Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding, the Center was a child care facility owned and operated by Pasquale (Rick) and Barbara Diana at 648 Ortiz Avenue, Fort Myers, Florida, Lee County, Florida. The Department is the authority which issues and renews child care facility licenses in the county where the Center was located. At the time the application for license renewal was made by the Center, the facility was an ongoing business, and was authorized to care for a maximum of forty-one children. As part of the regulatory process, the Department inspects all of the child care facilities within the Lee County area. During the first five inspections during 1988, the Center was cited for the following violations: delinquent submissions of background screening requirements, insufficient staff ratios, inadequate direct supervision of children, and excess use of the facility beyond the licensed capacity of forty-one children. In an attempt to reduce these, and other citations for violations of the minimum standards for child care facilities at the Center, the owners agreed to weekly inspections by the Department beginning in September 1988. The purpose of these inspections was to promote change within the Center, and to assure the Department that the facility was able to function within the required minimum standards. The first weekly inspection of September 19, 1988, revealed that the Center was exceeding its licensed capacity. Forty-four children were being cared for in the Center. Soap was needed in one bathroom, and indoor equipment needed cleaning. On September 27,1988, bedding and crib requirements were not being met by the Center. Two cribs were broken, and in need of repair. One crib mattress and some nap mats needed to be replaced. Soap was unavailable in both bathrooms. On October 6, 1988, nap mats needed to be replaced and electrical outlet caps needed to be placed upon exposed outlets. On October 20, 1988, there was an insufficient staff ratio for the thirty-three children present at the Center. Nap mats and electrical outlet caps were still needed. An unlocked, outdoor shed contained fire ant killer insecticide, and was accessible through the playground area. The lunch served to the children was not the lunch posted upon the menu. As a result of the violations discovered during the October 20, 1988 inspection, a citation letter was issued by the Department to the Center on October 27, 1988. The letter cited the Center for the insufficient staff ratio violation, and reminded the owners that previous citations had been issued for this violation on February 15, 1988, June 16, 1988, and August 31, 1988. The unlocked outdoor shed near the outdoor play area was the subject of previous citations on June 23, 1988, and August 31, 1988. The failure to serve the lunch posted on the menu had also occurred previously on August 31, 1988. The Center was told to comply with all of the minimum standards set forth in Chapter 10M- 12, Florida Administrative Code. The Corrective Action Plan set forth in the letter directed the owners to accept only the number of children allowed under the license, to plug all exposed electrical outlets, to provide soap, toilet paper and towels in each bathroom, and to replace the torn nap mats currently in use. On October 28, 1988, the inspector observed two children who were not directly supervised within the Center. Three of the four staff members were new employees whose background screenings had not been submitted to the Department. Child abuse/staff training requirements were incomplete, and soap was needed in one bathroom. On November 3, 1988, a broken crib previously cited on September 27, 1988, was being used in its broken state. The playground area contained an unanchored swing set and there were exposed nails in the fence surrounding the area On November 10, 1988, all of the background screenings were not complete on current staff. On November 15, 1988, the owners submitted an application for license renewal to the Department. The current license was scheduled to expire on December 31, 1988. On November 18, 1988, background screenings were still incomplete. Torn nap mats were still in use, and proper enrollment information on new children had not been completed. On December 11, 1988, a background screening was still incomplete on one employee. There was an insufficient ratio of personnel to children under the required minimum standards for personnel. Towels were needed in the back bathroom, and the posted menu was not dated to assure that it was current and reflected the day's meal plan. On December 13, 1988, the Center was evaluated for license renewal purposes. The constant turnover in staff who were not promptly screened, the ongoing insufficient staff ratios and direct supervision violations, coupled with the physical facility violations such as improper bedding and mats, and the failure to maintain a safe playground area, resulted in a decision to deny the application for license renewal.
Recommendation It is therefore, RECOMMENDED: 1. That the application for license renewal as a child care facility submitted by the Center for January 1, 1989, through December 31, 1989, be denied. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of May, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY 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 9th day of May, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Anthony N. DeLuccia, Jr., Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services District 8 Legal Office Post Office Box 06085 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 Pasquale & Barbara Diana 7407 Coon Road North Fort Myers, Florida 33917 R. S. Power, Esquire Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner should have her application to renew her childcare facility license denied by Respondent, Department of Children and Families (“Department”), for the reasons set forth in the Amended Denial of Application to Renew Child Care Facility License.