The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner's application for licensure to operate a family day care home should be denied.
Findings Of Fact On June 6, 2008, Petitioner applied for a license to operate a family day care home in Bartow, Florida. As part of the licensure process, the Department is required to conduct an inspection of the home where Petitioner's proposed family day care would be operated. The inspections are conducted by the Department's family safety counselors. Patricia Step was the family safety counselor initially responsible for conducting the licensure inspection of Petitioner's home. On February 20, 2009, prior to conducting the actual inspection, Ms. Step completed a preliminary walk-through of Petitioner's home. The purpose of the walk-through was to advise Petitioner of areas of her home and property that were not in compliance with required standards and needed to be corrected or addressed prior to the licensure inspection. After completing the initial walk-through, Ms. Step listed the areas that needed to be corrected or addressed prior to the licensure inspection in preliminary review notes, which she gave to Petitioner. Those areas were as follows: (1) a fence at least four feet high was needed around the playground area in the backyard; (2) the alarm on one of the two doors in the master bedroom, specifically, the master bathroom door leading to the pool, needed to be repaired; (3) the screen door needed to be locked from the inside so that a child playing outside could not access the swimming pool5; and (4) locks needed to be placed on kitchen cabinets containing cleaning supplies and other harmful items, and knives needed to be placed in upper cabinets. On February 27, 2009, a week after the initial walk-through, Ms. Step conducted a licensure inspection of Petitioner's home. This date was mutually agreed upon by Petitioner and Ms. Step on February 20, 2009, after Petitioner indicated that she could have the four areas of non-compliance corrected or addressed in a week. During the licensure inspection, Ms. Step determined that Petitioner had addressed and/or corrected three of the four items listed in the preliminary review. The one item that had not been addressed was the "pool alarm on the [master bathroom] door" leading to the swimming pool. The alarm on the master bathroom door was part of Brinks' alarm system that included all the other doors in the house which led outside or to the pool area. Petitioner and her husband had this "high tech" alarm system installed after the April 23, 2006, incident discussed below. The alarm system could be programmed to allow each interior door to cause either the alarm to sound or a "chiming sound" when anyone opened the interior door to exit the house. At the time of the inspection, all the interior doors leading to the pool were programmed so that when the alarm system was turned on, the alarm would sound if anyone opened those doors.6 Except for the master bathroom door, the alarm on all the other doors leading to the pool were working properly. Ms. Step recorded the results of the February 27, 2009, inspection on the Department's Inspection Checklist form ("Inspection Checklist"). Of the 38 areas listed on the Inspection Checklist, Ms. Step indicated that Petitioner's application and/or home were non-compliant in two areas-- background screening and swimming pools. In the area of background screening, Ms. Step noted that there was no local criminal background check on file for Carlos Granados, Petitioner's cousin who was temporarily living in Petitioner's household. In the area of swimming pools, Ms. Step noted two areas of non-compliance: (1) the swimming pool at Petitioner's home was not properly maintained; and (2) the "pool alarm" was inoperable. Although the Inspection Checklist noted that the "pool alarm" was inoperable, Ms. Step never told Petitioner that a "pool alarm" needed to be in the swimming pool. Rather, Ms. Step spoke to Petitioner only about the need to repair the alarm on the master bathroom door that led to the pool.7 Based on Ms. Step's statements to Petitioner about the "alarm" and her preliminary review notes, both Ms. Step and Petitioner understood the reference to "pool alarm" on the Inspection Checklist to mean the alarm on the master bathroom door. The Inspection Checklist completed on February 27, 2009, specified that the "due date" to correct the non-compliant areas was April 3, 2009. After completing the licensure inspection on February 27, 2009, Ms. Step intended to return to Petitioner's home to determine if the non-compliant areas had been brought into compliance. However, Ms. Step never returned to Petitioner's home. Instead, Vicki Richmond, a family safety counselor, followed up on Petitioner's progress in addressing the non-compliant areas8 while she was at Petitioner's home conducting a complaint investigation.9 On March 13, 2009, nine months after Petitioner submitted her licensure application, Ms. Richmond conducted a Central Abuse Hotline search on Petitioner and her husband as part of the application review process. The Department is required to search the records of the Central Abuse Hotline for reports of abuse, neglect, or abandonment. This search provides information as to whether Petitioner's name appears in those records, and, if so, whether there were "verified" indicators of maltreatment of children. Both Petitioner and her husband consented to this search. The Central Abuse Hotline search revealed a verified report for inadequate supervision by Petitioner and her husband and some indicators of maltreatment, asphyxiation. The report involved an incident that occurred on April 23, 2006, in which Petitioner and her husband's then three-year-old daughter almost drowned. On or about March 13, 2009, Ms. Richmond notified Ms. Step of the report and advised her that the verified findings needed to be addressed prior to proceeding with the license. On March 20, 2009, while driving across Highway 60 in the Bartow area, Ms. Richmond saw a sign with the name of Petitioner's prospective family day care home and her address and telephone number. Concerned that the sign did not include a license number, Ms. Richmond contacted the licensing office to verify whether Petitioner's home was a licensed family day care home. She was advised that Petitioner's licensure application was "pending" and had not been approved. Ms. Richmond then called Ms. Step to check the status of Petitioner's licensure application. During that conversation, Ms. Step reminded Ms. Richmond that this was the applicant for whom she (Richmond) had recently done the Central Abuse Hotline search. On March 23, 2009, as part of the complaint investigation about Petitioner's sign, Ms. Richmond made an unannounced visit to Petitioner's home. Ms. Richmond advised Petitioner that it was illegal for her to post a sign advertising her home as a family day care home before it was licensed. In response, Petitioner informed Ms. Richmond that after the February 27, 2009, licensure inspection, she (Petitioner) had been told that she could put a sign up and start a waiting list of people interested in day care services. After hearing Petitioner's explanation, Ms. Richmond then told Petitioner that "if" she put up a sign prior to licensure, the sign had to "at least" include in bold letters, "License Pending." On March 23, 2009, immediately after addressing the "sign" issue, Ms. Richmond conducted an unannounced or inspection walk-through of Petitioner's home and discussed issues with Petitioner that Ms. Richmond believed were of concern to the Department. During the walk-through, Petitioner advised Ms. Richmond that the "door alarm" had not yet been repaired. Among the issues Ms. Richmond raised and discussed with Petitioner were: (1) the need to install either a pool alarm or portable pool barriers; (2) the pool was not clean and was only partially filled with water; (3) the spa in the backyard needed a cover; (4) the local criminal background check for Petitioner's cousin had not been received. Ms. Richmond described to Petitioner and her husband two options related to the swimming pool--the "portable pool barriers" and a "pool alarm." In describing the "pool alarm," Ms. Richmond indicated that it was a device that was placed in the pool. She further explained that with this type of "pool alarm," if a child fell in the swimming pool, the alarm would sound. Although the alarm on the master bathroom door was not working on March 23, 2009, Petitioner's husband was making efforts to get the door alarm repaired. However, that day, Ms. Richmond told Petitioner and her husband that even if the alarm on the master bathroom door was repaired, they still needed to have an alarm in the pool. In response to this directive, Petitioner agreed that they would install a "pool alarm" in the swimming pool. After completing the March 23, 2009, walk-through, Ms. Richmond informed Petitioner that the items she had discussed needed to be corrected prior to a license being granted. However, no