 202 9481 Evergreen Place Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33324 Bridget L. Ryan Assistant General Counsel Office of the Comptroller Suite 1302, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Chriss Walker, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Louisa Warren Department of the Lottery 250 Marriott Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399 The Honorable Gerald Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 William G. Reeves General Counsel Department of Banking and Finance The Capitol, Room 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