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Roslyn Smith, holds license No. C07V00140, by which she is licensed to operate the Rising Stars childcare facility pursuant to chapter 402, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 65C-22. Petitioner has operated the Rising Stars childcare facility for 12 years. She serves very low-income children in the Daytona Beach area. There is no question but that Petitioner offers superior service to the children under her care. Petitioner maintains a clothing bank to ensure that the children in her care are adequately clothed. Petitioner prepares wholesome, homemade, nutritious meals for the children, eschewing the more common chicken nuggets and corn dogs offered up at other facilities. The children are encouraged in their classrooms, with appropriate and well-kept educational materials. The facility is clean and well maintained. Petitioner’s husband frequents the facility to perform maintenance and upkeep. The children in her care love Petitioner, a feeling that she returns in kind. On September 20, 2010, Petitioner and the Department entered into a Settlement Agreement to resolve several background screening and training violations. The agreement resulted in Petitioner’s license being placed on probationary status for a period of six months. The Department’s denial of Petitioner’s license renewal was based solely on alleged violations discovered during an inspection conducted on November 3, 2010, and on an alleged violation discovered on February 2, 2011. The November 3, 2011 inspection was conducted by Patricia Medico. Ms. Medico began working for the Department on May 18, 2010. The November 3, 2010 inspection was her first at Rising Stars. Despite having been trained since her hire, and having had a small caseload in DeLand, Ms. Medico considered herself to be “a very new counselor starting at [Petitioner’s] place in November.” Ms. Medico made it a practice to inspect facilities without first reviewing any information or previous Department inspection reports, a common practice with other inspectors. She believed that by going out “cold,” it allowed her to be more objective, and to have no preconceived notions or prejudices. On November 18, 2010, a re-inspection of the facility was performed by Ms. Medico. All deficiencies identified during the November 3, 2010 inspection had been resolved, and no further violations were discovered. Since the November 3, 2010 inspection, Rising Stars has been in substantial -- if not almost perfect -- compliance with all childcare facility standards. From November 3, 2010 through the August 26, 2011 inspection, the only violations discovered were Quinetta Edwards’ missing affidavit of good moral character discussed below, one classroom without a posted lesson plan in March 2011, a minor attendance roster discrepancy in March 2011 that was corrected during the inspection, and one time when the posted lunch menu was not dated. The evidence demonstrates that Petitioner made substantial, effective, and sufficient progress toward compliance since the entry of the settlement agreement on September 20, 2010, and it is so found. The specific violations that form the basis for the denial of Petitioner’s license renewal are as follows: Training Violations Veronica Dickson The Department listed, as a basis for the denial of Petitioner’s license renewal, that Petitioner did not have documentation in the employment file of Veronica Dickson showing that she had started her 40-clock-hour training within 90 days of commencement of her employment at Rising Stars. The evidence suggests that the documentation of Ms. Dickson’s training was in her file since at least October 8, 2010, and another copy was printed from the Daytona State College website and provided to Ms. Medico during the inspection. Ms. Medico stated that she had no recollection of having seen Ms. Dickson’s training records during the inspection. At various times, Ms. Medico admitted that due to her large caseload, she was unclear as to the specifics of any given inspection. However, she indicated that the inspection report is her contemporaneous statement of the facts. She further indicated that it was her practice to print out a copy of the report and go over it with the licensee before having the licensee sign it. When Ms. Medico left a facility, the inspection report provided to the licensee “isn’t necessarily the written in stone inspection.” Rather, it is subject to review, occasionally with items that were found to be non-compliant changed to being compliant, and items that were found to be compliant changed to being non-compliant. If items were changed, Ms. Medico would call the licensee to advise them of the change. Contrary to Ms. Medico’s description of the process, Petitioner testified that, as the normal practice, Ms. Medico did not go over the inspection reports point-by-point. Rather, she indicated that she would receive an unsigned report from Ms. Medico after having accompanied her during the inspection and having discussed -- and oftentimes resolved -- problems at the time. She would sign the computerized signature block without reviewing the report, relying on the earlier discussions. If necessary, she would review the report after the inspection. Having personally provided Ms. Dickson’s training records to Ms. Medico, Petitioner did not realize that the training records were identified as a violation on November 3, 2010. Petitioner would have disputed the violation had she known at the time that she was being cited. The evidence as to whether the training documentation was in Ms. Dickson’s file is contradictory. However, the more persuasive evidence supports a finding of fact that the documentation was provided at the time of the inspection, but was either overlooked or forgotten by Ms. Medico. Therefore, there was no violation of any childcare standard associated with Ms. Dickson’s training records. Alicia Thomas The Department listed, as a basis for the denial of Petitioner’s license renewal, that Alicia Thomas had not started her 40-hour training within 90 days of having started employment in the childcare industry. According to the Department’s personnel records, Ms. Thomas was first employed in the childcare industry on April 5, 2010. There is no evidence to indicate by whom she was employed on that date. The Department provided no information as to how a licensee is to know when a person is employed “in the industry.” However, it is clear that a candidate for employment at a child care facility is to commence training within 90 days of employment at any licensed childcare facility, and that the employing childcare facility is responsible for obtaining documentation from childcare personnel. The evidence is undisputed that Ms. Thomas’s background screening was complete and clear. Furthermore, Ms. Thomas had completed her required in-service training by June 30, 2010. The Department personnel summary sheet indicates that Ms. Thomas started her employment at Rising Stars on May 5, 2010. However, the greater weight of the evidence indicates