The Issue Whether Petitioner is disqualified from employment in positions requiring him to work with children or the developmentally disabled and, if so, whether he is entitled to an exemption from such disqualification.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner's employer, Youthland Academy Child Care Facility, is a day care facility that works with children. The employer submitted Petitioner's name to Respondent for a background screening pursuant to Section 402.305(2)(a), Florida Statutes. The background screening reflected that Petitioner had an extensive arrest record between June 1983 and January 1999. The screening also reflected that Petitioner was convicted of a battery in violation of Section 784.03, Florida Statutes, on April 25, 1994. The underlying offense was an act of domestic violence against the person of April Cox (the mother of a child by Petitioner) on November 17, 1994. The screening further reflected that Petitioner was convicted of a battery in violation of Section 784.03, Florida Statutes, on November 6, 1997. The underlying offense was an act of domestic violence against the person of Tanya Anne Austin (also the mother of a child by Petitioner) on June 15, 1997. A charge of violating an injunction against domestic violence was nolle prossed as part of a plea agreement. On April 21, 2000, Respondent attempted to notify Petitioner in writing that he may be ineligible for continued employment in a position of special trust working with children or the developmentally disabled because of the acts of domestic violence on November 17, 1994, and June 15, 1997. That certified mailing was not picked up by Petitioner. Thereafter, on June 5, 2000, Respondent re-mailed the notification letter to Petitioner at his place of employment. The notification letter advised Petitioner of his rights to an exemption hearing, but required that he request such hearing within 30 days from his receipt of the letter. The notification letter also advised Petitioner that he could request a formal or informal hearing to challenge the accuracy of his criminal record. As of August 10, 2000, Petitioner had not responded to Respondent's letter of June 5, 2000. On that date, Ms. Barton advised the director of Youthland Academy that Petitioner had been disqualified from working with children or the developmentally disabled. On August 16, 2000, Petitioner responded to Ms. Barton's letter stating that he had misunderstood the notification letter, that he wanted to explain the circumstances of the two incidents of domestic violence, and that he wanted a hearing. Petitioner did not dispute the accuracy of his criminal record at the final hearing. Although Petitioner presented testimony as to the circumstances involved in each conviction at issue in this proceeding, that evidence merely confirmed that each incident constituted domestic violence. Petitioner failed to establish that he should not be disqualified from working with children or the developmentally disabled, that he has been rehabilitated since his last criminal conviction, and that he would not present a danger if continued employment is allowed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order finding Petitioner is disqualified from working with children or the disabled. It is further RECOMMENDED that the final order find that Petitioner is not entitled to an exemption from that disqualification. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of February, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 February, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Kalvin T. Davis 2100 Northeast Third Court Boynton Beach, Florida 33435 Colleen Farnsworth, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 111 South Sapodilla Avenue Suite 201 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Virgina 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 Whether Petitioner, Palm Beach County School Board (Petitioner or School Board), has just cause to discipline the employment of Rebecca Sorensen (Respondent or Ms. Sorensen) based on the conduct alleged in the “Petition.” Also at issue is the appropriate penalty, if any.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Petitioner was the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the public schools in Palm Beach County, Florida. Respondent has been an employee of the Petitioner since 1987. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was an assistant principal employed by Petitioner at Hagen Road, which is a public elementary school in Palm Beach County, Florida. Petitioner’s Policy No. 5.30 requires that, “(a) District employees who know or have reasonable cause to suspect, that a child is an abused, abandoned, or neglected child shall immediately report such knowledge or suspicion to the Department of Children and Families’ [sic] Florida Abuse Hotline (1-800- 96ABUSE, 24 hours a day)." Section 39.201(1)(a), Florida Statutes, provides, as follows: (1)(a) Any person who knows, or has reasonable cause to suspect, that a child is abused, abandoned, or neglected by a parent, legal custodian, caregiver, or other person responsible for the child's welfare,[1] as defined in this chapter, or that a child is in need of supervision and care and has no parent, legal custodian, or responsible adult relative immediately known and available to provide supervision and care shall report such knowledge or suspicion to the department in the manner prescribed in subsection (2). (b) Reporters in the following occupation categories are required to provide their