Findings Of Fact The initial Petitions for Administrative Hearing were filed on October 4, 1991. The Petitions were filed by Ervin James Horton. In the Petition filed in case number 91-6345R, Rules 33-3.005, 33- 3.0051, 33-3.0083(5)(i), Florida Administrative Code, I.O.P. P13.91.34, I.O.P. P14.91.25 and Post Order 46 were challenged. In the Petition filed in case number 91-6346R, Rules 33-22.001, 33- 22.002, 33-22.003, 33-22.008, 33-22.012, and 33-3.005, Florida Administrative Code, were challenged. The rules challenged by the Petitioner are titled "Legal Documents and Legal and Privileged Mail" (Rule 33-3.005), and "Copying Services for Inmates" (Rule 33-3.0051). Chapter 33-22, Florida Administrative Code, provides rules governing "Inmate Discipline." Rule 33-3.0083(5)(i), Florida Administrative Code, does not exist. The I.O.P's apparently deal with the same general subjects as the Challenged Rules. The Petitions include the use of legal terms and phrases with little in the way of factual explanation. Although the Petitions contain some "legalize", they do not, read alone or in conjunction with all of the Petitioner's pleadings, adequately put the Respondent on notice as to what the Petitioner is challenging or the basis for his challenge. Apparently, the Petitioner is complaining of the actions of several employees of the Respondent relating to a variety of alleged incidents involving the Petitioner. In case number 91-6345R, the Petitioner complained of alleged incidents involving denial of his copying and mail privileges. The Petitioner argued that his access to the courts and his ability to carry out contracts have been impaired by the actions of employees of the Respondent in enforcing the Challenged Rules. In case number 91-6346R, the Petitioner complained of several alleged incidents involving disciplinary actions taken against him pursuant to Chapter 33-22, Florida Administrative Code. The Petitioner argued that the application of Chapter 33-22, Florida Administrative Code, was improper. The incidents complained of by the Petitioner have allegedly been the subject of unsuccessful grievance proceedings. Having failed to obtain a favorable response to his grievances, the Petitioner is seeking through this process to have the incidents reviewed. The Petitioner's allegations concerning the alleged incidents are not merely allegations intended to prove the Petitioner's standing to institute this proceeding. The Petitioner is complaining about, and seeking review of, alleged actions of the Respondent. The Petitioner has also attempted to raise constitutional arguments to support his challenges. The statements concerning constitutional issues consist of mere statements that constitutional rights are being violated without any facts to support an argument that the Challenged Rules are unconstitutional. Insufficient alleged facts concerning why it is believed that the specific requirements or provisions of the Challenged Rules are an "invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority", as defined in Section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes, were included in the Petitions and the Amended Petition. On November 14, 1991, an Order Granting Motions to Dismiss with Leave to Amend and Cancelling Formal Hearing was entered. On November 21, 1991, the Petitioner filed a Motion for Enlargement of Time to Comply to Order to Amend. The Petitioner, however, also filed an Amended Petition in these cases on the same day. The Amended Petition is very similar to the Petitions and suffers from the same deficiencies. The Amended Petition is devoid of a sufficient statement of the alleged facts pertinent to the issues raised in the Petitions which, if proven, would support a determination that the Challenged Rules are invalid under Section 120.56, Florida Statutes. On December 9, 1991, an Order Concerning Motion for Enlargement of Time and Granting Motion to Dismiss Amended Petition was entered. Pursuant to this Order the parties were informed the Amended Petition was dismissed and were given an opportunity to file proposed final orders. On December 11, 1991, the Petitioner filed Petitioner's Motion to File a [sic] Amended Petition or Second Amendmet [sic]. This motion was denied by Order entered December 18, 1991. On December 13, 1991, the Petitioner filed a Motion to Correct Order and, or Alternative Relief. This motion was denied by Order entered December 16, 1991. The Petitioner has challenged Rules 33-3.005, 33-22.001 and 33-22.003, Florida Administrative Code. See Horton v. Department of Corrections, 9 F.A.L.R. 2270 (DOAH Case No. 86-4515R 1987) and Horton v. Department of Corrections, 10 F.A.L.R. 5254 (DOAH Case No. 87-2908R 1988).
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent violated provisions of Florida Statutes and Florida Administrative Code relating to the operation of a child care facility, and, if so, whether sanctions should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the government agency responsible for licensing, inspecting, and monitoring child care facilities in Florida. At all times subject hereto, the Department was operating according to its statutory mandates. The Center is a child care facility located at 5034 18th Street, Zephyrhills, Florida. It operates under License No. C06PA0156 and is licensed for a maximum capacity of 67 students. The Center has been operating for approximately five years.1/ It is owned by Ms. Gollhardt and her daughter, Ms. Kirk. On July 22, 2011, the Department issued an Administrative Complaint against the