written documentation was provided to Petitioner regarding the areas of non-compliance discussed during the walk-through or inspection. Ms. Richmond returned to Petitioner's home on March 27, 2009, for her second unannounced visit, which was described as a follow-up to her "complaint investigation." Once there, Ms. Richmond observed that the sign advertising the family day care home was still displayed. However, Petitioner's husband came home while Ms. Richmond was there and immediately took down the sign. During the March 27, 2009, unannounced complaint investigation visit, Petitioner told Ms. Richmond that the alarm on the master bathroom door was not working. About that time, Petitioner's husband arrived and told Ms. Richmond that he had purchased a pool alarm and even showed her the alarm. The "pool alarm" was purchased in response to Ms. Richmond's directive during the March 23, 2009, walk-through but had not been put in the pool, because the pool had not yet been cleaned.10 At the end of the March 27, 2009, unannounced visit, Ms. Richmond talked to Petitioner and her husband about the verified abuse/neglect report regarding the April 23, 2006, incident in which their daughter almost drowned. The findings in the report were "verified" for inadequate supervision by Petitioner and her husband. Given the implications of the abuse/neglect report, Ms. Richmond explained that although Petitioner needed to address the areas of non-compliance, the most pressing and immediate concern was the abuse/neglect report. Petitioner's husband testified credibly that during the conversation described in paragraph 23, Ms. Richmond told him and Petitioner that because of the abuse/neglect report, there was "no way" Petitioner would get a family day care home license. Based on that comment, Petitioner and her husband reasonably believed that Petitioner's application would be denied because of the abuse/neglect report. On March 27, 2009, after being told about the abuse/neglect report and the ramifications of that report, Petitioner and her husband "stopped moving forward" on the areas of non-compliance related to the swimming pool (i.e., cleaning the pool and installing the pool alarm).11 Believing the abuse/neglect report would result in denial of her licensure application, Petitioner and her husband began to focus on issues related to the report. They were also concerned and had questions about the Department's licensing process as it related to the abuse/neglect report. Ms. Richmond's third visit to Petitioner's home was on April 7, 2009. The sole purpose of that visit was to answer the "real" questions that Petitioner and her husband had about the abuse/neglect report and the licensing process. Ms. Richmond answered their questions as best she could, but recommended that they schedule an appointment with the licensing supervisor at the licensing office.12 That same day, Petitioner and her husband scheduled a meeting and met with Sheila Nobles, administrator and supervisor for child care licensing, to discuss, ask questions about, and review the abuse/neglect report. On April 8, 2009, Ms. Richmond finalized her "report" on the complaint investigation regarding the sign. Ms. Richmond's notes in the "comment" section of the pre-printed "Notice to Cease and Desist" form described the events of March 20, 23 and 27, 2009, as they related to the sign issue.13 Decision to Deny Application As the family safety counselor responsible for reviewing Petitioner's application and conducting the licensure inspections, Ms. Step recommended to Ms. Nobles that Petitioner's license be denied. Ms. Step's recommendation was based on the verbal reports provided to her by Ms. Richmond, which indicated that the areas of non-compliance on the Inspection Checklist had not been corrected. Prior to making a decision about Petitioner's application, Ms. Nobles reviewed the application file, the abuse/neglect report, the Inspection Checklist and the preliminary review notes. Ms. Nobles testified that she considered the "five different inspections"14 of Petitioner's home and property by the two licensing counselors, the areas of non-compliance that had not been corrected, and the abuse/neglect report with a "verified" finding of inadequate supervision. The Central Abuse Hotline Report Applicants seeking licensure to operate a family day care home are required to undergo a Level II screening. That screening included a check to determine if the applicant had a report in the Central Abuse Hotline. Due to concern for the safety of children, the Department is authorized to deny a family day care home license if the applicant has a verified abuse/neglect report. Because of its concern about the safety of children in Petitioner's care, the Department alleges that the abuse/neglect report revealed during a Central Abuse Hotline search is ground for denying Petitioner's license. As it relates to the abuse/neglect report, the denial letter states in relevant part: The Department has documented a verified abuse neglect report whereby your then 3-year-old daughter was not supervised correctly on June 21, 2006.[sic][15] These actions allowed your child to wonder [sic] outside the family swimming pool were [sic] she was found after an undetermined time under water and not breathing. During the investigation it was determined that the lock to get access [presumably to the pool] had been broken for a few days. The abuse/neglect report was initiated when a call was received by the Central Abuse Hotline on April 23, 2006. According to the intake-report, an incident occurred at Petitioner's and her husband's home in which their then three- year-old daughter ("child") almost drowned. Jermaine Turner, a child protective investigator ("CPI"), was assigned to investigate the incident. As the investigator, CPI Turner was responsible for making contact with the family of the child and other appropriate individuals. During the investigation, CPI Turner worked under the supervision and direction of Terry Lynn Reinhardt, a child protective supervisor. As CPI Turner's supervisor, Ms. Reinhardt had contact with CPI Turner and gave him directives related to follow-up activities on case-related matters. The abuse/neglect report includes a summary of notes which purport to summarize interviews CPI Turner conducted with Petitioner and her husband on May 18, 2006, about a month after the subject incident. Petitioner's husband recalled that this interview was conducted by telephone. Ms. Reinhardt testified that CPI Turner interviewed the child's parents and also made telephone contact with them to follow-up on an issue involving a "broken door." Ms. Reinhardt was not present at the interviews that CPI Turner conducted with Petitioner and her husband. Thus, she had no first-hand knowledge of what, if anything, they said to CPI Turner. Rather, Ms. Reinhardt relied on CPI Turner's verbal reports to her and the notes and summaries in the abuse/neglect report attributed to him. CPI Turner did not testify at this proceeding. Moreover, no competent evidence was presented regarding any entries (i.e., notes, comments, and/or interview summaries) in the abuse/neglect report attributed to CPI Turner. The case was closed on June 21, 2006, and the findings and conclusions in the matter were summarized in a two-page document titled, Investigative Summary. The Investigative Summary includes an "updated" note dated June 6, 2006, that provided: "The child . . . was left to watch cartoons; however, she was found face down in a swimming pool. The lock to get access from the pool to the house had been broke [sic] for approximately two day [sic]. They stated they planned to fix the lock but never got around to it." No evidence was presented as to who made the "updated" note or the source of the information in that note. After the investigation was complete, Ms. Reinhardt concluded that there were "some indicators" of maltreatment, asphyxiation, and verified findings of inadequate supervision as to both parents. In reaching that conclusion, Ms. Reinhardt relied on information provided by Mr. Turner and then applied the Department's CFOP 175-28 in reaching those conclusions. Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C-30.001(6) incorporates by reference the "Allegation Matrix" set forth in the Department's CFOP 175-28. Pursuant to that rule, the "Allegation Matrix" is a document that defines specific types of abuse, neglect or abandonment; guides staff in determining whether abuse, neglect or abandonment has occurred; and assists in ensuring that all factors are considered when assessing each type of maltreatment. The Department's CFOP 175-28 was not offered into evidence during this proceeding. Based on the conclusion reached by Ms. Reinhardt, the abuse/neglect report was closed on June 21, 2006, with the finding of some indicators of maltreatment, asphyxiation, and verified findings of inadequate supervision. Notwithstanding those findings, the Investigative Summary reflects that there was no prior history of abuse or neglect and no criminal history. Moreover, the Investigative Summary indicated that no intervention services were needed, no placement outside the home was required, and no judicial action was required. Finally, Petitioner and her husband were not given any safety plan to implement. The April 23, 2006, incident was also investigated by the Polk County Sheriff's Office ("Sheriff's Office"). That investigation included at least two or three detectives and/or officers taking and tape recording sworn statements from Petitioner, her husband, and her father-in-law. All of these sworn statements were "in-person" interviews taken within 24 hours of the incident. Petitioner's husband testified credibly that the written summaries of the sworn statements taken by the Sheriff's Office detectives, particularly that of Detective Wharton, accurately reflect not only the substance of the interviews, but also what actually occurred on April 23, 2006. Petitioner's husband testified credibly about the facts related to the April 23, 2006, incident and the accuracy of written summaries of the tape-recorded sworn statements taken by detectives as set forth below in paragraphs 51 through 60. On April 23, 2006, Petitioner was in the family pool with her then three-year-old daughter. While Petitioner and her daughter were in the pool, Petitioner's husband and his father arrived at the house. Petitioner then went into the house to prepare dinner and her husband stayed at the pool with the child. Shortly thereafter, Petitioner's husband removed the child from the pool, took off the floatation device the child was wearing while in the pool, took her into the house, and then closed and locked the bottom lock of the door. Once in the house, Mr. Best put on a movie for his daughter in her bedroom and then told his wife that the child was in the room watching a movie. The child left the bedroom and went to the kitchen where her mother was preparing dinner. For some time, the child went back and forth between the kitchen, playing near her mother and/or "helping" her mother, and the living room where she (the child) was sitting on the floor watching cartoons on television. The kitchen and living room were adjacent rooms with a large opening between them which allowed a person in one room to see into the other room. When Mr. Best and his daughter went into the house, his father (the child's grandfather) was taking a shower. A few minutes later, after taking his shower and getting dressed, the child's paternal grandfather got out his new video camera and went to the kitchen/living room area to videotape his granddaughter while she was playing. He videotaped her playing for several minutes and then went to the bedroom to put away the video camera. It took the child's grandfather about two or three minutes to put away his video camera and return to the kitchen area. When the grandfather returned to the kitchen/living room area, he asked Petitioner where the child was. Believing the child was in the living room, Petitioner told her father-in-law that the child was in the living room looking at television. Petitioner then went into the living room to look for the child and discovered she was not there. Petitioner then immediately went outside to the patio and saw the child laying face down in the pool. Petitioner screamed for help, jumped in the pool and lifted the child from the water. Petitioner's husband was close enough to the kitchen/living room area that he heard the exchange between his father and Petitioner about the child's whereabouts and Petitioner's subsequent scream. Within a few seconds, Petitioner's husband ran from the house, jumped in the pool, removed his daughter from the pool, and placed her on the pool deck. Once the child was on the pool deck, the child's father and her grandfather immediately began administering CPR while Petitioner called 911. They continued performing CPR on the child until the emergency medical services and the fire department arrived on the scene. Both parents reported to detectives investigating the incident that the child knew how to open and unlock doors. Based on the facts established at or near the time of the incident, it was concluded that the child slipped out of the house and went undetected for about two or three minutes. Petitioner and her husband described the child's "slipping out of the house" as unusual and something she had never done prior to April 23, 2006. Until that day, the child had never gone off on her own and had been fearful of and never gotten into the swimming pool at that house. (Petitioner and her family had moved to this house only two or three months before the incident.) Based on its investigation, which included sworn statements by Petitioner, her husband, and her father-in-law, the Sheriff's Office concluded that the April 23, 2006, incident was an accident. The Department does not disagree with the conclusion reached by the Sheriff's Office (i.e., the April 23, 2006, incident was an accident). Nevertheless, according to Ms. Reinhardt, irrespective of whether the incident was an accident or done on purpose, the Department still found "verified" indicators of inadequate supervision, because the child got out of the house and into the pool and almost drowned. The factual allegations in the report upon which the Department relied were not established by competent and substantial evidence. In absence of such evidence, the Department's verified finding of inadequate supervision has not been proven. The record in this case is devoid of any evidence to establish the Department's finding of any indicators of maltreatment. Therefore, the Department's findings that there were "some" indicators of maltreatment has not been proven. Alarm on the Master Bathroom Door The Department alleges that during the applicable time period, the swimming pool at Petitioner's home did not comply with the requirements in Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C-20.010(1)(i). That rule requires that swimming pools at least one-foot-deep have either a barrier at least four-feet- high around the pool, separating the pool from the house, or a pool alarm that is operable at all times when children are in their care. There was conflicting and inconsistent information provided to Petitioner as to whether a "pool alarm" that floats in the swimming pool was required instead of a door alarm, which is also apparently referred to as a pool alarm. Despite any confusion that may have been caused by the different representations made to Petitioner, it is undisputed that the preliminary review notes and the Inspection Checklist clearly indicate that Petitioner was required to repair the alarm on the master bathroom door which led to the pool. It appears that Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C-20.010(1)(i) refers to door alarms as pool alarms. Petitioner's husband testified credibly that he attempted to have the door repaired by service personnel of the alarm company that installed the alarm system, but has been unsuccessful in doing so. In light of these futile attempts, Petitioner's husband purchased a battery-operated door. However, it is unknown when the battery-operated door was purchased, whether it has been installed, and, if so, how it works. The alarm on the door of the master bathroom had not been repaired by the April 3, 2009, "due date" or any time thereafter, nor had any acceptable alternatives been installed. Maintenance of the Swimming Pool The Department alleges that the swimming pool at Petitioner's home was not clean and maintained as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C-20.010(1)(j). That Rule requires that if a family day care home uses a swimming pool, it shall be maintained by using chlorine and other suitable chemicals. Petitioner acknowledges that, at all times relevant hereto, the swimming pool at her home was not clean and properly maintained. Some time after the denial letter was issued, Petitioner's swimming pool was emptied, a full-processed cleaning was completed, and the pool was filled with water. However, a leak in a light in the pool was discovered. In order to repair that leak, the pool had to be emptied. At the time of this proceeding, the leak was being repaired. Once the leak is fixed, the pool can be filled with water and the "pool alarm" that floats in the pool can be installed. Local Law Enforcement Background Check The application process requires that each person living in the home that will serve as the family day care home have a background screening. Such background screening includes a check by the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI"), the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE"), and a local criminal history check. In February 2009, Petitioner's cousin, Carlos Granados, was living with Petitioner and her husband. Accordingly, Mr. Granados was required to have a local criminal history check, and a copy of that criminal history check was to be provided to the Department. Petitioner testified credibly that she submitted all the documents for completion of Mr. Granados' background checks and could not explain why the Department did not receive the local criminal history check for Mr. Granados.16 The evidence established that Mr. Granados no longer lives in Petitioner's home. Therefore, the Department does not need, and is not required to have, a local criminal history check for him.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Finding of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Department of Children and Family Services, enter a final order: (1) finding that Petitioner, Best Family Day Care Home, failed to meet the standards in Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C-20.010(1)(i) and (j); and (2) denying Petitioner's application for a family day care home on those grounds. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of February, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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, 2010.