name to the hotline staff: * * * School teacher or other school official or personnel; Respondent’s position as an Assistant Principal at Hagen Road is included within the definitions of school personnel for purposes of Section 39.201(1)(a), Florida Statutes. The requirement to report suspected child abuse was reiterated in the Faculty Handbook for Hagen Road for the 2008- 09 school year. Cheri Rosen is the assistant director of Hagen Road’s after school care program. Ms. Rosen’s son and Student J. were in the fifth grade during the 2008-09 school year and have been friends since their first grade year. Labor Day fell on September 1 in 2008. On August 28, 2008, the Thursday prior to Labor Day, Student J. spent the night at Ms. Rosen’s house because his grandfather was hospitalized for medical tests. Student J. told Ms. Rosen’s daughter of an incident that occurred in December 2007, while Student J. was being baby-sat at his grandfather’s house, by the male counselor from the Hagen Road after school care program. Ms. Rosen’s daughter immediately told her father (Mr. Rosen) who instructed his daughter to tell her mother (Mrs. Rosen). Immediately after her daughter talked to her, Ms. Rosen asked that Student J. come tell her firsthand what had happened. Student J. told Ms. Rosen that while he was being baby- sat by the male counselor at his grandfather’s house in December 2007, just before winter break, the male counselor had taken a live snake and wrapped it around his (the male counselor’s) penis and told Student J. to look. Student J. told Ms. Rosen that he looked and then looked away. Student J. related that the male counselor told Student J. “now its your turn.” Student J. told Ms. Rosen that he said no and walked out of the room. Ms. Rosen told Student J. that she was going to have to tell his grandfather about the incident, and that she was also going to report this to Ms. Lamb, who was Ms. Rosen’s supervisor at the after school care program. Ms. Rosen spoke to Ms. Lamb shortly after her conversation with Student J. Ms. Lamb advised Ms. Rosen that she should tell the Student J.’s grandfather that he should contact the police. She further told Ms. Rosen, incorrectly, that she did not have to go through the school because the alleged incident occurred at the residence of Student J.’s grandfather, and because Student J. reported the incident at her home. Two days after Ms. Rosen’s conversation with Student J., his grandfather returned home from the hospital. Ms. Rosen and her husband visited with the grandfather and related to him the incident as Student J. had related it to them. The grandfather, who tried to remain calm because he has a heart condition, asked what he should do next. Ms. Rosen told him he had to go to the police. When Ms. Lamb returned to school on September 2, 2008, she had a voice mail from Student J.’s grandfather. She tried to return the call, but she could not reach him. On Thursday, September 4, 2008, Respondent was paged by a Ms. Ciavolino, the school treasurer and bookkeeper. Ms. Ciavolino related that Student J.’s grandfather had just called, told her about the incident, and said that he wanted advice from Respondent. Shortly thereafter on September 4, 2008, Student J.’s grandfather called Respondent to talk with her about the incident. The grandfather was hesitant, so Respondent told him what Ms. Ciavolino had told him, and Respondent also told him that she knew he wanted advice. After the grandfather confirmed what Ms. Ciavolino had related to her, Respondent advised the grandfather that the incident needed to be reported right away. She asked the grandfather where he lived in an attempt to determine whether the Delray Beach Police Department (DBPD) or the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office would have jurisdiction. She also told him that it would need to be reported to the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS). Although he remained hesitant, the grandfather told Respondent that he would report the incident. On September 4, 2008, Respondent instructed Ms. Lamb to keep the male counselor away from Student J. and all other students. At that time, the male counselor was preparing to leave in a week or two to join the military. In the interim, he had been assigned to train new counselors, which did not require that he have direct contact with children. The male counselor remained on Hagen Road campus until he was removed as a result of the police investigation that ensued. Other than her instructions to Ms. Lamb, Respondent took no further action to ensure that the male counselor would have no contact with children. Respondent did not report the allegation of abuse to her principal (Mr. Hughes), to any law enforcement agency, or to the DCFS. Further, she did not instruct Ms. Rosen, Ms. Lamb, or Ms. Ciavolino to file any type of written report.2 Respondent testified that she did not feel she had to file a report because Student J.’s grandfather agreed to file a report. Respondent further testified that she did not feel she had to file a report because she heard of the allegations from the grandfather and not the student. On September 9, 2008, Student J.’s grandfather reported the incident to the DBPD which immediately began an investigation in conjunction with a DCFS investigator. As a result of the DBPD/DCFS investigation, Mr. Hughes learned of the allegations and immediately barred the male counselor from the school campus. Thereafter, Petitioner’s Police Department began its own investigation of Respondent based on her