Center. The Administrative Complaint contained allegations concerning four separate incidents over a four-month period, from September 2010 to January 2011. The incidents, as set forth in pertinent part from the Administrative Complaint, are as follows: On August 5, 2010, G.H., a staff member, was observed by another staff member to have slapped K.L., a three (3) year old child, across the face. Another staff member heard the incident and the child crying subsequent to the slapping. On October 6, 2010, a four (4) year old child, B.G., had been spitting on other children and had previously been disciplined for his inappropriate behavior. The child continued to spit and R.G., the owner/director, sprayed the child in the face with the liquid from a bottle that was being used to sanitize the tables. The liquid in the bottle was diluted bleach and water. R.G. stated the solution was 3 table spoons [sic] bleach to 5 gallons water. After conducting an investigation of an incident on November 29, 2010, it was determined that a staff member, T.C., used her hands to press down on a two (2) year old child's forearms to keep the child from getting up from the time out chair. On January 24, 2011, D.L., a five (5) year old child, had an accident and the owner/director needed to change his underwear. The child threw a fit because he wanted [sic] boxers and the facility did not have boxers to put on him. After conducting an investigation[,] it was determined that struggle [sic] the owner/director, R.G., had been observed dragging the child by the arms across the floor. A complaint form was drafted for each of the four incidents after the Department finished its investigation for each incident. The complaints were provided to the Center for review, and the Center signed an acknowledgement that it had received each of the complaints. After the first incident (the slapping of a child), the Department issued an Administrative Warning Notification dated September 22, 2010. The warning advised the Center that the incident was the first Class II violation against the Center within a two-year period. The Center was warned that another Class II violation within two years would result in a fine in the amount of $50.00. The warning did not include a process for the Center to appeal or contest the Department's findings. After the second incident (the spray bottle), the Department issued a Notice of Administrative Action dated October 13, 2010. The Notice advised the Center that the incident constituted the second Class II violation within a two-year period and of the Department's "intent to impose an administrative fine as a result of this repeat Class II violation." The Notice advised the Center that it would receive a formal administrative complaint imposing the fine and that upon receipt of the administrative complaint, the Center would have 21 days to either pay or appeal the fine. According to the Department's witness, the action taken by the staff member constituted a "physical form of discipline that could have caused the child to be harmed." Following the third incident (teacher holding child in a chair), the Department issued another Notice of Administrative Action, this one dated November 30, 2010. This Notice advised the Center that the Department intended to issue an Administrative Complaint imposing a fine commensurate with a third Class II violation within a two-year period. The Notice had the same language as the prior Notice concerning appeal rights. Finally, after the fourth incident (the soiled boy), the Department issued yet another Notice of Administrative Action dated January 25, 2011. This final Notice advised the Center that the Department intended to impose a fine and to change the Center's license to probationary status. The Notice also advised that another Class II violation "within [two] years from the date of this report" would result in the Center's license being suspended, denied, or revoked.2/ The Notice again stated that an Administrative Complaint would be issued from which an appeal could be taken within 21 days. On July 22, 2011, the Department issued its promised Administrative Complaint setting forth allegations as to each of the four incidents. The Administrative Complaint provided the Center its first opportunity to contest or challenge the allegations set forth in the four previous notices or warnings. The Center timely filed a request for formal administrative hearing to contest the Department's findings. The four incidents will be discussed more fully below, including the Department's basis for its findings and the Center's explanation, mitigation or other response. Incident No. 1--Slapping a child This incident occurred on Thursday, August 5, 2010, while Ms. Gollhardt and Ms. Kirk were both out of town on family matters. A teacher, Gayla, was observed by another teacher slapping a child's face. The second teacher immediately contacted the owners via cell phone to report what had happened. Ms. Gollhardt had the observing employee do a written statement and place it in Ms. Gollhardt's lock box for safe keeping. Then Ms. Gollhardt verified that Gayla had left the Center for the day. Ms. Gollhardt returned to the Center and looked into the matter. She directed Gayla not to report back to work and then called the Department's abuse hotline to self-report the incident. Ms. Gollhardt then contacted Ms. Richey, the Department's counselor assigned to the Center. Ms. Richey came to the Center on the following Tuesday and conducted her own investigation of the matter. When it became clear that