The Issue The issue is whether the Beatrice Guardian Angel Daycare violated provisions of chapters 402 and 435, Florida Statutes (2012), and/or Florida Administrative Code Chapter 65C-22, such that its license should not be renewed.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for inspecting, licensing, and monitoring child care facilities such as the one operated by the Daycare. It is the Department's responsibility to ensure that all such facilities are safe and secure for the protection of the children utilizing those facilities. The Department inspects each licensed day care center three times a year: two unannounced routine inspections (to ensure compliance with the applicable laws and rules), and one renewal application inspection. In the event of a complaint, additional inspections and/or investigations are conducted. Ms. Giles owned, operated and directed the Daycare. The Daycare located on West Lancaster Road opened in November 2011, and was in continuous operation at all times material.6/ Ms. Giles opened the Daycare at this particular location after operating it at a different location. Luz Torres is a family service counselor for the Department. Ms. Torres is trained to inspect day care centers for initial applications, renewal applications and routine inspections. Ms. Torres is familiar with the Daycare, having inspected it several times while it was operational. Inspections of the Daycare revealed operational deficiencies during four inspections, dated February 15; June 20,; July 2,; and November 7, 2012. The specific deficiencies were set forth on inspection reports provided to Ms. Giles at the time of each inspection. Ms. Torres conducted a routine inspection of the Daycare on February 15, 2012 (inspection one). A number of areas of noncompliance areas included physical environmental issues, such as insufficient lighting, gaps in fencing, ground cover for outdoor equipment, and training. Other areas included: a lack of documentation of employee educational courses showing literacy and developmental course training, a 40-hour child care course, and 10 hours of in-service training; items in the first aid kit were missing; deficiencies in food and nutrition, such as unlabeled bottles and sippy cups; and deficiencies in children's health and immunization records, personnel records, and background screening. The Department issued an "Administrative Warning Notification" (notification) to Petitioner based upon the following violations: "[T]he facility's fencing, walls or gate area had gaps that could allow children to exit the outdoor play area. The gate was observed broke [sic] with gaps on both sides." This notification advised Petitioner that the "next violation of a licensing standard outlined in this notice, [would] result in an administrative fine." On June 20, 2012, Ms. Torres conducted a routine inspection (inspection two) of the Daycare. The noncompliant areas included: missing documentation for some children's immunization records; missing documentation of ten hours of in-service training for the Daycare's director; and missing documentation of background screening documents, including an affidavit of good moral character for employees. A second notification7/ (dated June 20, 2012) was issued to the Daycare following inspection two. This notification involved issues regarding a child's health and immunization records, and missing documentation for employees. One child's immunization records had expired. Four staff members were deficient regarding in-service training logs, and an additional staff member had not received the level two screening clearance. In response to a complaint (complaint one), Ms. Torres conducted an investigation of the Daycare on July 2, 2012. The Daycare was found to be out-of-ratio regarding the number of children to staff, and background screening documentation for level two screening for staff members was missing. In a mixed group of children ages one and two years old, the ratio of one staff for six children is required. At the time of the complaint one investigation, there was one staff per eight children. Although this ratio issue was rectified during the complaint one investigation, it was and is considered a violation. The documentation for the level two screening violation for the staff was not corrected during this investigation. A third notification was issued to the Daycare following the complaint one investigation. This notification involved the staff-to-child ratio, and the lack of background screening documentation. The Daycare was notified that the appropriate staff-to-child ratio must be maintained at all times, and the missing Level two screening documentation had to be resolved. This notification advised the Daycare that the "next violation of a licensing standard outlined in this notice, [would] result in an administrative fine." 8/ On August 1, 2012, the Daycare was notified that its license would expire on November 29, 2012. The Daycare's renewal application was due 45 days before the expiration date, or before October 15, 2012. The denial letter set forth that the Daycare's renewal application was filed on October 30, 2012.9/ In June 2012, Ms. Giles became aware that her daughter, Alexis Anderson, had a drug addiction problem when Ms. Anderson's baby was born addicted to drugs. Ms. Anderson and her two children were required to live with Ms. Giles while Ms. Anderson addressed her addiction problem. Ms. Anderson's two children attended the Daycare. Ms. Anderson would visit the Daycare to see her children. On November 7, 2012, as a result of another complaint (complaint two) being filed, DCF conducted an investigation of the Daycare. Ms. Giles reported that on two different occasions, two small bags were found at the Daycare. One small empty bag was found in the Daycare's common hallway. A second bag was found on a desk in the Daycare's office and contained a white residue. After the second bag was found and Ms. Giles was told by an employee what the bags might be used for ("people transport drugs in"), she suspected that Ms. Anderson might have left the bags at the Daycare. Also, after finding the second bag, Ms. Giles banned Ms. Anderson from the Daycare. There was speculation that the two bags contained an illegal substance; however, the two bags were discarded before any scientific testing could be done or any photographs could be taken. There is simply no proof as to what was in either bag.10/ There was no clear and convincing evidence that Ms. Anderson supervised or tended to children other than her own while she was at the Daycare. There was clear and convincing evidence that Ms. Anderson was at the Daycare on multiple occasions and had access to every room and child/children there. Ms. Anderson did not have the appropriate level two screening. In addition to investigating complaint two, child care regulations counselor Christina Bryant also observed inadequate ratios between staff and children, and a lack of qualified or unscreened individuals supervising children. Ms. Bryant observed one staff for five children in the zero to twelve month age group (ratio should be one to four), and she observed one staff to nine children, in the one-year-old classroom (ratio should be one staff to six children). Upon completing a review of the Daycare's record keeping, Ms. Bryant also found that background screening documents were missing for staff members. On November 14, 2012, Child Protective Investigator (CPI), Beauford White was directed to go to the Daycare and remove Ms. Anderson's two children from the Daycare.11/ When CPI White advised Ms. Giles he was removing the children from the Daycare, Ms. Giles became very emotional, and initially told CPI White he could not take the children. CPI White contacted his supervisor who directed CPI White to contact the Orange County Sheriff's Office (OCSO) for assistance in removing the children. Between the time the OCSO was called and when the deputy arrived, approximately 45 to 60 minutes, CPI White had obtained compliance, and Ms. Giles released the two children to his