that Ms. Thomas was hired by Petitioner in July, 2010. From July through November, 2010, which was the period of Ms. Thomas’s employment at Rising Stars, she worked fewer than 30 days due to various medical issues. The evidence indicates that Ms. Thomas’s failure to commence her 40-hour training was not cited by the Department as a violation on November 3, 2010. The unsigned inspection report provided by Ms. Medico for Petitioner’s review did not list a violation related to Ms. Thomas’s training. Ms. Medico testified that she did not cite Petitioner for a violation related to Ms. Thomas on November 3, 2010. Rather, she indicated that “all I did was tell her in notes that Alisca needed to get this,” and that “the next time I went out, she would be cited if she did not correct that.” (emphasis added). Ms. Adams testified that “technically, [Petitioner] should have been cited additionally for Alisca Thomas not starting her training on time,” but that “I overlooked it, and I don’t know what [Ms. Medico’s] rationale was [for not citing], but I overlooked it.” Petitioner testified that Alisca Thomas never appeared on any inspection report that she received. The greater weight of the evidence demonstrates that Petitioner was not cited for a violation related to Ms. Thomas’s training status, and that the deficiency would be considered to be a violation only if it was not corrected by the November 18, 2010 re-inspection. By the time of the November 18, 2010 re-inspection, Ms. Thomas had commenced her training, documentation of which was in her file. Thus, Petitioner made sufficient progress toward compliance, and in fact completely resolved the issue, by the time Ms. Medico went back to the facility. Despite having come into compliance with her training requirements, Ms. Thomas was let go shortly after November 18, 2010 due to her ongoing health issues. Based on the foregoing, Ms. Thomas’s training status, having been completely resolved prior to it being cited as a violation, and its having had no proven effect on the health, safety, or child development needs of the children in Petitioner’s care, is not a sufficient basis for denial of the renewal license. Record-Keeping Course Violation The Department listed, as a basis for the denial of Petitioner’s license renewal, that Petitioner did not complete the Guide to Record Keeping online course or the CEU assessment as required by the September 20, 2010 settlement agreement. As part of the settlement agreement, Petitioner was required by the Department to take and pass the course, and get credit for the Continuing Education Units (CEUs). Petitioner had taken the course in 2009, and had received a certificate of completion. The certificate had not expired. Petitioner attempted to take the Guide to Record Keeping online course as required by the settlement agreement. When Petitioner tried to enroll for the course, the course provider refused to allow her to pay the fee or enroll. Such refusal is consistent with the warning on the course registration home page, which states that “[y]ou can only earn one certificate for each course, and you may not earn CEUs for a course you have previously taken.” Petitioner testified that she advised Ms. Medico and Ms. Adams of the problem with taking the online course. Ms. Adams had a recollection of meeting Petitioner in the lobby of the DCF building, and discussing Ms. Dickson’s and Ms. Thomas’s training issues with her, but did not mention discussing Petitioner’s difficulty in taking the record keeping class. Whether Ms. Adams was told of the problem or not is immaterial. The evidence is sufficient to demonstrate, at the very least, that Petitioner advised Ms. Medico, a representative of the Department, of the problem in taking the course. The Department should have known of the restriction on retaking the course at the time it imposed that requirement on Petitioner. Petitioner had no reason to expect that the Department’s required settlement condition could not be performed, and did not know of the restriction until she attempted to comply. Petitioner made a good faith effort to comply with the condition but, since the course provider prohibited Petitioner from retaking the course and receiving CEU credit, performance of that element of the settlement agreement was impossible. Based on the foregoing, Petitioner’s failure to take, complete, and receive CEU credit for the Guide to Record Keeping course, in light of the impossibility of doing so, is not a sufficient basis for denial of the renewal license. Untimely Meeting Violation The Department listed, as a basis for the denial of Petitioner’s license renewal, that Petitioner failed to meet with Susan Liebee, a coordinator at the Daytona State College, within 10 days of the date of the settlement agreement to discuss staff training requirements. The meeting was to have been held by September 30, 2010, but did not take place until October 8, 2010. Petitioner testified that she went to Ms. Liebee’s office to meet with her, but that she was not there. She subsequently called and made an appointment with Ms. Liebee to meet on October 8, 2010, and met as scheduled. Petitioner made every reasonable effort to meet the time frame for the meeting established in the settlement agreement, but due to reasons outside of her control was not able to meet until Ms. Liebee was available on October 8, 2010. Petitioner’s testimony on that point was credible, and there was no evidence to the contrary. Based on the foregoing, Petitioner’s failure to meet with Ms. Liebee due to circumstances involving Ms. Liebee’s schedule that were out of Petitioner’s control, is not a sufficient basis for denial of the renewal license. Affidavit of Good Moral Character Violation The Department listed, as a basis for the denial of Petitioner’s license renewal, that an Affidavit of Good Moral Character was not in the file of new hire Quinetta Edwards. Ms. Edwards was hired effective February 1, 2010. The inspection during which Ms. Edward’s employment file was reviewed was conducted on February 2, 2010. As stated by Ms. Medico, a new employee’s background investigation consists of the level 2 background screening required in Chapter 435, the Affidavit of Good Moral Character signed by the employee, the signed and notarized Child Abuse Reporting Form, the employee’s employment history, checked references for two years, and a supplemental statement that the employee has not had a child care license denied or revoked in the past. All of the screening requirements listed by Ms. Medico, and