the incident had indeed occurred as reported, Ms. Gollhardt terminated Gayla's employment at the Center. From the day of the incident until she was terminated, Gayla had not been allowed back into the Center. The Department found out about this incident in two ways: First, a Child Protection Investigator ("CPI") notified Ms. Richey after the initial hotline call made by Ms. Gollhardt, i.e., after the Center self-reported the incident. Second, when Ms. Gollhardt contacted Ms. Richey directly to report the incident. There was no testimony from the parents of the child or from the terminated employee. Incident No. 2--The Spray Bottle As set forth in the Administrative Complaint, the child at issue, B.G., had been disciplined previously for spitting on other students. Ms. Gollhardt had written reports about B.G.'s behavior and sent the reports home with B.G. However, B.G.'s parents never responded to the reports or made any effort to discuss his behavior with the Center. On October 6, 2010, B.G. was again spitting on other children. Ms. Gollhardt tried to prevent B.G. from doing this by holding him in her lap as she sat and read a story to a group of students. This worked until the story was over and the students got up from the carpeted reading area. At that time, B.G. spat on another child. Ms. Gollhardt, who was standing nearby and holding a bottle in her hand, sprayed a mist towards B.G., who was three or four feet away, i.e., on the other side of a toy shelf from Ms. Gollhardt. Her intent was to get his attention and to show him that it was uncomfortable to have liquid of any kind involuntarily foisted upon you. The bottle was apparently set on a "mist" mode and there is insufficient evidence as to whether the liquid actually touched B.G. or not. The liquid was contained in a bottle that had been used to sanitize tables at the Center. The bottle contained water and bleach, but there is no competent evidence as to the ratio of the mixture. The Administrative Complaint alleges that Ms. Gollhardt said that the mixture was three tablespoons of bleach to five gallons of water, but that is the only evidence concerning the mixture. Nor was there any testimony provided as to the potential harm to a person that such a mixture might cause. If the mixture was as reported, there would seem to be a very minimal amount of bleach in the misted spray. Ms. Gollhardt prepared an incident report to show to B.G.'s parents, but she was not at the Center when they picked him up on the day of the incident. The next morning, when B.G.'s father dropped him off at school, Ms. Gollhardt told him what had happened and showed him the incident report. The father examined the contents of the spray bottle and indicated that no further action would be necessary. Later that day, Ms. Gollhardt advised the parents that if B.G. did not stop this behavior, they would have to find another place for him to go. The mother took great exception to this admonition, so she reported the incident to the Department. B.G.'s mother thereafter withdrew B.G. from the Center, and he has never returned. While spraying a water and bleach mixture at a child is never a good idea and is not condoned, it does not rise to the level of a punishment or discipline of the child. Incident No. 3--The Crying Chair The Center utilizes two different methods of dealing with children who are disruptive or act inappropriately. The Center uses the "time out" method, wherein they place a child in a designated place for a specified period of time so the child has an opportunity to think about their behavior. The Center also employ a "crying chair," which is a chair to which a crying child is directed to sit until they stop crying. The children apparently understand that they can get up from the chair as soon as they stop crying. The Center says the crying chair is a very effective tool. On November 29, 2010, a small, just-turned-two-year- old child (referred to as "Lisa"--not her real name) came to the Center late. She had been at a doctor's appointment with her grandmother and arrived at the Center at the time her class was playing on the playground. "Lisa" was upset that she could not stay with her grandmother and was crying and unruly when her grandmother left. After failing in her efforts to calm "Lisa" down, her teacher, Ms. Clemmer, placed "Lisa" in a crying chair on the covered porch adjacent to the playground. "Lisa" got up from the chair three or four times and continued to cry and act out. Ms. Clemmer placed "Lisa" back in the chair each time she got out and remembers that she "may have" placed her hands on "Lisa" when she directed her back to the chair. Ms. Clemmer does not remember any one return to the chair to be different from the others. Ultimately, "Lisa" calmed down, hugged Ms. Clemmer and went off to play with her classmates. Meanwhile, Ms. Dye was parked across the street from the Center waiting for her daughter's school bus to arrive. Ms. Dye said that children were not usually out on the playground when she picked up her daughter, but they were on this day. She was parked approximately 25 yards (75 feet) from the playground area. Ms. Dye does not remember any posts or other items obstructing her view. She does not remember a porch or covered area next to the playground. Upon hearing shouts or other noises, Ms. Dye turned to watch what was happening on the playground. Ms. Dye observed a little girl sitting in a chair and interacting with a teacher. The little girl got up from the chair three or four times, but each time a teacher would direct her