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 Whether Respondent violated Section 65C-22.001(5)(a), Florida Administrative Code, as set forth in the Administrative Complaint, and if so whether a civil penalty in the amount of one hundred Dollars ($100.00) should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a duly-licensed day care facility, licensed by Petitioner, in accordance with Sections 402.319, Florida Statutes, and has been in operation for eight years. Respondent has never been cited for any prior violation. Respondent has elected to provide child care for both infants and toddlers as a convenience for its patrons. Petitioner's rules provide that toddlers must be physically separated form infants. Respondent has accomplished this physical separation by taking a portion of the room in which it keeps toddlers, and creating a separate area for infants using low bookcases to physically separate the toddlers form the infants. This has been the subject of debate and controversy between Petitioner and Respondent over time; however, it was concluded that this met the conditions established in the rule regarding separation and the two areas met size limitations. It was determined that Respondent would have to meet the staffing requirements by maintaining a staff ration of 1:4 in the infant area and a staff ratio of 1:6 in the toddler area. On August 10, 2001, an incident occurred which resulted in Petitioner's staff reviewing video footage of activities in the toddler/infant room. The instant complaint arises from those observations. At formal hearing, the video was introduced and watched by the trier of fact. This video shows most of the toddler/infant room as seen from above and behind the infant section. The video covers a period of time of approximately twenty minutes around 1:35 p.m.1 In summary, the video shows the person in charge of toddlers leave the toddlers/infant room leaving the infant care supervisor holding an infant in the infant area. The infant care worker steps over the barrier between the two areas of the room, and changes the infant at a changing station located in the toddler area of the room. The toddler supervisor returns and the infant supervisor leaves to go to the bathroom returning several minutes later. All of these events occurred during the period designated on the facility's schedule as "nap time." During the period in question, not all the toddlers or the infants were asleep, and one of the toddlers was in a high chair eating a snack the entire time. Petitioner alleges, based upon the foregoing, a violation of Rule 65C-22.001(5)(a), Florida Administrative Code.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Administrative Complaint should be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of September, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of September, 2002.
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner's license to operate a family day care home should be denied based upon the reasons asserted in the denial letter.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, until denial of licensure, owned and operated a licensed day care facility, licensed under Chapter 402, Florida Statutes. The Respondent is an agency of the State of Florida charged, in pertinent part, with administering and regulating the statutory and regulatory provisions governing entry into and licensure of the business of operating day care facilities and with regulating the practice of day care facilities and operators such as the Petitioner. Witness Tamika McConner is the mother of a child who was placed by Ms. McConner in the Petitioner's day care facility under Petitioner's care at the time pertinent hereto. Ms. McConner maintains that the Petitioner struck her child with a sandal while they were in the Petitioner's car or van on one occasion and that the Petitioner did not see to it that the child ate properly or at the proper times while in her facility. The Petitioner denies these occurrences or indications of improper child care. The evidence show that there is a hostile relationship between Ms. McConner and the Petitioner, apparently stemming from a check written by Ms. McConner for services to the Petitioner which was returned for insufficient funds and concerning which they apparently had a dispute. Under these circumstances, it is not found that Ms. McConner's testimony is preponderant evidence to establish that the occurrences she related actually happened. Moreover, as near as can be gleaned from the paucity of concise pleadings of the agency's allegations, this incident or incidents was not the subject of the report which led to license denial. On or shortly before October 3, 1996, an abuse report was received by the above-named agency concerning a child T.S. T.S. was enrolled in the care of the Petitioner in her day care center. An incident occurred that day when the Petitioner was taking the children in her charge to the Regency Mall for shopping. While at the mall, when the Petitioner was in a store shopping with the children, the child T.S. got to close to her and almost knocked something over on a shelf in the store. The Petitioner maintained that the child was so close to her that she contacted him when she turned around and it caused her to lose her balance and start to fall with the result that she reached out, accidentally knocking the child to the floor. Instead, however, witness Quinones testified and at least one witness in the store verified to the Department's investigator (see Respondent's exhibit 5 in evidence and the testimony of Mr. Gore) that the Petitioner struck the child in anger and knocked him to the floor. Ms. Quinones testified that the child didn't cry but was visibly shaken and Ms. Quinones was concerned that the Petitioner appeared to lose control of her temper on that occasion. Witness David Gore of the Department of Children and Family Services is in the business of inspecting and licensing child care facilities and has owned and operated a child care facility himself. He inspected the Petitioner's facility and found deficiency problems involving immunization records, some sanitary conditions, inoperative smoke detectors and hazardous household products left in reach of children, an incomplete first aid kit and paint and lumber left in the play area. The paint and lumber was there temporarily for the purpose of building a swing set for the children. The deficiencies were promptly corrected by the Petitioner. These deficiencies, however, were not the basis for the notice of licensure denial to the Petitioner however. Witness Roxanne Jordan testified on behalf of the Petitioner. The Petitioner cares for her child or did before the licensure problem arose and said she never had a problem with the Petitioner's care for her child nor did she observe any deficiencies or improprieties in the care of other children she observed at the Petitioner's facility. Ms. Jordan's describes the Petitioner as an excellent caregiver for children. This testimony is corroborated by substantial number of "testimonial letters" from people who have experience with her child care activities, in evidence as "corroborative hearsay." These served to establish that indeed the Petitioner is a caring, compassionate keeper of children in the operation of her day care facility and in the course of her duties baby-sitting for friends' children before she was licensed as a day care facility operator. The Petitioner is in earnest about pursuing the profession of child care and becoming re-licensed to do that. The Petitioner has demonstrated a long-standing interest and aptitude for caring for children. Indeed, in the last two years, she has earned approximately 55 hours of educational training at Florida Community College in Jacksonville in courses generally applicable to the profession of child care. The direct, competent evidence of record and the corroborative hearsay evidence in the form of testimonial letters, from people who have experience with her child care skills and her personality, establish that she has been, in most ways, a competent child care facility operator and caregiver for children and has the capability of becoming more so. In order to justify her re- licensure, however, she must demonstrate a willingness to and a capability of controlling her anger and enhancing her positive child discipline skills.
Recommendation Accordingly, in consideration of the greater weight of the evidence, supportive of the above findings of fact and these conclusions of law, it is