conduct and failure to act as described in this Recommended Order. All relevant procedural steps were taken by Petitioner in bringing these charges against Respondent. Part of the procedure requires a pre-disciplinary meeting at which the subject of an investigation is given the opportunity to give his or her version of the events. Respondent declined to attend the pre-disciplinary meeting on advice of counsel because at the time of the meeting a criminal investigation was being conducted.3 After the pre-disciplinary meeting, the matter was referred to Petitioner’s Employee Investigatory Committee (EIC),4 who recommended that the subject charges be brought against Respondent with the recommended disposition of a ten-day suspension of employment without pay. That recommendation was forwarded to Dr. Johnson in his capacity of Superintendent of Schools, who agreed with the recommendations of the EIC and submitted the recommendation to the School Board. On April 8, 2009, the School Board voted to accept the recommendation, subject to Respondent’s rights pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. The greater weight of the credible evidence established that Respondent had a reasonable basis to believe that Student J. had been subjected to sexual abuse and that she did not report that abuse to her principal, the FDCS hotline, or law enforcement. The greater weight of the credible evidence also established that Respondent took insufficient steps to protect Student J. from the male counselor after she learned of the allegations of abuse. In reaching this finding, the undersigned has considered that Principal Hughes barred the male counselor from school premises as soon as he learned of the allegations. Respondent did not bar the male counselor from the school premises, but merely instructed Ms. Lamb to make sure that the male counselor “. . . would not be with children until this was resolved.”5 Respondent’s employment has not previously been disciplined. Other than the facts set forth above, Respondent has been, in the words of Principal Hughes, a fantastic assistant principal who has performed above expectations.6
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order adopting the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law contained in this Recommended Order. It is further RECOMMENDED that the final order suspends Respondent’s employment without pay for a period of ten days. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of November, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 18th day of November, 2009.
Findings Of Fact Chapter 402, Florida Statutes, provides for licensing of child care facilities by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (hereinafter "HRS"). It mandates minimum standards for personnel, physical facilities, sanitation and safety, nutritional practices, admissions and record keeping, transportation safety, child discipline, and plans of activities. Section 402.306, Florida Statutes, allows counties whose licensing standards meet or exceed state minimum standards to perform child care facility licensing in that county rather than HRS performing that activity. Chapter 402, Florida Statutes, was originally enacted in 1974 to provide minimum standards for the growing number of commercial day care facilities. In the definitional section of that Chapter, the legislature specifically defined a child care facility and further specified those programs and facilities exempted from the child care facility licensing laws. Section 402.302(4), Florida Statutes, provided as follows: "Child care facility" includes any child care center or child care arrangement which provides child care for more than five children unrelated to the operator and which receives a payment, fee, or grant for any of the children receiving care, wherever operated, and whether or not operated for profit. The following are not included: public schools and non- public schools which are in compliance with the Compulsory School Attendance Law, chapter 232; summer camps having children in full-time residence; summer day camps; and Bible Schools normally conducted during vacation periods. [Emphasis supplied.] Due to extensive publicity involving certain abuse incidents by personnel at child care facilities and public opinion, the child care facility licensing laws were revisited in 1984. In a special session, the Legislature strengthened some requirements of Chapter 402 and provided for screening and background checks of personnel in child care facilities and for reasonable parental access to children in those facilities. Chapter 84-551, Laws of Florida. Due to the insistence of HRS and certain counties performing their own child care facility licensing that pre- kindergarten programs in schools required those schools to obtain licensure as child care facilities, Chapter 402 was further amended in 1985 to clarify the exclusion of schools. As amended, the statutory definition of child care facility now provides: "Child care facility" includes any child care center or child care arrangement which provides child care for more than five children unrelated to the operator and which receives a payment, fee, or grant for any of the children receiving care, wherever operated, and whether or not operated for profit. The following are not included: public schools and non- public schools and their integral programs; summer camps having children in full-time residence; summer day camps; and Bible Schools normally conducted during during vacation periods. [Emphasis supplied.] Section 