back to the chair. The little girl seemed to be trying to go over to a plastic playhouse where other children were playing. This interaction went on for ten or 15 minutes. Ms. Dye remembers that the last time the teacher brought the girl back to the chair, she "may have" yelled at the girl. Then, the teacher grabbed the child's upper arm, pulled her across the playground, and placed her roughly into the chair. She could not tell exactly, but it looked to Ms. Dye like the teacher may have pulled the student's ponytail, jerking her head backwards. Ms. Dye does not believe that what she observed was a teacher attempting to keep an unruly child from hurting herself. Ms. Dye reported the incident to the Department. Ms. Richey, a CPI, and a police officer were dispatched to the Center to investigate the allegations. When they came to the Center, they identified the victim as a black child with a ponytail. Ms. Gollhardt said she had no children with ponytails and only one black child in the two-year-old age group. She offered to wake the child from her nap, but the investigators said not to do so. The investigators eventually talked with Ms. Clemmer and with the child's mother. Ms. Richey remembers Ms. Clemmer being very nervous and saying that she placed a child in time out for not behaving properly. Ms. Clemmer remembers the incident a little differently than reported by Ms. Dye. She says that when "Lisa" was dropped off by her grandmother, the child was having extreme separation anxiety. Ms. Clemmer tried to calm "Lisa" by holding her and walking out to the fence so "Lisa" could wave goodbye to her grandmother. That didn't work. After "Lisa" continued screaming and crying, Ms. Clemmer took her to the crying chair, with which "Lisa" was familiar. The chair was located on a covered patio adjacent to the playground area. "Lisa" kept "flopping out of the chair" and running across the playground. Each time, Ms. Clemmer would redirect her back to the chair and try to calm her down. She does not remember any one of the interactions with "Lisa" to be more forceful or different from any other. The last time she sat "Lisa" down, however, Ms. Clemmer remembers placing her hand in the chair between Lisa's legs to prevent "Lisa" from flopping out of the chair. Eventually, "Lisa" had had enough crying and stopped being upset. She went over and hugged Ms. Clemmer, then ran off to play with the other children. That was the end of the matter. "Lisa" is still a student at the Center. Incidentally, "Lisa" is a child of mixed races (African-American and Caucasian); she has very short hair and does not have a ponytail. Ms. Clemmer holds an early childhood associate certificate, obtained after a six-month course of study. Her testimony was credible, and she appears to have the interests of her students as a priority. Based on the foregoing facts, there is no evidence that Ms. Clemmer "used her hands to press down on a two (2) year old child's forearms to keep the child from getting up from the time out chair" as alleged in the Administrative Complaint. Incident No. 4--The Boy with Soiled Pants On January 24, 2011, D.L., a five-year-old boy, was playing on the playground when he announced an immediate need to go to the bathroom. His teacher, Susan, took him inside to use the toilet. However, before getting to the bathroom, D.L. had a small bowel movement and soiled his pants. Susan and D.L. remained in the bathroom for a while and then Susan came out to report that D.L. was "having issues." Ms. Gollhardt then went in to see if she could help. She found the little boy screaming and fussing, upset, and refusing to cooperate. Ms. Gollhardt began to try to calm the boy down. D.L. was upset because he had been wearing boxer shorts and wanted a new pair to replace the ones he had soiled. Unfortunately, his cubicle did not contain any clean boxers. Instead, Ms. Gollhardt offered D.L. a pair of his brother's underwear, but they were briefs, and D.L. wanted no part of them. She also offered D.L. his own soiled underwear, because they were only slightly soiled and gave him the option of wearing a pair of his sister's pull-ups. He wanted none of those. As Ms. Gollhardt continued to try to reason with D.L., he became more agitated and upset. He tried to crawl behind the toilet and began kicking and hitting at Ms. Gollhardt. Ms. Gollhardt was eventually able to dress D.L. (although it is unclear which pair of underwear was placed on him). Then Ms. Gollhardt picked up D.L., wrapping her arms around him as he faced away from her and carried him out of the bathroom. As they left the bathroom, D.L. reached up and knocked Ms. Gollhardt's glasses off her face. When she bent down to retrieve her glasses, D.L. began to kick her. At that point, D.L. dropped to the ground in a sitting posture and refused to move. Ms. Gollhardt gathered her glasses and reached down, grabbing D.L.'s arm. When D.L. refused to get up, Ms. Gollhardt slid him across the floor as she held him by his arm. They went into a classroom where D.L. could be watched by another teacher and closed the door. Then Ms. Gollhardt came out of the room and left the door open as she placed a call to D.L.'s parents. While this was going on, Ms. Conner, another child's parent, arrived at the Center to retrieve her infant child. She saw D.L. in the bathroom kicking and screaming as Ms. Gollhardt attempted to dress him. She saw Ms. Gollhardt dragging D.L. three or four feet across the floor by his arm as D.L. whimpered. She remembers them going into a classroom and Ms. Gollhardt closing