custody.12/ On Thursday afternoon, November 29, 2012, Ms. Giles was asked to attend a meeting on Friday, November 30, 2012, in the Department's legal office regarding the Daycare's license. Because of the short notice, Ms. Giles was unable to obtain an attorney to accompany her to the meeting on November 30, 2012. Ms. Giles attended the meeting by herself with a number of Department staff. Ms. Giles was given the following option: execute a relinquishment of the Daycare's license, or the Department would seek to revoke the license. Ms. Giles did not know the law. Ms. Giles executed the relinquishment13/ of the Daycare's license because she was thinking that "revoke sound[ed] horrible to" her. She did not want to relinquish her license, nor close her business, but she did not feel she had any choice in the matter. The totality of the circumstances under which Ms. Giles found herself renders the "relinquishment" less than voluntary. After this meeting, Ms. Giles returned to the Daycare and was present when Ms. Torres removed the Daycare's license from the wall. Mytenniza Boston, a Daycare employee, was also present when Ms. Torres removed the license. Ms. Giles did not tell Ms. Boston or any of the other Daycare employees that the Daycare's license had been relinquished, nor did she start notifying parents of the Daycare's closing. On Monday, December 3, 2012, around noon, Department investigators arrived at the Daycare and found children in the opened facility. Ms. Giles was at the Daycare making telephone calls to parents asking them to come pick up their child or children. The Daycare was open for business despite the fact that Ms. Giles had relinquished her license on Friday, November 30, 2012. On occasion Pervis Giles, Ms. Giles' then husband would walk to the Daycare to talk with Ms. Giles. Mr. Giles would also cut the Daycare's grass, unlock the Daycare's door for daily operations, and participate with Ms. Giles in making business decisions about the Daycare. Ms. Giles did not consider these activities to be working for the Daycare; however, common sense dictates otherwise. Ms. Giles has several children. At various times during the Daycare's operation, Ms. Giles' children were at the Daycare volunteering, cleaning up or helping with the Daycare children in some fashion. Ms. Giles' children did not have the required level two background screening as Ms. Giles did not know that her children needed to be screened. Ms. Giles' lack of understanding regarding who is required to be screened is troublesome. Ms. Giles has been in the daycare business for many years, yet she failed to comply with basic safety measures.
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 renewal application. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of July, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK 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 22nd day of July, 2013.
The Issue The issue in this matter is whether the Department of Children and Families should deny Respondent’s application for registration as a family day care home.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with regulating providers that are licensed or registered as family day care homes. Family day care homes must register annually with the Department. See § 402.313(1)(a), Fla. Stat. Respondent is owned and operated by Cherrie Scally. Ms. Scally has registered Respondent as a family day care home since 1997. In or about August 2015, Ms. Scally filed an application with the Department to renew Respondent’s registration as a family day care home for 2016. Respondent's registration for 2015 expired on October 30, 2015. Upon receiving Ms. Scally’s application, the Department reviewed whether to renew Respondent’s registration as a family day care home. As part of its determination, the Department examined the Florida Central Abuse Hotline Records Search (“CAHRS”). In CAHRS, the Department identified an Investigative Summary involving Respondent that verified a finding of “inadequate supervision” in March 2015. Based on the CAHRS Investigative Summary, the Department issued an Administrative Complaint in November 2015, revoking Respondent’s registration as a family day care home.2/ The Department determined that it could no longer approve Respondent’s registration “based on the verified finding of inadequate supervision.” The CAHRS resulted from an incident that allegedly occurred on March 5, 2015. On March 6, 2015, the Central Abuse Hotline received an anonymous phone call reporting an injury to a child at Respondent’s family day care home. A four-year-old girl who attended Respondent’s family day care home reported to her mother that another child had hurt her.3/ Jessica Baloy, a child protective investigator with the Department, was assigned to investigate the incident. Her duties include investigating facilities regarding complaints of child abuse and neglect. Ms. Baloy prepared the CAHRS Investigative Summary. Ms. Baloy visited Respondent's family day care home on March 9, 2015, to investigate the allegation. Ms. Scally informed Ms. Baloy that she had no knowledge of how or when the child was injured. Ms. Scally did not learn of the incident until the child’s mother called her the evening after the child was picked up. Ms. Scally thought that the incident may have occurred in her “playroom” while she was in her kitchen either cleaning up another child or preparing snacks.4/ During her visit, Ms. Baloy found that the part of Ms. Scally’s home used for childcare consists of two rooms, a “playroom” and a kitchen. The rooms are located next to each other, but a wall separates them. Ms. Baloy observed that the wall obstructs the view between the playroom (where the injury allegedly occurred) and the kitchen where Ms. Scally believes she was located at the time of the incident. Ms. Scally admitted to Ms. Baloy that, while she is able to hear the children in the playroom from the kitchen, she is unable to see directly from the kitchen into the playroom. In her investigation, Ms. Baloy reported that the child had “no indicator” of physical injury. In other words, Ms. Baloy did not find evidence to suggest the child had sustained an injury. Ms. Baloy personally interviewed the child and did not observe any discomfort or physical injuries. Ms. Baloy also received information from the child’s mother that a doctor had examined the child and determined that she had not suffered any trauma, just “some irritation.” The child’s mother decided that no further medical treatment or examination was needed. In her Investigative Summary, Ms. Baloy reported that “[o]bservations of the home daycare were positive that it was not hazardous for the children.” Ms. Baloy also declared that Ms. Scally “once notified by a parent completed the proper notifications needed in regards to this incident.” However, Ms. Baloy did have “some concerns in regards to supervision.” She found that when Ms. Scally was working/standing in her kitchen, she could not view the children in the playroom. Consequently, if something bad happened, she would not be able to see it. Also during her visit to Respondent, Ms. Baloy observed 11 children in Respondent’s facility. Consequently, Respondent was over capacity by one child. (As discussed below, family day care homes are restricted to a maximum of ten children at one time.) After her visit, Ms. Baloy closed her investigation with “verified findings for inadequate supervision.” Ms. Baloy was not aware of any prior investigations involving Respondent. Dinah Davis is the policy supervisor for the Department’s Office of Childcare Regulation. Her responsibilities include approving applications for family day care home registrations with Samantha Wass de Czege, the Department’s Director for the Office of Childcare Regulation. Ms. Davis expressed that the Department was concerned with Ms. Baloy’s Investigative Summary because the finding of “inadequate supervision” indicated that Ms. Scally left the children unattended outside of her direct supervision. The Department’s “rule of thumb” regarding supervision is that a caregiver must be within “sight and sound of the children and [be] able to respond to emergency situations.” Ms. Davis expressed that a constant sightline is crucial to allow the caregiver to respond to and prevent an emergency or potentially harmful situation. Adequate “sight” supervision means that children should be at least within the caregiver’s peripheral vision. In addition, Ms. Davis explained that, by statute, no family day care home is allowed to care for more than ten children at one given time. Ms. Davis referred to section 402.310 as the Department’s authority to deny Ms. Scally’s application. Although section 402.310 allows the Department to place a family day care home registration on probation status, Ms. Davis stated that the Department did not consider the option to place Respondent on probation. Ms. Wass de Czege also testified regarding the Department’s decision to revoke (deny) Respondent’s application for registration. Ms. Wass