established in rule 65C-22.006(4), had been met but for the affidavit. Due to a simple oversight, Ms. Edwards failed to execute the Affidavit of Good Moral Character prior to her employment with Petitioner. Upon learning of the oversight, Ms. Edwards executed the Affidavit on February 8, 2010. Petitioner thereupon submitted the affidavit to the Department by facsimile on that date. There was no attempt to backdate the form, or to do anything other than honestly correct the oversight. Ms. Edwards has cleared all screening, meets all employee standards, and remains on the staff of Rising Stars without any problems to this day. The simple and unintentional oversight in having Ms. Edwards execute her affidavit one week after commencement of employment, given that all other background screening was completed without incident, had no effect on the health or safety of the children attending Rising Stars. That oversight was not a material violation of the Department’s licensing standards or of the settlement agreement, and is not a sufficient factual basis for the denial of Petitioner’s license renewal. Other Violations Not Pled In addition to the issues pled as reasons for denial in the Department’s Amended Denial of Application to Renew Child Care Facility License, the parties introduced testimony and documentary evidence regarding a number of alleged minor deficiencies at the Rising Stars facility discovered during the November 3, 2010 inspection. Both Ms. Medico and Ms. Adams admitted that the deficiencies did not form the basis for the Department’s proposed action. As to the facility violations -- which included among other minor deficiencies, a missing lesson plan; exposed “S” hooks on the swing set; worn electrical outlet covers; an exposed, but generally inaccessible screw point underneath a bench; uneven boards on a deck; and two forks in a drawer accessible but off-limits to children -- the evidence demonstrates conclusively that those deficiencies are “common problems” and that “those things, they happen everywhere.” The evidence further demonstrates that Petitioner’s husband keeps the facility well kept and maintained, and that Petitioner does a “wonderful job” with the Rising Stars facility. The evidence is undisputed that each of the alleged violations identified in the November 3, 2010 inspection report were either corrected on the spot during the inspection, or were corrected by the November 18, 2010 re-inspection. They have not recurred. To the extent that those alleged deficiencies are considered in the final decision regarding renewal of Petitioner’s license, despite having not been pled by the Department, it is found that the alleged deficiencies, have had no adverse effect on the health, sanitation, safety, and adequate physical surroundings for the children in Petitioner’s care, have had no adverse effect on the health and nutrition of the children in Petitioner’s care, and have had no adverse effect on the child development needs of the children in Petitioner’s care. Therefore, those alleged deficiencies do not form a sufficient basis for denial of Petitioner’s license renewal. Finally, evidence was received regarding the employment of Jennifer Geier by Petitioner during a period that she was disqualified from employment. Petitioner was not aware that Ms. Geier was subject to disqualification, especially since she had received a letter from the Department of Corrections dated September 9, 2009, stating that “there are no stipulations in her order that prevents her from employment in a child care facility.”1/ Upon discovering that the offense was, in fact, disqualifying, Ms. Geier was terminated. It is clear that at the time the Department issued its Amended Denial of Application to Renew Child Care Facility License on August 2, 2011, the Department was well aware of Ms. Geier and her relationship with Petitioner, with all aspects of her employment at Rising Stars having been resolved in the September 20, 2010 Settlement Agreement, and with her having received a Final Order from the Department granting an exemption from disqualification on January 3, 2011. Since all aspects of Ms. Geier’s employment were resolved by the settlement agreement, and since Ms. Geier’s employment by Petitioner was not pled by the Department, her previous employment does not form a sufficient basis for denial of Petitioner’s license renewal.
Recommendation Upon the consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Family Services enter a Final Order granting the renewal of license, No. C07V00140, to Petitioner Roslyn Smith for the operation the Rising Stars childcare facility. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of November, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY 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 4th day of November, 2011.
The Issue The issue in this matter is whether the Department of Children and Families should grant Petitioner’s application for a license to operate a childcare facility.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with regulating providers who are licensed or registered to provide childcare in the State in Florida. On May 26, 2016, Petitioner applied to the Department for a license to operate a childcare facility. Petitioner submitted her application using the Department’s prescribed form CF-FSP 5017 (“Form 5017”). See Fla. Admin. Code R. 65C-22.001(1)(a). Petitioner named her desired childcare facility “Little Einstein’s Early Education Center” (“Little Einstein’s”). On May 27, 2016, the Department issued a letter to Petitioner notifying her that her application was incomplete. Of relevance to this matter, the Department informed Petitioner that she needed to complete section 3 of Form 5017 (“Section 3”). She also needed to sign and date her application. Section 3 is entitled ATTESTATION and queries, “Has the owner, applicant, or director ever had a license denied, revoked, or suspended in any state or jurisdiction, been the subject of a disciplinary action, or been fined while employed in a child care facility?” Section 3 includes boxes for the applicant to mark either “Yes” or “No.” Section 3 then states, “If yes, please explain: (attach additional sheet(s) if necessary).” Form 5017 further instructs that “Falsification of application information is grounds for denial or revocation of the license to operate a child care facility. Your signature on this application indicates your understanding and compliance with this law.” In her initial Form 5017 Petitioner submitted to the Department