the door. She does not remember the door being re-opened as Ms. Golldardt made the phone call. After placing D.L. in the classroom, Ms. Gollhardt called his mother to come and get him at the Center. D.L.'s mother arrived shortly and discussed the situation with Ms. Gollhardt. She then talked calmly with D.L. and had him apologize to Ms. Gollhardt for his bad behavior. D.L. apologized and then hugged Ms. Gollhardt. D.L. and his four siblings are still students at the Center. Ms. Conner's testimony is somewhat suspect. She had been admonished by Ms. Gollhardt just prior to this incident for being behind on her child's tuition payments. Despite the alleged incident, Ms. Conner kept her infant and one other child at the Center until August of this year (2011). Further, Ms. Conner appears to have initially told the Department's investigator a different story, i.e., that Ms. Gollhardt dragged D.L. across the floor all the way from the bathroom into another classroom. The Center's Discipline Policy The Center has a policy concerning how it will administer discipline to its students. Each teacher is expected to comply with the policy. Each student's parent(s) must acknowledge receipt and review of the policy. It is the intent of the Center that its discipline policy be consistent with the Department's Basic Guidance and Discipline protocols. The Department's protocols distinguish between discipline and punishment. Discipline includes tools and actions used to teach a child a lesson or to redirect their behavior. Punishment is "more of a consequence" of a child's behavior and is used to control a child. Or, as stated by the Department's licensing supervisor, "punishment is an action that is taken by a caregiver in response to a bad choice. And it's a consequence of some kind of bad inappropriate behavior that a child is engaged in." There is no published definition of the distinction between discipline and punishment in the Department's rules, and its witnesses acknowledged there is a fine line between the two. According to the Center's policies, discipline is not to be associated with food, rest, or toileting. Nor should discipline be severe, humiliating, or frightening. Spanking or other forms of physical punishment are not to be used by a teacher. Enforcement of the Law The Department utilizes progressive enforcement when citing child care facilities for violations of statutes and rules. When looking at violations, there are three classes of violations to be considered: Class I violations are those which may endanger a child's life; they are the most severe. Class II violations address disciplinary actions, teacher-to-student ratios, and other practical aspects of operating a child care facility. Class III violations are those relating to paperwork or other less harmful matters. When looking at Class II violations, the Department will assign a progressively more serious sanction when multiple violations occur within a two-year period. For example, a single Class II violation may warrant only a warning; a second Class II within a two-year period will result in a fine. Four Class II violations within a two-year period will result in a license being placed under probationary status. Five violations during a two-year period can result in denial or suspension of the license. The effect of a probationary license is serious. A facility with a probationary license is required to post its violation citations on the wall of its facility. A facility is not allowed to advertise while it is on probation. Facilities under probation forfeit their connection to the Early Learning Coalition (the "Coalition"), the entity that provides payment or subsidies for low-income families to place their children in a licensed day care facility. Ms. Kirk cooperated with the Department concerning its investigation into the four alleged incidents. She provided names of witnesses and even offered written statements from eyewitnesses. The Department did not accept the written statements, saying their investigation was complete. No further explanation was provided by the Department as to why they would not review additional information that may have led them to a more informed conclusion. Instead, the Department warned Ms. Kirk that the Center had better "straighten up" or they would be facing more severe sanctions. Ms. Kirk says that a Department representative told her the Department had talked with the Coalition. According to the representative, the Coalition said it had received numerous complaints about the Center and that the Center was not cooperating with the Coalition. Ms. Kirk was concerned about those comments. About one half of the Center's students are receiving subsidies through the Coalition. Loss of connection to the Coalition would be an extreme hardship for the Center. Ms. Kirk contacted the Coalition to find out if there was indeed a problem of some kind. Neither Ms. Kay Williams, the voluntary pre-kindergarten representative at the Coalition, nor her supervisor, Kim Bergeau (phonetically spelled), could verify that any complaints had been received concerning the Center. The Center has not been contacted directly by the Coalition about any complaints. Each of the four incidents discussed above was investigated by the Department, by CPI, and by local law enforcement. No evidence as to the findings or conclusions by CPI or law enforcement was entered into evidence as support for the Department's position, so there is no independent corroboration that the incidents occurred as alleged.