402.302(4), Florida Statutes 1985. The Senate Staff Analysis and Economic Impact Statement regarding the amendment of Chapter 402 provides that this change is a "Technical amendment which clarifies that public and non-public school programs are not subject to licensure as child care facilities." Respondent's Exhibit numbered 6. Following the 1985 amendments to Chapter 402, HRS and the Palm Beach County Health Department (which was responsible for child care facility licensing in Palm Beach County) jointly requested a legal opinion from the Attorney General regarding the scope of the statutory exclusions from child care licensing laws for public and nonpublic schools and their integral programs. The specific question posed was as follows: Do the exemptions under s. 402.302(4), F.S., as amended, and s. 9, Ch. 77-620, Laws of Florida, apply to public and nonpublic schools which offer: Prekindergarten classes during regular school hours in the same physical plant or in an adjoining structure? Infant care during regular school hours in the same physical plant or in an adjoining structure? School age child care services before and after school hours in the same physical plant or in an adjoining structure? In a lengthy analysis of the statutory exclusion of schools from child care facility licensing requirements, the Attorney General concluded: In sum, then, and unless and until legislatively or judicially determined otherwise, it is my opinion that the exemptions under s. 402.302(4), F.S., as amended by Chs. 84-551 and 85-54, Laws of Florida, and s. 9, Ch. 77-620, Laws of Florida, apply to public and nonpublic schools which offer prekindergarten classes or infant care during regular schools hours or school age child care services before and after school hours. . . . AGO 55-74, p. 7. Attorney General Opinion 85-74 also provides at page 3 as follows: Thus, public schools and nonpublic schools and their integral programs are not "child care facilit[ies]" for purposes of ss. 402.301-402.319, F.S., as amended. The term "integral programs" is not defined within ss. 402.301-402.319, F.S., as amended, or Oh. 85-54, Laws of Florida; however, the word "integral" has generally been defined as "[c]onstituting a completed whole; . . . lacking nothing of completeness." See, 46 C.J.S. Integral p. 1100; Ballentine's Law Dictionary 645 (3rd ed. 1969). And see, Random House Dictionary of the English Language Integral p. 738 (unabridged ed. 1967) (pertaining to or belonging as a part of the whole; constituent or component; necessary to the completeness of the whole); Webster's Third International Dictionary Integral p. 1173 (1966) (composed of constituent parts; making up a whole). Of., Matezak v. Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, 299 F.Supp. 409, 413 (D.C.N.Y. 1969)("integral" means part of constituent component necessary or essential to complete the whole). Whether a particular child care center or arrangement constitutes an integral program for purposes of s. 402.302(4), FS., as amended, would appear to present a factual question which can only be reached on a case-by-case basis. [Emphasis supplied.] During the special session in 1984 and the regular session in 1985, the Legislature increased funding for HRS' child care facility licensing activities and also created 48 additional staff positions for those licensure activities. Several HRS employees determined that (1) the Attorney General's Opinion was confusing, (2) it was too difficult to determine on a case-by-case basis whether a program was an integral part of a school or a child care facility, and (3) the exclusion of schools from child care facility licensing requirements was inconsistent with legislative intent of protecting children. Accordingly, HRS drafted an amendment to Rule 10M-12.001, Florida Administrative Code, to define the term "integral program". The "rule package" prepared by HRS in compliance with Section 120.54, Florida Statutes, commences with the following language: Reason rule is being filed or amended: Chapter 402.302(4), Florida Statutes, provides the definition of a child care facility. Public and non public schools and their integral programs are precluded from this definition as a child care facility and therefore are not subject to licensure. . . . The term "integral programs", which is not defined by statute, is ambiguous and has been the subject of various interpretations by public and non public schools. For purposes of licensure, this rule amendment is necessary in order to clarify which specific child care programs in the public and non public schools are required to be licensed. Without the rule amendment, some schools will continue to interpret their "integral programs" as meaning their infant and preschool programs, or before and after school programs, thereby avoiding licensure and resulting in no regulation by the department . . . Rule 10M-12.001, Florida Administrative Code, as proposed, would provide as follows: (1) Child Care Standards and Licensure. Child Care Standards included in this chapter were adopted by the department to protect the health, safety and well being of the children of the State who receive child care in child care facilities as defined in Section 402.302, Florida Statutes, and to promote their emotional and intellectual development and care. Public and nonpublic schools and their integral programs are not child care facilities as defined in Section 402.302(4) Florida Statutes, and are not subject to licensure. The term "integral programs" includes school activities which are