on May 26, 2016, she placed an “X” in the “No” box in Section 3. Following the Department’s letter on May 27, 2016, Petitioner ventured to the Department’s Orlando office to request assistance to complete her Form 5017. There, Petitioner spoke with Ida Lewis, a licensing counselor for the Department. Ms. Lewis reviews applications for childcare facilities as part of her job responsibilities for the Department. At the final hearing, Ms. Lewis confirmed that she reviewed the unsigned Form 5017 with Petitioner. Ms. Lewis testified that she specifically pointed out Section 3 to Petitioner because it is common for applicants to incorrectly mark that section. Together, Petitioner and Ms. Lewis completed Section 3. Ms. Lewis testified that Petitioner had initially marked “No” to the Section 3 question regarding prior disciplinary action. Ms. Lewis advised Petitioner that if she had ever been the subject of disciplinary action involving other childcare facilities, then Petitioner must document that history on the application. Ms. Lewis also counseled Petitioner that if her initial response in Section 3 was not correct, then Petitioner needed to mark the “Yes” box and add the name(s) of the prior childcare facility(ies) where the disciplinary action took place. Following their discussion, Petitioner appears to have followed Ms. Lewis’ instructions. On her Form 5017, Petitioner drew a line through the “No” box and initialed her correction. She then placed an “X” in the “Yes” box. Next to the boxes, Petitioner wrote “Wiggles & Giggles Learning Center I, II, III” (“Wiggles & Giggles”). Ms. Lewis accepted Petitioner’s application, then handed a copy back to Petitioner. On June 6, 2016, Petitioner resubmitted her Form 5017 to the Department. However, Petitioner did not file the version of her application that she completed with Ms. Lewis which included a “Yes” answer in Section 3 and the name Wiggles & Giggles. Instead, Petitioner’s second Form 5017 simply had the “No” box marked and did not include Petitioner’s reference to Wiggles & Giggles. Upon receiving Petitioner’s Form 5017, the Department reviewed whether to grant her application. The Department discovered that Petitioner was the subject of several prior Administrative Complaints while she was the owner and operator of Wiggles & Giggles III, another childcare facility licensed in her name. Petitioner’s disciplinary history included the following2/: On August 20, 2014, the Department issued an Administrative Complaint against Petitioner alleging that she did not timely renew her childcare license. The Department fined Petitioner in the amount of $50. On March 9, 2015, the Department issued an Administrative Complaint against Petitioner alleging that she committed a Class I violation by leaving an unscreened individual alone to supervise children in her care. The Department fined Petitioner in the amount of $500. On October 1, 2015, the Department issued an Administrative Complaint against Petitioner alleging that she committed a background screening violation. The Department fined Petitioner in the amount of $60. Consequently, Petitioner’s submission of her revised Form 5017 marking “No” in Section 3 to the question of whether she had been the subject of a disciplinary action was not true.3/ On July 5, 2016, the Department issued a letter to Petitioner denying her application for a license to operate Little Einstein’s. Ms. Lewis prepared the denial letter. She explained that the Department denied Petitioner’s application based on two reasons. First, the Department found that Petitioner falsified her application by failing to disclose prior disciplinary actions from her operation of Wiggles & Giggles III. Second, the Department determined that Petitioner’s prior violations made her unfit to receive a license to operate another childcare facility. At the final hearing, Petitioner did not deny that she was the subject of several disciplinary actions by the Department while operating Wiggles & Giggles III. Petitioner also expressed that she now understands that she incorrectly marked Section 3 of Form 5017. Regarding her submission of the revised Form 5017 marking “No” in Section 3, Petitioner testified that she initially left Section 3 blank. She wanted advice from the Department on the proper manner in which to complete her application. Following her meeting with Ms. Lewis, however, Petitioner stated that she was still confused about which box to mark. Petitioner recalled that she and Ms. Lewis agreed that “No” was the appropriate response. Therefore, after she initially answered “Yes” in Section 3, she changed her response to “No” on the version of her Form 5017 she submitted to the Department on June 6, 2016. Based on the competent substantial evidence presented at the final hearing, the Department presented sufficient factual and legal grounds to deny Petitioner’s application. Further, Petitioner failed to meet her ultimate burden of establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that she is entitled to a license to operate a childcare facility.
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 childcare facility. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of January, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. BRUCE CULPEPPER 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 January, 2017.
The Issue The issue is whether to deny Respondent's application to renew its child care facility license and impose an administrative fine for the reasons stated in the Department's letter dated September 16, 2016.
Findings Of Fact Ms. Garcia operated a child care facility at 5600 Old Cheney Highway, Orlando, for almost two years. A probationary license expired on September 21, 2016. This proceeding concerns Ms. Garcia's application for renewal of her license. The Department has regulatory authority over the licensing of child care facilities. To ensure compliance with regulations, the Department conducts periodic inspections of licensed facilities. Unless violations are observed during an inspection, the Department's Orlando office annually conducts two routine and one license renewal inspection of each of the 395 licensed facilities in Orange and Seminole Counties. If a license is placed on probation because of violations, inspections are made at least once a month during the probationary period to ensure the deficiencies are corrected. Violations by a licensee of Department rules or a statute are treated as Class 1, 2, or 3 violations. A Class 1 violation is the most serious, as it "pose[s] an imminent threat to a child including abuse or neglect and which could or does result in death or serious harm to the health, safety or well- being of a child." Fla. Admin. Code R. 65C-22.010(1)(d). For example, it is a Class 1 violation for a facility operator to allow unsupervised individuals who have no current background screening to be with children. This is because all child care personnel must have a current Level 2 background screening performed before they begin work in the facility. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 65C-22.006(4)(d)1. In 2015, Respondent's facility was inspected on at least four occasions: January 13, March 20, May 18, and August 11. On each occasion, violations of Department rules and relevant statutes were observed. Because the first three inspections were performed by a non-Spanish speaking counselor, Ms. Garcia requested that her facility be inspected by a counselor who spoke Spanish. In June 2015, the Department assigned Roy Garcia (no relation to Ms. Garcia) to perform future inspections, as he is bi-lingual. Later, Ms. Garcia expressed her dissatisfaction with Roy Garcia as well. On January 15, 2016, Roy Garcia conducted an inspection of Respondent's facility. Based on violations observed during the inspection, on February 19, 2016, the Department issued an Administrative Complaint seeking to impose a $270.00 fine. See Dep't Ex. 2. The Administrative Complaint cited the following violations observed during the inspection: Two violations of sections 402.302(3) and (15) and 402.305(2) and Florida Administrative Code Rule 62C-22.006(4)(d) by failing to perform required background screening for two employees. Two violations of rule 65C-22.006(d) and (e) by failing to have background screening documents in the staff files. Three violations of the staff/ratio rule, as required by section 402.305(3) and (4) and rule 65C-22.001(4). Two violations of section 402.302(3) and rule 65C-22.001(5) by allowing a volunteer to supervise children without a qualified employee being present. Four violations of rule 65C-22.006(2) by failing to have student health examinations on file. Four violations of rule 65C-22.006(2) by failing to have required student immunization records on file. At hearing, Ms. Garcia took the position that the charges were not warranted. However, in April 2016, she paid the $270.00 fine. Even though the Department informed her that she could request a hearing, a request was not filed. Therefore, the agency action became final. On April 29, 2016, Roy Garcia conducted another inspection of the facility. Based on violations observed during the inspection, on June 30, 2016, the Department issued an Administrative Complaint seeking to impose a $125.00 fine and to convert her annual license to probationary status, given the number of recurring violations during the preceding year. See Dep't Ex. 3. The Administrative Complaint cited the following violations observed during the inspection: Three violations of section 402.305(3) and (4) and rule 65C-22.001(4) by failing to maintain a ratio of two staff personnel for each five infants under one year of age. One violation of rules 65C-22.006 and 65C-22.010 for failing to have background screening documents and employment history checks in the facility files. At hearing, Ms. Garcia disagreed with the merits of these charges. However, in August 2016, she paid a $125.00 fine. Even though the Department informed her she could request a hearing to contest the charges, a request was not filed. Therefore, the agency action became final. A probation-status license was issued on July 31, 2016, with an expiration date of September 21, 2016, which coincided with the date on which her original annual license expired. See Dep't Ex. 4. A probation-status license is issued for a short period of time during which the licensee must come back into compliance. See § 402.310(1)(a)2., Fla. Stat. On August 4, 2016, Ms. Garcia filed an application for renewal of her license. Because the license was on probation, follow-up inspections of the facility were conducted by Roy Garcia on August 26, 29, 30, and 31, 2016. Multiple inspections were conducted because he believed the safety of the children was at risk. Although Ms. Garcia contends these inspections constituted an "abuse of authority," the Department routinely performs follow-up inspections if a facility's license is on probation. Multiple violations were observed during these inspections. See Dep't Ex. 1. They included the following: Four Class I violations of section 402.305(2)(a) by allowing unscreened individuals to be left alone to supervise children in the facility's care. These violations call for a fine of $400.00, or $100.00 per violation. Three Class 2 violations of rule 65C- 22.002(3)(a) by failing to maintain 20 or 35 square feet per child in areas occupied by children. These violations call for a fine of $180.00, or $60.00 per violation. Three Class 2 violations of section 402.305(4) and rule 65C-22.001(4)(a) and (b) by failing to maintain a sufficient staff to children ratio. These violations call for a fine of $300.00, or $100.00 per violation. Two Class 2 violations of rule 65C- 22.006(4)(d)1. by failing to have Level 2 background screening documentation on file. These violations call for a fine of $150.00, or $75.00 per violation. Two Class 2 violations of rule 65C- 22.006(4)(d) by failing to have employee CF- FSP Form 5131 on file. These violations call for a fine of $150.00, or $75.00 per violation. Two Class 2 violations of rule 65C- 22.006(4)(d)2. by failing to have employment history checks on file. These violations call for a fine of $150.00, or $75.00 per violation. One Class 2 violation of rule 65C- 22.003(2)(a) for a facility employee having not completed the 40-clock-hour Introductory Child Care Training. This violation calls for a fine of $75.00. One Class 3 violation of rule 65C- 22.006(2)(a) and (d) by failing to have on file student health examinations for all children enrolled in the facility for at least 30 days. This violation calls for a fine of $40.00. One Class 3 violation of rule 65C- 22.006(2)(c) and (d) by failing to have on file immunization records for all children enrolled in the facility for at least 30 days. This violation calls for a fine of $40.00. The Department's letter of September 16, 2016, proposes to impose an administrative fine in the amount of $1,565.00. See § 402.310(1)(a)1., Fla. Stat. Ms. Garcia did not challenge the amount or manner in which the fine was calculated. Rather, she