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner, Department of Children and Families, upholding the issuance of the letter of warning against Respondent, Lil' Stars Learning Center, Inc., d/b/a Lil' Stars Learning Center, but dismissing the other allegations in their entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of December, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of December, 2011.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing it is recommended that Petitioner issue a Final Order imposing a $100 fine for each of the class III violations which have been established, for a total fine of $1200, but that no additional fine be assessed for the unclassified violations. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of November, 1985, at Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of November, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Harold L. Braynon, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 201 West Broward Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Dorothy K. Emrick Oakland Park Retuirement Annex Ageing and Adult Service, Inc. 5605 N.W. 27th Court Lauderhill, FL 33313 John Marfilius Oakland Park Retirement Annex Ageing and Adult Services, Inc. 5605 N.W. 27th Court Lauderhill, FL 33313 David Pingree, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32301
Findings Of Fact On December 20, 1991, the Petitioner, Douglas Adams, filed a Petition to Determine the Invalidity of an Existing Rule. In the Petition, the Petitioner challenged Rules 33-22.005(5) and 33- 22.007(2)(c), Florida Administrative Code pursuant to Section 120.56, Florida Statutes. The Petitioner is an inmate in the custody of the Respondent, the Department of Corrections. The Petitioner is subject to the rules of the Respondent, including the Challenged Rules. Section 944.09, Florida Statutes, requires that the Respondent adopt rules governing the administration of the correctional system in Florida. Among other things, Section 944.09, Florida Statutes, requires that rules be adopted by the Respondent governing all aspects of the operation of the prison system in Florida. Rule 33-22.005(4), Florida Administrative Code, provides the following: Section III. Report of Investigation. Upon receipt of the Disciplinary Report, the Senior Correctional Officer shall review the report and, when the facts suggest that the alleged violations is significant, he shall cause the report to be forwarded to the Correctional Officer Chief. Upon approval of the Correctional Officer Chief, or in his absence the Senior Correctional Officer, an impartial investigation of the charge against the inmate shall be conducted. This investigation shall be completed without unreasonable delay. Any delay at any state must be justified in the report. The Correctional Probation Supervisor shall review the report and cause an impartial investigation to be conducted for inmates participating in the Supervised Community Release Program. The investigating officer is responsible for obtaining the inmate's version of the offense as well as contacting the charging officer and any other staff members or inmates who have information pertaining to the allegation and the charge. The inmate charged shall be offered staff assistance and asked if he has any material witnesses to offer in his behalf. If the inmate has no witnesses, it must be noted in the report. If names of witnesses are given, the investigating officer shall then interview both inmate and staff witnesses and, if appropriate, have the Witness Statement Form DC4-856 completed. If inmate witnesses or staff witnesses are not contacted, a statement as to why they were not contacted must be included. Opinions as to innocence or guilt shall not be made by the investigating officer. The investigator shall sign and date the report. Rule 33-22.007(2)(c), Florida Administrative Code, provides the following: (2) The Hearing Officer or Disciplinary Team can request further investigation or evidence, the appearance of additional witnesses or the statements of unavailable witnesses. . . . . Witnesses shall not be called or certain information disclosed if doing so would create a risk of reprisal, undermine authority or otherwise present a threat to the security or order of the institution. The inmate witnesses must be willing to testify but may offer an oral or written statement to the investigating officer in lieu of personal appearance. Notations shall be made in the report with reasons for declining to call requested witnesses or for restricting any information. The Petitioner has alleged that the Challenged Rules are invalid because the rules are "contrary to due process contained in enabling legislation. Section 20.315, Florida Statutes (1989)" and are vague, arbitrary and capricious. The Petition does not include any alleged facts supporting the Petitioner's assertion that the Challenged Rules are "arbitrary and capricious."
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent, Ms. Claudine Etienne, violated section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes (2011),1/ and implementing administrative rules, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what is the appropriate sanction.