directly related to the educational component of the school for 5 year old kindergarten programs through grade 12, and extra curricular activities, such as sport teams, school yearbook, school band, meetings, and service clubs. The term also includes child care programs administered directly by the school to care and supervise children from 5 year old kindergarten through grade 12 before and after the school day. The term "integral program" does not include child care programs for children below 5 year old kindergarten, such as infants and preschoolers, and child care programs which are contracted by the school to provide care and supervision for children from 5 year old kindergarten through grade 12 before and after the school day. The proposed rule as published and noticed by HRS, although defended by HRS vigorously in this proceeding, is not in fact the rule that HRS intends to adopt. HRS now admits that it has no authority to regulate any program in a public school since only the Florida Department of Education can regulate public schools. HRS intends, therefore, to delete the reference to public schools in its proposed rule and to only regulate nonpublic schools although it admits that such regulation of only nonpublic schools would therefore be discriminatory. HRS further intends to amend its proposed rule so as to clarify that those nonpublic schools which are religious in affiliation will continue to enjoy the additional exemption from child care facility licensure given to them by Section 402.316(1), Florida Statutes, which provides: The provisions of ss. 402.301-402.319, except for the requirements regarding screening of child care personnel, shall not apply to a child care facility which is an integral part of church or parochial schools conducting regularly scheduled classes, courses of study, or education programs accredited by, or by a member of, an organization which publishes and requires compliance with its standards for health, safety, and sanitation. However, such facilities shall meet minimum requirements of the applicable local governing body as to health, sanitation, and safety and shall meet the screening requirements pursuant to ss. 402.305 and 402.3055. Failure by a facility to comply with such screening requirements shall result in the loss of the facility's exemption from licensure. Petitioner Florida Association of Academic Nonpublic Schools (hereinafter "FAANS") is comprised of approximately 25 associations of schools. Additionally, archdioceses, which are separate corporate entities, and which own and operate schools, are direct members as are county organizations and the Florida Catholic Conference. The organization itself represents nonpublic schools in the state of Florida before state agencies, including the Legislature which it actively lobbies. It has a direct relationship as a state representative, one of only five in the country, with the United States Department of Education. It is involved in accreditation and has a code of ethics with which all schools (both direct members and indirect members) must comply. FAANS presently represents 943 schools with approximately 230,000 students, out of the approximate 1,750 nonpublic schools in the state of Florida. A majority of the schools represented by FAANS operate educational programs for children under 5 years of age. For the most part, these school programs are not licensed as child care facilities although some of the schools have licensed their programs under duress rather than have their programs closed by the child care facility licensing agencies. All of the nonpublic schools represented by FAANS comply with the Florida Department of Education requirement that they annually submit statistical information including the number of students and faculty in their prekindergarten programs for the Department of Education's Nonpublic School Data Base. Petitioner Jacksonville Country Day School presented no evidence in this proceeding. Petitioner The Cushman School is a nonpublic school in Miami, Florida, and is an indirect member of FAANS. It has been in operation for 62 years and has operated educational programs for children under 5 since it was founded. It begins enrolling students at the age of 3 years (and on rare occasion 2 years) and offers education through grade 6. It is not presently licensed as a child care facility. Under the proposed rule as published in the June 6, 1986, Florida Administrative Weekly, The Cushman School would be required to obtain a child care facility license, the economic impact of which would be significant. First, it would lose its exemption from property taxes as an educational institution at a speculated cost of approximately $10,000. Structural modifications would need to be made to the school for bathing and sleeping facilities. Additional requirements, such as fencing and child-staff ratios, would come into play imposing more costs on the school. The Cushman School possesses historic site status which means even minor repairs, let alone structural modifications, have extensive restrictions imposed as to how they can be done and the materials that can be used. The end result is that if the proposed rule goes into effect, The Cushman School will have to discontinue its educational programs for children under 5 years of age. The economic impact of compliance with child care facility licensing requirements by schools is not unique to The Cushman School. Section 120.54, Florida Statutes, requires each agency proposing or amending a rule to provide a detailed economic impact