contends the charges were not justified and therefore no fine should be imposed. However, by clear and convincing evidence, the Department has proven the allegations described in its letter. After each inspection, Roy Garcia explained the nature of each violation and how it must be corrected in order to comply with Department rules. Despite his efforts to help Ms. Garcia, repeat violations were observed. Unscreened individuals were supervising the children on two of the four days. Therefore, it was necessary for Roy Garcia to call the parents and ask that they come to the facility and pick up their children. After observing staff ratio violations on August 29, Roy Garcia returned the next day and observed the same violation. He also observed unsupervised volunteers alone with children three times (August 29, 30, and 31) during the same week.2/ When Roy Garcia asked Ms. Garcia why she was not following his instructions, she would argue with him, deny that any violation occurred, and contend he was out to shut her down and discriminate against her because she was an "entrepreneurial woman." While conceding that she made "mistakes," Ms. Garcia contended Roy Garcia was harassing her and simply trying to find violations when he inspected the facility. She also contends the violations were not serious, were technical in nature, and did not threaten the safety or welfare of the children. However, Class 1 violations were repeatedly observed. Ms. Garcia stressed the fact that her family is dependent on the income she derives from operating the facility, and she will not be able to support her family if the license is not renewed. She added that she is now in limbo on whether to prepay the rent on the building where her current facility is located. Had the facility been operated in compliance with Department rules, these concerns would not be present. Ms. Garcia also contended that Roy Garcia would not allow her husband, Elmer, to substitute for a missing teacher. However, Elmer works in the kitchen, drives a facility vehicle, and at that time did not have the minimum training necessary to qualify as a facility employee who supervises children. Ms. Garcia further contended she was never given appropriate training on how to determine if a prospective employee has current background screening, especially since she has very few computer skills. This assertion is contrary to the accepted evidence, as she could have simply called the Department's Orlando office to verify the eligibility of prospective employees or volunteers before they were hired. Notably, even after a series of administrative complaints were issued concerning unscreened employees/volunteers, as of January 5, 2017, four persons who had worked or volunteered at the facility still had no Level 2 background screening. Ms. Garcia presented the testimony of four mothers whose children used the facility when the license was active. All were pleased with the care of their children. They especially appreciate the fact that the facility is open until midnight, is located in an area convenient to where they live or work, and charges less than other child care facilities in the area.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Families enter a final order denying the application to renew Respondent's license and imposing an administrative fine of $1,565.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of February, 2017, 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 9th day of February, 2017.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner is entitled to the renewal of her license as the operator of a child care facility.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was licensed to operate a child care facility continuously from December 31, 1985, through June 30, 1997. Several licenses issued by Respondent to Petitioner were provisional due to Respondent's concerns about Petitioner's compliance with various statutes and rules governing child care facilities. (References to Respondent include the predecessor agency to the Department of Children and Family Services.) On June 5, 1997, Respondent notified Petitioner that it would not renew her child care facility license when it expired on June 30, 1997. Presumably because Petitioner timely requested a hearing, Respondent allowed her to continue to operate her facility past June 30. However, on July 3, 1997, Respondent issued an order of emergency suspension pending review of the decision not to renew. Petitioner has not since operated her child care facility. The two major issues in this case involve Petitioner's repeated failures to employ sufficient staff to satisfy the staff-to-child ratios and repeated failures to ensure that staff directly supervise all children. Although these standards are related in purpose, the staffing-ratio standard requires that a certain number of staffpersons be responsible for a maximum number of children, with a lower ratio for younger children, and the direct-supervision standard requires in most instances that a staffperson be in the same room as the children. As a result of 31 facility inspections, Respondent identified 40 violations of these two standards. Five of these inspections resulted in Respondent filing administrative complaints, in response to which Petitioner eventually paid relatively small fines. The remaining 26 inspections resulted in nothing more serious than Respondent issuing warning letters. The first Administrative Complaint, which is dated February 8, 1993, alleges that Respondent conducted inspections on August 9 and September 22, 1992, and found each time insufficient staff to satisfy the required ratio of staff to children. The Administrative Complaint alleges that Respondent sent Petitioner a letter on October 2, 1992, warning that further infractions of the staffing ratio could result in a fine, but Respondent's inspectors found on December 16, 1992, another staffing-ratio violation, as well as a direct-supervision violation. The Administrative Complaint seeks a fine of $30. Petitioner did not contest the allegations of the February 8 Administrative Complaint. Instead, she paid the $30 fine on April 19, 1993. Respondent filed another Administrative Complaint dated June 9, 1993. The Administrative Complaint alleges that a 15-year-old staffperson had not undergone the necessary screening. Three months later, Respondent converted the Administrative Complaint to a warning due to Petitioner's confusion concerning the screening requirements applicable to such a young staffperson. Respondent