Findings Of Fact The Commissioner is responsible for investigating and prosecuting allegations of misconduct against individuals holding educator's certificates. Ms. Etienne holds Florida Educator's Certificate 845026, covering the areas of English and mathematics, which is valid through June 30, 2018. At all times relevant to the complaint, Ms. Etienne was employed as an English teacher at Miami Springs High School in the Miami-Dade County School District. On or about January 20, 2012, an unknown student ignited a smoke bomb or large firecracker in a locker in Ms. Etienne's classroom. Ms. Etienne was unsure what the device was or how it was ignited. Smoke was generated from the device, and it filtered into the classroom. One or more students requested to leave the room because of the smoke. In her deposition, Ms. Etienne indicated that at the time of the incident, she was aware that one of the students assigned to her class, C.E., had asthma because she had a conversation with C.E.'s mother in December about it. Ms. Etienne testified that she did not recall C.E. asking her to leave the room on the day of the incident, however, and in fact did not remember if C.E. was even in class that day. Ms. Etienne did not believe the smoke was sufficiently serious to require her to allow the students to leave the room. She was uncertain how to proceed until administrators who had been called arrived in the classroom. Ms. Etienne instructed the students to stay in the room until an administrator arrived. One student subsequently required medical attention as a result of the smoke inhalation. In her written statement, C.E. stated that paramedics came to the school to assist her because she could not breathe after her exposure to the smoke in the classroom.2/ Ms. Etienne later received a verbal reprimand from the school district.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding Ms. Claudine Etienne in violation of section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes, through her violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a), issuing her a letter of reprimand, and assessing a fine against her in the amount of $500. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of February, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD 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 7th day of February, 2017.
The Issue Whether the Respondent’s group home license issued by the Agency for Persons with Disabilities (APD) should be revoked or otherwise disciplined on charges stated in an Administrative Complaint, APD License 5604-6GA.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Aspiring Ambitions, LLC, is owned and operated by Tanya Warren. The Respondent holds APD license 5604- 6GA to operate a group home for developmentally disabled residents on Spillers Avenue in Tampa. The license was issued in April 2017 and had no prior incidents of any kind until September 2017. Tanesha Clarke3/ was listed on the Respondent’s license application as a “director,” but the evidence was that Ms. Clarke was not an owner or director, but rather an employee providing direct care to residents and performing some additional duties for the Respondent. Count I On September 12, 2017, Ms. Clarke and another employee of the Respondent were on duty at the Spillers Avenue home. Ms. Clarke became frustrated when H.B., a resident in the home, urinated on the floor and couch. In her frustration, Ms. Clarke struck and kicked H.B., who was defenseless due to his disability. The other employee on duty did not immediately call the abuse hotline or report the incident to Ms. Warren. The next day, the incident was reported via the abuse hotline. The identity of the reporter is confidential by statute. It was not Ms. Warren, who still did not know about the incident. A sheriff’s office child protective investigator responded to the group home to investigate on behalf of the Department of Children and Families (DCF). It was quickly established that Ms. Clarke had physically abused H.B., and she was arrested. Ms. Warren could not be contacted immediately, and APD sent a licensing specialist to the home to help take care of the residents in Ms. Clarke’s absence until Ms. Warren arrived about 20 minutes later. Ms. Warren fully cooperated with the investigation. She denied having any reason to be concerned that Ms. Clarke would abuse a resident. Two of the three other staff interviewed, plus a social worker who provided services to residents of the group home, also denied ever seeing Ms. Clarke behave in an abusive manner towards a resident and denied having any reason to be concerned that Ms. Clarke would abuse a resident. The staff member who was on duty with Ms. Clarke on September 12, 2017, stated that she had seen similar behavior by Ms. Clarke previously but did not report it to Ms. Warren or to anyone else. The investigation verified the abuse by Ms. Clarke, and APD licensing explained to Ms. Warren that her license would be in jeopardy if Ms. Clarke continued to work at the group home. Ms. Warren understood and fired Ms. Clarke. Ms. Warren also provided additional in-service training to the rest of her staff on the Respondent’s zero tolerance for abuse and on what to do and how to report incidents of abuse against residents of the facility. No further follow-up by the child protective team was deemed necessary. Count II On November 24, 2017, which was the Friday after Thanksgiving, a resident of the Spillers Avenue group home bit another resident, A.S., on the shoulder. The bite was fairly severe and resulted in a red bite mark. On that evening, there were five residents and only one direct care employee at the home. A second employee who was scheduled to work that evening called in sick and arrangements were not made to replace the sick employee for the evening. Because of their disabilities, the Respondent’s residents that evening were considered in moderate need of