statement. The purpose of an economic impact statement is to promote informed decision-making by ensuring an accurate analysis of economic factors, and those factors an agency must consider are clearly specified. An agency must also consider the impact of a proposed rule on small businesses as defined in the Florida Small and Minority Business Assistance Act of 1985. There are nonpublic schools throughout Florida which fit the statutory definition of small business. It is clear from the economic impact statement for proposed rule 10M-12.001 that HRS did not consider the impact of the rule on small business nonpublic schools. Also to be considered is the cost to an agency of implementing the rule. According to HRS' impact statement, actual implementation statewide will only cost $31. There is no consideration of additional staff time and paperwork to process applications, issue additional licenses, or conduct additional inspections. There is no comment in the economic impact statement of the impact on competition and the open market for employment, or any indication that such an analysis is inapplicable; rather, the agency's estimate of effect on competition speaks to potential cost savings from deregulation of before and after school care programs. Similarly, the required analysis of the costs or economic benefits to all persons directly affected by the proposed rule speaks in terms of deregulation and substantial savings and is, accordingly, deceptive. An agency is also required to provide a detailed statement of the data and method used in making each of the estimates required in the economic impact statement. The only detailed statement in HRS' economic impact statement refers to the costs of printing and mailing, publication of the proposed rule in the Florida Administrative Weekly, and conducting a public hearing on the proposed rule. There is no hint of the data and method used, if any, in reaching other conclusions contained within the economic impact statement. The economic impact statement accompanying proposed rule 10M-12.001 is inadequate. Section 120.54(1), Florida Statutes, further requires that an agency proposing a rule give notice of its intended action and the specific legal authority under which its adoption is authorized. As set forth above, the rule proposed by HRS does not reflect its intended action since the rule purports to apply to both public and nonpublic schools and HRS intends to further amend the rule so as to exclude its application to public schools and its application to religious nonpublic schools. As to the specific legal authority under which the proposed rule is authorized, HRS cites, at the end of the proposed rule, as its rulemaking authority Section 402.301, Florida Statutes. That section is entitled "Child care facilities; legislative intent and declaration of purpose and policy". Nowhere in that legislative intent section is HRS authorized to promulgate rules. The proposed rule thus fails to fulfill that requirement.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent, a child care facility, violated the minimum staffing ratio in one of its classes and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent owns and operates the Children's Christian School House, which is a licensed child care facility. Ileana Echevarria is the director of Respondent. Each year, Petitioner's inspectors conduct three routine and one annual-renewal inspection of each licensed child care facility. On one such inspection, conducted on June 5, 2006, the inspector observed that the facility's two-year-old room had 12 children and only one adult. Pursuant to Petitioner's policy not to fine a facility for the first violation, the inspector directed Ms. Echevarria to telephone one of the parents and have her come and pick up her child. Ms. Echevarria did so, and the violation was corrected before the inspector left the facility. The same inspector returned to the facility on June 20, 2006, to perform a re-inspection. On this occasion, the facility was out of compliance in a different room. The room occupied by children five years old and older contained 39 children and one adult. On June 20, two of the teachers were on vacation and another teacher had called in sick. A new teacher had reported to work for her first day, but she was sitting in the cafeteria and was not supervising any children. Ms. Echevarria herself had been sick, had come to school earlier, and had returned home to retrieve her medicine, so she was not at the facility at the time of the re-inspection of the out-of-compliance classroom.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Family Services enter a final order imposing a civil penalty of $100 against Respondent for a violation of the staff-to-children ratio during the June 20, 2006, inspection. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of April, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of April, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Gregory Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204B 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John J. Copelan, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Robert A. Butterworth, Secretary Department of Children and Family Services Building 1 Room 202 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Kimberly D. Coward, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 401 Northwest Second Avenue, Suite N-1014 Miami, Florida 33128 Ileana Echevarria Qualified Representative Children's Christian School House, Inc. 380 West 21st Street Hialeah, Florida 33010