filed a third Administrative Complaint on December 9, 1993. The Administrative Complaint alleges that, on November 17, 1993, three staffpersons were supervising 37 children, in violation of the staffing ratios and Petitioner's licensed capacity. Issuing a warning as to the capacity violation, Respondent sought a $75 fine for the staffing-ratio violation. Petitioner did not contest the December 9 Administrative Complaint. Instead, she paid the $75 fine on February 17, 1994. Respondent filed a fourth Administrative Complaint on February 17, 1995. The Administrative Complaint alleges, among other things, that Petitioner did not have a sink with the required number of compartments to allow the kind of food preparation that she was undertaking at the facility. The parties settled this allegation without the imposition of a fine or other discipline. Respondent filed a fifth Administrative Complaint on May 23, 1996. The Administrative Complaint alleges that Petitioner's employees propped up three feeding bottles for infants. The Administrative Complaint seeks a $50 fine. Petitioner paid the $50 fine on June 27, 1996. Respondent filed the sixth and seventh Administrative Complaints on February 11 and 26, 1997. Petitioner contested these allegations, as well as the allegations contained in an eighth Administrative Complaint dated March 18, 1997. All three complaints were consolidated for a single hearing. The partial final order resulting from the hearing on the three complaints imposed $400 in fines against Petitioner for two violations of the staffing ratios (alleged in the February 11 Administrative Complaint), one violation of the staffing ratios (alleged in the February 26 Administrative Complaint), and one violation of the direct-supervision requirement (alleged in the February 26 Administrative Complaint). The partial final order dismissed the March 18 Administrative Complaint and remanded allegations of inadequate training of staff. (The administrative law judge declined the remand, and the Respondent has appealed the order declining remand.) In addition to the above instances of violations of staffing ratios or direct supervision, Respondent also proved numerous other instances of violations of these two minimum- care standards. Respondent proved that Petitioner violated the following minimum-care standards: May 7, 1986 (staffing ratio); May 13, 1987 (staffing ratio and capacity limit); June 20, 1987 (staffing ratio); November 18, 1987 (staffing ratio); April 14, 1988 (staffing ratio); May 6, 1988 (staffing ratio); June 7, 1988 (staffing ratio); August 16, 1988 (staffing ratio); May 16, 1989 (staffing ratio and direct supervision); March 2, 1990 (staffing ratio); June 22, 1990 (direct supervision); October 2, 1990 (staffing ratio); October 5, 1990 (staffing ratio and direct supervision); November 5, 1990 (staffing ratio and direct supervision); November 8, 1990 (staffing ratio); November 15, 1990 (staffing ratio); May 14, 1991 (direct supervision); December 16, 1992 (staffing ratio and direct supervision); March 26, 1993 (staffing ratio); April 7, 1994 (staffing ratio and direct supervision); June 29, 1994 (direct supervision); July 28, 1995 (staffing ratio and direct supervision); December 6, 1995 (staffing ratio); January 28, 1997 (staffing ratio and direct supervision); February 17, 1997 (staffing ratio and direct supervision); June 25, 1997 (staffing ratio); and June 30, 1997 (staffing ratio). Respondent issued inspection reports for all of the violations listed in the preceding paragraph and provided Petitioner with copies of this documentation. Respondent periodically wrote letters to Petitioner advising her of the legal requirements as to staff ratios and direct supervision. Respondent repeatedly offered Petitioner technical advice regarding these crucial minimum standards for the provision of child care. There is no possibility that Petitioner did not understand the staffing-ratio and direct-supervision requirements. Petitioner's noncompliance constituted nothing less than defiance of these two minimum-care requirements over a period of 11 years. From 1986 through 1990, Petitioner violated these two standards 16 times. In 1991, she violated them only once. However, she violated them three times in 1992--resulting in the first administrative fine for the violation of these standards. Petitioner violated these standards twice in 1993--the second violation resulting in the second administrative fine for the violation of these standards. Petitioner violated the staffing-ratio and direct- supervision standards twice in 1994 and twice in 1995, but not at all in 1996. However, she violated these standards six times in 1997, including twice after the issuance of a third administrative complaint concerning the violation of these standards. These last two, particularly ill-timed violations, led directly to the decision not to renew her license and the later decision not to allow her to operate pending review of the nonrenewal decision. Although Petitioner has greatly reduced the number of her violations of the staffing-ratio and direct-supervision standards, she has nonetheless refused to comply with these important requirements designed to ensure the safety of the children for whom she is caring. Her violation of these standards while cases were still pending over earlier violations betrays a hardened resolve not to comply with these two standards. Respondent also proved that Petitioner repeatedly violated other requirements, such as for timely screening of employees and recordkeeping. However, Petitioner's repeated failures to comply with the staffing-ratio and direct- supervision requirements are sufficient to warrant the denial of her application for renewal of her license or, in the alternative, the revocation of her license.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Family Services enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for renewal of her child care facility license. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of April, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of April, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce A. Tischler Greene & Tischler, P.A. 10175 Six Mile Cypress Parkway Suite 4 Fort Myers, Florida 33912 Eugenie G. Rehak District Legal Counsel Department of Children and Family Services Post Office Box 60085 Fort Myers, Florida 33906 Gregory D. Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Richard A. Doran, General Counsel Office of the General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