de Czege stated that the Department’s action was based on the child protective investigator’s findings of “inadequate supervision” and overcapacity. Ms. Wass de Czege agreed with Ms. Davis that supervision in a family day care home requires “direct sight and hearing of the children at all times” so that the caregiver is “able to respond to meet the needs of the children.” Ms. Wass de Czege explained that based on the floor design of Ms. Scally’s home, “she could not have the children in her sight. So, she was not meeting that parameter of the definition of supervision.” Ms. Wass de Czege explained that the Department’s definition of “inadequate supervision” for family day care homes is found in Florida Administrative Code Chapters 65C-22 and 65C-20.5/ Ms. Wass de Czege also remarked that having more than ten children in care at a family day care home is considered overcapacity. Therefore, having 11 children present in the home at the time of Ms. Baloy’s visit caused Respondent to be out of compliance with the governing regulation. Ms. Wass de Czege also conveyed that registration of a family day care home is basically a paper process. The applicant submits the paperwork. The Department checks off the information listed in section 402.313(1)(a). If approved, the applicant can care for children. Ms. Wass de Czege commented that, because of a lack of manpower and resources, a registered family day care home is not subject to routine inspections by the Department. Consequently, the Department has little regulatory oversight of Ms. Scally’s home. Based on its review of the CAHRS, the Department determined that Respondent failed the background check necessary to register as a family day care home for 2016. Ms. Scally testified on behalf of Respondent at the final hearing. Ms. Scally has operated her family day care home since 1997. She has successfully registered with the state every year since then. She cares greatly for the children entrusted to her. This current matter is the first issue she has encountered regarding her registration. Regarding the incident on March 5, 2015, Ms. Scally did not learn that a child may have been harmed at her home until the child’s parent called her that evening to report an injury. The parent relayed that her daughter told her that another child had poked her in a sensitive area, drawing blood. Upon learning of the injury, Ms. Scally immediately took action. That evening, she spoke with the parents of both children involved to make sure all parties were aware of the situation. The next morning, Ms. Scally called the injured child’s parent back to inquire of her well-being. Ms. Scally also contacted her own pediatrician seeking advice on the situation. Ms. Scally offered to arrange for her pediatrician to examine the child. Ms. Scally herself was the anonymous caller reporting the incident to the Central Abuse Hotline.6/ She called the abuse hotline on the next morning. (The CAHRS Investigative Summary notes that the call was received on March 6, 2015, at 10:38 a.m.) Ms. Scally called the abuse hotline because she knew reporting the injury was the proper and legally required step to take. Ms. Scally commented that the Department would not have learned of the incident but for her phone call. Ms. Scally conceded that, when she is standing in her kitchen, she does not have a direct line of sight with the children in her playroom. Consequently, Ms. Scally admitted that if the child was injured in the playroom while she was in the kitchen, the child was out of her sight for a short period of time. On the other hand, Ms. Scally asserts that she can always hear her children from the kitchen. Furthermore, no child is ever out of her eyesight for more than a couple of moments. Ms. Scally also represented that she has taken steps to ensure that she can maintain “sight and sound” supervision over her children in the future. She has purchased a mirror to place in the hallway between the playroom and the kitchen. This mirror allows her to see into either room from the other. Ms. Scally stated that in her 19 years of childcare, she has never had any incidents in her family day care home. Ms. Scally acknowledged that she might have had 11 children in her care on the occasion of Ms. Baloy’s visit to her home on March 9, 2015. Ms. Scally explained that it was likely during a “transition” period as her children were being picked up and dropped off and was not a regular occurrence or for an extended period of time. Based on this incident, Ms. Scally asserts that she will be extra cautious about the interactions between the children in her care. Ms. Scally presented testimony from several parents whom she serves. They each asserted that Respondent provides a valuable service, and they trust her with their children in her home. Mia Carla Hagins placed her daughter with Respondent from 2009 through 2014. Ms. Hagins testified that Ms. Scally ensures safety, nurturing, and care for the children she supervises. Thomas Breck placed two children with Ms. Scally from 1996 through 2000. Mr. Breck testified that Ms. Scally provided excellent care and demonstrated complete professionalism. Mizanne Brown placed her child with Ms. Scally for ten years. Ms. Brown testified that Ms. Scally was fabulous, nice, and wonderful. Ms. Scally also produced 26 letters of recommendation from parents and teachers of children for whom she has cared. Ms. Scally asserted that these letters show how positively her community views her, her home, and her childcare services. Based on the competent substantial evidence presented at the final hearing, the Department failed to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, sufficient grounds to deny Respondent’s application for registration as a family day care home under the provisions of section 402.310. Accordingly, the Department should approve Respondent’s application to register as a family day care home.
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 approving Respondent’s application for registration as a family day care home. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of August, 2016, 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 2nd day of August, 2016.
The Issue The issue in the case is whether the Petitioner's application for renewal of a family day care home license should be granted.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this case, the Petitioner owned and operated a licensed family day care home in Lakeland, Florida. On March 26, 2003, representatives of the Respondent arrived at the Petitioner's facility to assist in distributing materials that had been obtained by the facility. There were six children in the facility on March 26, 2003. The Petitioner was the only adult present and available to supervise the children. Upon arriving at the facility, one of the Respondent's representatives discovered an unsupervised "toddler" playing in the bathroom. The child's hands were in a toilet that was unclean and unflushed. One of the Respondent's representatives removed the child's hands from the toilet intending to wash the child's hands, but there was no soap or toweling available. It is unclear whether the Petitioner was aware that the child was in the bathroom, but in any event the child was unsupervised. Subsequently during the same visit, the Petitioner took the children outside into a play area and then returned inside to talk to the Respondent's representatives, leaving all of the children outside and unsupervised. The Respondent's representatives terminated their visit after advising the Petitioner to return outside and supervise the children. On March 27, 2003, a child protective investigator (CPI) employed by the Respondent arrived at the facility to investigate a report of inadequate supervision received on the previous day. Upon arriving, the CPI asked the Petitioner, who was the only adult present in the facility, as to the census and was advised that there were five children in the facility. The CPI observed the five children in a playroom. A few minutes later, the CPI responded to noise coming from the bathroom and discovered a sixth child, unsupervised and playing in the apparently-clean toilet water. The CPI removed the child's hands from the water. At one point, the Petitioner took another child into the bathroom and left him there. At another point, the Petitioner put infants into a room to nap, leaving the other children unsupervised while she did so, and then leaving the infants unsupervised while they napped. One child ran into an enclosed garage area without the Petitioner's knowledge. The Petitioner was unable to properly identify all of the children by name when requested to do so by the CPI. When asked to retrieve files on the children, the Petitioner left all the children unsupervised while she went to her automobile to get the files. The Petitioner asserted that the CPI had offered to watch the children while she went outside to get the files. The CPI denied having agreed to supervise the children. The greater weight of the evidence fails to support the Petitioner's assertion that the CPI offered to supervise the children during the visit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent enter a Final Order denying the Petitioner's application for renewal of licensure as a family day care home. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of September, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of September, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack Emory Farley, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 4720 Old Highway 37 Lakeland, Florida 33813-2030 Wanda Williams Williams Family Daycare Home 1630 Fruitwood Drive Lakeland, Florida 33805 Paul Flounlacker, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204B Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Josie Tomayo, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Jerry Regier, Secretary Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 1, Room 202 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner, Basedeo Ramassar, is eligible for exemption from disqualification from working in a registered or licensed family day care center under Subsection 402.302(3), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Under Sections 402.301-319, Florida Statutes, the Department of Children and Family Services is the agency responsible for establishing licensing standards for child care facilities and child care personnel. Petitioner, Basedeo Ramassar, is married to Cathy Ramassar; they both reside at 2707 West Airport Boulevard, Sanford, Florida. Cathy Ramassar applied to Respondent to renew her license as a family day care facility at her home at 2707 West Airport Boulevard, Sanford, Florida. As a result of her application, Respondent conducted a Level 2 background screening. As a result of the screening, it was determined that, on March 20, 2000, Basedeo Ramassar had pled nolo contendere to the charge of assignation to commit prostitution, a violation of Section 796.07, Florida Statutes. When Cathy Ramassar was advised that her license would not be renewed because of her husband's violation of Section 796.07, Florida Statutes, she requested an administrative hearing and, shortly thereafter, Mr. Ramassar requested an exemption pursuant to Section 435.07, Florida Statutes. Michael Ingram, District 7 Screening Coordinator, convened a three-person Exemption Review Committee which considered the circumstances surrounding the disqualifying criminal incident, nature of harm to victim, amount of time since the last criminal incident, and the applicant's general history. The Exemption Review Committee relies on the applicant to provide information on rehabilitation. The Exemption Review Committee denied Mr. Ramassar's exemption request based, in part, on the fact that not enough time had elapsed since the 1999 offense and the March 20, 2000, nolo contendere plea and a 1990 domestic battery arrest which occurred prior to his current marriage. This denial was a proper exercise of the authority vested in the Exemption Review Committee. Mr. Ramassar testified that during the afternoon hours of November 26, 1999, he approached an undercover female police officer and "offered her $20 for straight sex." This resulted in his arrest and ultimately, his nolo contendere plea to assignation to commit prostitution. With the help of a supportive wife and members of their church, which he regularly attends, Mr. Ramassar has made a good start on a rehabilitation program. Apparently, he has a good marriage which has withstood the humiliation of public knowledge of his infidelity and criminal involvement; each witness testified to awareness of his criminal involvement. As a part of the exemption process, Subsection 435.07(3), Florida Statutes, requires an assessment of "the nature of the harm caused to the victim"; the only "victim" in this case is Mr. Ramassar's wife, who has not only suffered the public humiliation of her husband's infidelity, but has been denied a license renewal for her day care facility. Mr. Ramassar is regularly employed as a mason and, as a result, except on rare occasions, is away from the day care facility during its normal working hours. Witnesses who had children enrolled in Mr. Ramassar's wife's day care facility expressed little concern with the knowledge that Mr. Ramassar had pled nolo contendere to assignation to commit prostitution.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Family Services enter a final order granting Petitioner, Basedeo Ramassar, an exemption from disqualification from employment as a caretaker for children and granting Cathy Ramassar a renewal of her license. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of September, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JEFF B. CLARK 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, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Craig A. McCarthy, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 400 West Robinson Street Suite S-1106 Orlando, Florida 32801-1782 George B. Wallace, Esquire George B. Wallace, Esq., PA 700 West First Street Sanford, Florida 32771 Virginia A. Daire, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204B 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Josie Tomayo, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner, Sabra Portwood, is entitled to register her home as a family day care home under the provisions of Chapters 402 and 435, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact On August 10, 2000, Petitioner was married to Randy Shoaff. She had two children, twins, by him and is currently pregnant with another of his children. Although estranged at present, they remain married. Petitioner is in the preliminary stages of dissolving the marriage and intends to complete the dissolution process. Petitioner and Mr. Shoaff have had a rocky relationship. On October 4, 2000, less than two months into their marriage, Mr. Shoaff struck Petitioner several times in the head from behind. She was pregnant at the time of the attack. The incident was reported to law enforcement. On March 12, 2001, Petitioner swore out a Petition for Injunction for Protection Against Domestic Violence, naming her husband as Respondent. The essential facts to which she swore and testified to at hearing were as follows: On February 23, 2001, at 705 W. Wilcox the Respondent Randolph Shoaff told me that the only reason I was still alive was because I was pregnant and that I have 3 other children. He said that he wanted to shoot me & then kill himself. Because of his actions before I have been afraid of him on 3 or 4 different occasions, and I would just be quiet & not say anything & wait for him to go to work. On Oct. 4th (there should be a police report) there was a dispute between us & he started hitting me in the head repeatedly when I was 3 months pregnant & had only been home for 3 hrs from the doctor because I was bleeding during pregnancy. I am afraid because I asked his coworker if his (Randy's) gun was under the counter & he said it wasn't there. As a direct result of Petitioner's request for a domestic violence injunction, the Third Circuit Court issued a Temporary Injunction. Subsequently, the injunction was conditionally dissolved. However, Mr. Shoaff was ordered to have no personal contact with Sabra Portwood at her home. A third Order was subsequently entered in order to facilitate visitation with his children, allowing non-hostile contact between the parties. Mr. Shoaff does not live with Petitioner. However, Petitioner and Mr. Shoaf are presently married. Therefore, Mr. Shoaf is currently a member of Petitioner's family and is required to undergo background screening for Petitioner's registration. Mr. Shoaff did not pass the background screening because of the injunction based on domestic violence entered against him. No exemption from disqualification was sought. Because of the failed background screening, Petitioner, who was the victim of domestic violence and took steps to protect herself from that violence, was denied registration based on the actions of her estranged husband.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Children and Family Services denying Petitioner's request to register her home as a family day care home. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of May, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 24th day of May, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: John R. Perry, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 2639 North Monroe Street Building A, Suite 104 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2949 Sabra Portwood 140 Regina Road Perry, Florida 32348 John Flounlacker, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204B Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Josie Tomayo, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Whether Petitioner's license to operate a family day care home should be disciplined, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the testimony and evidence received at the hearing, the following findings are made: The Parties Petitioner is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating child care facilities, including family day care homes. Petitioner routinely conducts inspections of licensed family day care homes to determine whether the home is in compliance with the applicable statutes and rules. Any problems found during the inspections are noted on a report which is provided to the home's operator immediately following the inspection. When appropriate, the inspection report provides a time frame within which the problems must be corrected. Regular inspections are conducted approximately twice a year. More frequent inspections--monthly or every six weeks-- are conducted on family day care homes which have a provisional license rather than a standard license. Petitioner also conducts inspections in response to complaints it receives, and it has the authority to inspect family day care homes at any time with or without notice. Respondent is the owner and operator of a licensed family day care home located at 2406 Winter Ridge Drive, Auburndale, Florida (hereinafter "Respondent's facility" or "the facility"). Respondent resides at that address as well. Respondent has operated a day care home at the above address for approximately five years, and she has been involved in child care for approximately ten years. Respondent has taken all required training in order to be licensed. As a result, she is, or should be, familiar with the rules regulating family day care homes. Respondent keeps children in her home, and children also play in Respondent's backyard. This area is enclosed by an approximately three and a half foot high chain-link fence. Respondent also owns a one-acre parcel behind her house and yard, which is apparently not fenced. Inspections and Resulting Actions by Petitioner Respondent's facility was inspected on April 16, 2003, and several areas of non-compliance were identified during this inspection. Noted as violations included Petitioner's son and husband who were in the home without a completed background screening on each of them; a fence surrounding the property had protruding chicken wire and was less than four feet in height; children's floor mats were torn and not properly covered; a bathroom sink was missing and needed replacement; no paper towels were in the bathroom for the children; one child's immunization records had expired and one child's required physical examination was out of date; and there were eight preschool children over the age of one year old in the home, where the maximum allowed was six. A re-inspection was conducted on April 23, 2003. On January 22, 2004, Petitioner's inspector Mr. Pickett went to Respondent's family day care home to carry out a routine inspection. Several areas of non-compliance were identified. Ms. Gainey's husband, Jerry Gainey, was staying in the home, but he had no letter on file showing he had been properly screened; there were too many children in the home (three children under 12 months old) when the maximum allowable is two; there were seven preschool children in the home when the maximum allowable is three; hazardous containers, a gas can and a paint can, had been left near the front door easily accessible to small children; a glass sliding door had a metal obstacle that could cause children to trip and fall; and three of the children in the home had no enrollment information on file--even their names and parents' names could not be found or names of anyone to call in case of an emergency. After Pickett completed his inspection, he discussed the results with Respondent and provided Respondent a copy of the inspection report. Pickett then went back to his office and discussed the results of the inspection with his supervisor, Ms. Hamilton. Based upon the results of the January 22, 2004, inspection and the prior incidence of non-compliance at Respondent's facility, Ms. Hamilton determined that Respondent's license should be revoked. Petitioner did not give Respondent an opportunity to bring her home into compliance with the minimum standards in Petitioner's licensing rules and standards. Thereafter, on January 26, 2004, Pickett sent a letter to Respondent informing her that her license was being revoked and advising Respondent of her right to "appeal" that decision through the administrative process. At the hearing, Ms. Hamilton testified that she was particularly concerned about Respondent's repeat violations, namely Respondent's husband not being screened for nearly nine months and the repeated ratio violations, that is, too many children in the home. She characterized these as serious child safety violations. These were the primary reasons she recommended that Respondent's child care license be revoked. Respondent, in her testimony, did not deny committing the violations noted in the inspections of April 16, 2003, and January 22, 2004. However, she did demonstrate that a re-inspection of her facility on April 23, 2003, listed her to be in compliance with all violations listed in the April 16, 2003, report, except for the background screening requirement for her husband. Respondent insisted that her son, Jerry L. Gainey, who is 28 years old, lives down the street from her and does not regularly watch the children in her home. Due to an emergency situation, she was required to leave her home in order to pick up some children from school, and she called upon her son to watch the children until her return. Respondent asserts that her son has not watched the children since that date. Respondent also asserts that her husband, who has had a stroke and is cognitively impaired and walks with the aide of a cane or scooter, does not reside with her full-time but, in fact, lives with his sister in Arkansas. The testimony in regard to her husband's permanent place of resident is not credible, since he was in the home on at least two occasions--April 16, 2003, and January 22, 2004--when it was inspected. It is undisputed that Respondent was not at the facility when Mr. McClary arrived in the early afternoon of April 16, 2003. Her husband and son were watching the children. Respondent's testimony indicated that her husband was physically impaired and not capable of supervising the children. Therefore, only her son was left in charge of the facility and the children that afternoon, and her son was not authorized to supervise the children. As a result, the children were effectively left unsupervised when Respondent left the facility that afternoon. Respondent's testimony is credible, especially when bolstered by her client's testimony, that she is a loving and caring person who goes out of her way to care for the children she keeps in her home. Respondent explained that at the time of the April 16, 2003, inspection, the sink was missing because the entire bathroom was being renovated, and the renovation has been complete for some time. Respondent also stated that she did not understand the need for Petitioner's insistence on strict compliance with the four-foot height requirement for the chain- link fence, especially since she owns the one-acre parcel in the back of her yard. Respondent also explained that the reason she had exceeded the maximum allowable number of children in her home on two occasions was concern for the custodial parents' inability to find suitable child care when they worked odd hours or the swing shift and that she was willing to inconvenience herself in order to provide this service. This testimony was corroborated by several parents and grandparents who testified in Petitioner's behalf. The evidence is clear and convincing that Respondent violated several code provisions, including failure to properly screen her husband, having too many children in the home, and failure to have current enrollment on file for each child. The evidence is not clear and convincing that Respondent violated the code provisions relating to minimum fence height requirements; improper floor mats; failure to have a functioning sink in the children's bathroom; no paper towels in the bathroom for the children; expiration of a child's shot records or that a child's physical examination was outdated. Respondent has shown mitigating evidence that she is a concerned and loving caregiver which demonstrates that her license as a family day care home license should not be revoked.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Family Services issue a final order as follows: Finding Petitioner guilty of violating the provisions of Florida Administrative Code Rules 65C-20.009(3)(a) (one count), 65C-20.010(1)(b) (one count), and 65C-20.011(4); and Subsection 402.032(7), Florida Statutes (two counts). Finding Petitioner not guilty of violating the provisions of Florida Administrative Code Rules 65C-20.010(1)(o), 65C-20.010(1)(f), and 65C-20.011(1) and (2)(a). Issuing Respondent a provisional license and imposing an administrative fine of $250.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of June, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 8th day of June, 2004.