The Issue The issue for determination in this proceeding is whether Respondent failed to maintain direct supervision of four minor children and, if so, what, if any, penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for regulating child day care facilities in Florida. Respondent is licensed as a child care facility within the meaning of Section 402.302(4), Florida Statutes. 1/ Respondent is licensed to care for 36 children, ages 0-12, pursuant to license number 994-39. Ms. Augustina Peash is the owner of Augustina Academay within the meaning of Section 402.302(7). Ms. Peash operates Augustina Academy at 1307 Pinehills Road, Orlando, Florida, 32808. On April 7, 1995, Petitioner conducted a quarterly inspection of Respondent. Four children were alone with no direct supervision. Two children were sweeping the kitchen. Another child was alone in a classroom. An infant was alone in a crib in a room adjacent to the director's office. Ms. Augustina Peash was in the director's office. The potential harm to the children was not severe within the meaning of Section 402.310(1)(b)1. All of the children were on the premises of Augustina Academy and within close proximity of supervising personnel. The period in which Respondent failed to maintain direct supervision of the children was not substantial. Respondent's employees corrected the failure immediately. Respondent's failure to maintain direct supervision of the children did not result in any actual harm to the children. Respondent has a history of prior discipline within the meaning of Section 402.310(1)(b)3. On November 7, 1994, Petitioner cited Respondent for a similar violation. Petitioner informed Respondent in writing of the violation
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of the charges in the Administrative Complaint and imposing an administrative fine of $100. RECOMMENDED this 5th day of January, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL S. MANRY, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of January, 1996.
The Issue Whether Respondent, Department of Children and Families (Department), should grant the application filed by Cynthia McGuire-Moore to obtain a license to operate a child care facility through an entity known as Funhouse Learning Academy, LLC (Funhouse), contrary to the Department’s Notice of Intent to Deny Application, dated March 17, 2020.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with regulating licensed child care providers in the State of Florida. On March 13, 2020, Ms. McGuire-Moore submitted an “Application for a License to Operate a Child Care Facility” (Application) with the Department. The Application identified Funhouse as the name of the facility to appear on the license. In the Application, Ms. McGuire-Moore disclosed that she had previously owned, and served as director of, a licensed child care facility named “First Steps Learning Academy.” The Application does not reflect Ms. McGuire-Moore’s ownership of another licensed child care facility named “A Step Above Christian Academy.” However, the testimony and evidence presented established that Ms. McGuire-Moore previously owned another licensed child care facility named “A Step Above Christian Academy.” On March 17, 2020, the Department issued a “Notice of Intent to Deny Application,” which denied the Application, and stated: The denial is based on the following: As Owner/Director of A Step Above Christian Academy April 16, 2018 the license to operate A Step Above Christian Academy was revoked following the sixth Class II Violation for standard #3 Sufficient Ratio, in a two-year period. April 3, 2018 (Complaint Investigation) It was reported to the licensing office that Ms. McGuire- Moore had been providing childcare in her home but had asked parents to take their children back to the facility located at 1122 Dr. Mary McLeod Bethune Blvd this week as she would be on vacation. Upon responding to the facility address counselor did not find children in care. They were being cared for by an unscreened individual. Parents were contacted and children were sent home. December 22, 2017 A Cease and Desist letter was provided to Ms. McGuire-Moore while awaiting the final hearing as the facility was again found out of ratio for the sixth time on December 15, 2017 (Routine Inspection). The facility was [sic] also received a fine levied in the amount of $100.00. September 21, 2017 (Routine Inspection) They [sic] facility was found out of ratio for the fifth time and the revocation proceedings were initiated. July 21, 2016 (Complaint Investigation) The facility was found out of ratio for the fourth time and placed on a six-month probationary license and was fined $150.00 (two days out of ratio at $75.00 per day). June 16, 2016 (Complaint Investigation) The facility was found out of ratio for the third time and fined $60.00. Technical Assistance was provided. March 30, 2016 (Routine Inspection) The facility was found out of ratio for the second time and fined $50.00. Technical assistance was provided. December 17, 2015 (Routine Inspection) The facility was found out of ratio for the first time and counselor provided technical assistance. Due to the circumstances noted above we are unable to approve your application to obtain a Child Care Facility license. In Department of Children and Families v. A Step Above Christian Academy, LLC, d/b/a A Step Above Christian Academy, LLC, Case No. 17- 6871 (Fla. DOAH Mar. 21, 2018; Fla. DCF Apr. 16, 2018), ALJ Lawrence P. Stevenson recommended, after conducting a final hearing, that