supervision, and two direct care employees were required to be on duty to meet staffing requirements. The Respondent’s employee on duty that evening noticed the bite mark while bathing A.S. and made a record of it in the home’s log. She did not call the abuse hotline or report the incident to Ms. Warren. The employee, who had been working for the Respondent for a few months, had not been trained on the policy of zero tolerance for abuse, including what to do and how to report in the event of an incident causing injury to a resident. On the following Monday, A.S. went to school, where the bite mark was noticed, and A.S. was seen and treated by a physician. The physician reported the abuse, and a DCF investigation was opened. At first, it was not clear how or when the bite was inflicted. Ms. Warren was contacted and fully cooperated. She discovered the bite incident entry in the home’s log, and the investigation was converted to an investigation of the Respondent. The DCF investigation was closed as substantiated for inadequate supervision by the Respondent (i.e., Ms. Warren) for two reasons: first, inadequate staffing; and, second, inadequate training of staff on what to do and how to report in the event of an incident causing injury to a resident. No findings were made against the employee on duty at the time of the bite incident because she had not been trained adequately, which was the responsibility of the Respondent (i.e., Ms. Warren). In response to the incident, Ms. Warren expressed her intention to ensure proper staffing and to train staff on the policy of zero tolerance of abuse, including what to do and how to report in the event of an incident causing injury to a resident. On follow-up by APD on December 27, 2017, it was determined that staffing was correct, the required zero tolerance training had been delivered, and there were “no other concerns at this time.” Count III In December 2017, APD conducted an annual licensing survey of the Respondent’s group home. It was determined that there was a broken window in one of the bedrooms. The Respondent had the window fixed before the follow-up inspection in January 2018. Shortly before (perhaps the night before or morning of) the re-inspection, a resident broke the window again, punching it completely out this time. When the inspector arrived, the bedroom was cold (well below 68 degrees Fahrenheit), as the temperature had gone down into the 30s overnight. Ms. Warren promptly had the window fixed again. The Respondent did all that could reasonably be expected under the circumstances.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that APD enter a final order dismissing Counts I and III, finding the Respondent guilty under Count II, and fining the Respondent $1,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of August, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 20th day of August, 2018.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, R & R Guest Home, Inc., is located at 720 S. W. 5th Street in Dania, Florida, and consists of four apartments which are designated as A building, B building, C building, and D building. Buildings A, B and C are contiguous. Building D is located east of the main complex. The Respondent facility received license number 10-06-0046 on December 2, 1981, allowing a capacity of 21 beds. This license had an expiration date of September 9, 1982. On March 31, 1982, the Respondent was advised that the allowable capacity had been increased to 37 beds, and on November 8, 1982, license number 10-06-0046 was reissued to show a capacity of 37. The capacity set by HRS was based on its regulations which require a usable floor space of 60 square feet per bed in rooms designated for multiple occupancy. A representative of HRS visited the R & R Guest Home on February 9, 1982, and on July 6, 1982, and found resident beds in use in excess of the licensed capacity of the facility. By notice dated July 7, 1982, HRS advised the Respondent that corrective action must be taken by July 21, 1982. Specifically, the HRS representative found 53 beds in place. The HRS representative again visited the R & R Guest Home on August 24 and on August 26, 1982, and once again found beds in the facility in excess of the licensed capacity of 37. In November of 1982 the HRS representative visited the Respondent, R & R Guest Home, and the excess beds found on the August visits were still in place. Respondents facility had been cited previously, in July of 1981 and in February of 1982, for having beds in excess of the licensed capacity, but these violations had been corrected. The Respondent's owner admits that on July 6, 1982, there were 43 beds on the licensed premises, and that on this date the authorized capacity was 37. The excess beds in the Respondent's facility were situated across doorways in the A building and in the B building, creating a situation that presented potential danger to the residents, in that they might not be able to exit the buildings in an emergency.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health and Rehabilita tive Services assess fine of $1,000. against the Respondent, R & R Guest Home, Inc. THIS RECOMMONDED ORDER entered this 7th day of March, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of March, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Harold L. Braynon, Esquire 201 West Broward Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Jesse H. Diner, Esquire Post Office Drawer 2088 Hollywood, Florida 33022-2088 David Pingree Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