the Department revoke the license for A Step Above Christian Academy, LLC, based on the incidents (i.e., numerous ratio violations) referred to in the Department’s “Notice of Intent to Deny Application” and paragraph 4 above.1 The Department approved ALJ Stevenson’s recommendation in its Final Order. Ms. McGuire-Moore testified that A Step Above Christian Academy had been open for approximately three years before the revocation. She provided child care for infants through kindergarten. Prior to owning and operating A Step Above Christian Academy, she provided home daycare for eight years, and was also the interim director of and VPK teacher at Friendship Academy; another child care facility. Ms. McGuire-Moore testified that she made a “mistake” when operating A Step Above Christian Academy, and took responsibility for the ratio violations detailed in DOAH Case No. 17-6871 and the Notice of Intent to Deny Application. In the approximately two-and-a-half years since the revocation of the license of A Step Above Christian Academy, LLC, Ms. McGuire-Moore has worked for the Daytona Beach News Journal, delivering newspapers. Ms. McGuire-Moore testified that if granted another license, she would maintain the required ratio of children to staff by “do[ing] a better screening of my teachers that I hire ... Also, if teachers can’t be on time, then, I would just have to let them go and hire someone that can be on time.” Ms. Overly was the Department counselor assigned to investigate A Step Above Christian Academy from 2016-2017, and, in her current position as supervisor, reviewed the Application. Ms. Overly confirmed that the basis for the Notice of Intent to Deny Application was the numerous ratio violations involving A Step Above Christian Academy that led to its revocation. She also stated that, when assigned to investigate A Step Above Christian Academy, she found 52 total 1 A ratio violation occurs when the prescribed ratio of staff to children has not been met. Fla. Admin. Code R. 65C-22.001(4). violations—21 of which were Class II violations that included the ratio violations.2 Ms. Overly testified about various violations—other than ratio violations—that she found when investigating A Step Above Christian Academy, which included: Employing individuals who had not completed required background screening; Failing to maintain a clean environment, noting that during the final inspection before revocation, she discovered that five of the six toilets at A Step Above Christian Academy were backed up and not functioning, that a sink was backed up and had mold, that the ceiling was in disrepair, and that a fence in the back of the yard was “down” several months after a previous inspection; and Receiving a complaint from a parent with a child attending A Step Above Christian Academy who was informed by Ms. McGuire-Moore that she was going on vacation, but that a person named Ms. Lex would fill in for her; when Ms. Overly investigated the day after receiving this complaint, she learned that Ms. Lex had not completed required background screening or the required training to care for children. Ms. Overly also testified that she reviewed the history of another child care facility Ms. McGuire-Moore previously owned—Moore’s Christian Academy—and found that between 2006 through 2008, the Department conducted eight inspections and found five ratio violations. Ms. Overly stated that Ms. McGuire-Moore’s history of owning and operating child care facilities indicates a long and consistent pattern of ratio violations. 2 A Class II violation “is an incident of noncompliance with an individual Class II standard as described on CF-FSP Form 5316.” Fla. Admin. Code R. 65C-22.010(1)(e)2. “For the fifth and subsequent violation of the same Class II standard, the Department shall suspend, deny, or revoke the license, and shall also impose an administrative fine of $100.00 per day for each such violation.” Fla. Admin. Code R. 65C-22.010(2)(d)2.d. The undersigned finds that the Department established that Ms. McGuire-Moore’s history of owning and operating child care facilities includes repeated ratio violations, which culminated in the revocation of the license for A Step Above Christian Academy, as indicated in the Notice of Intent to Deny Application.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the undersigned hereby RECOMMENDS that the Department of Children and Families enter a final order denying the application for a child care facility license that Ms. McGuire-Moore submitted for Funhouse Learning Academy, LLC. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of October, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT J. TELFER III 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 28th day of October, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Jane Almy-Loewinger, Esquire Department of Children and Families Suite 412 210 North Palmetto Avenue Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 (eServed) Lacey Kantor, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Families Building 2, Room 204Z 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 (eServed) Steven R. Robinson, President Steven R. Robinson, P.A. Suite 300 533 Seabreeze Boulevard Daytona Beach, Florida 32118 (eServed) Javier Enriquez, General Counsel Department of Children and Families Building 2, Room 204F 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 (eServed) Chad Poppell, Secretary Department of Children and Families Building 1, Room 202 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 (eServed)
