Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Princess Roebuck, d/b/a Princess Toddletime Nursery, is licensed by HRS to provide day care services to children in Madison, Florida. Child day care centers, such as that operated by Princess Roebuck, are regulated according to the provisions of Chapter 402, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 10M-12, Florida Administrative Code. Rule 10M-12.002(5)(a)1., prescribes ratios of staff to children according to the ages of the children being supervised. Rule 10M-12.002(5)(a)2. requires and defines direct supervision of children at day care centers. Roebuck has admitted to seven violations of the above rules between February 23, 1982, and October 29, 1985, which are not the subject of the complaint in this proceeding. On January 2, 1986, Darlene Burnette, a representative of HRS, visited Princess Toddletime Nursery, and found one employee supervising 13 children, three of whom were under one year of age. After Ms. Burnette had been at the nursery for several minutes, Ms. Roebuck arrived. She was told by Ms. Burnette that the nursery was in violation of HRS staff ratio requirements, and that because of the prior staff ratio problems, more frequent inspections would be made and that further violations could result in the imposition of a fine. On April 29, 1986, Ms. Burnette conducted a training session to instruct the operators of child day care centers in amendments to Chapter 10M-12 Florida Administrative Code. Ms. Roebuck was present at this meeting. Ms. Roebuck was informed of changes in the administrative rules effective March 1, 1986, governing the operation of child day care centers. Specifically, Ms. Burnette informed the day care center operators of the ratios set out in Rule 10M-12.002(5)(a), Florida Administrative Code. Ms. Burnette also informed the day care operators about the direct supervision requirement of subsection 2. of the subject rule. Copies of the rules discussed at this training session were provided to those in attendance. On May 8, 1986, Ms. Burnette visited Princess Toddletime Nursery. There she counted 20 children, three of whom were under two years of age. Only one staff member, Sally Hall, was present when Ms. Burnette arrived. On this visit, Ms. Burnette also observed children napping in separate rooms at opposite ends of the nursery. From no vantage point in the room could Sally Hall, alone, have supervised or directly observed children in both rooms. Ms. Roebuck arrived at the nursery on May 8, 1986, some 15 to 20 minutes after Ms. Burnette. Until the arrival of Ms. Roebuck, there was only one staff member to supervise the 20 children who were on the premises.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent, Princess Roebuck, d/b/a Princess Toddletime Nursery, be assessed an administrative fine of $75.00 per violation for the two violations alleged, for a total fine of $150.00. THIS Recommended Order entered this 30th day of January, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of January, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-3018 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner Accepted. Accepted. Rejected, as not a proposed factual finding, but a conclusion of law. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected, as not a proposed factual finding, but argument. 7.-16. Accepted. Rejected, as not a proposed factual finding, but argument. Accepted. 19.-20. Rejected, as not proposed factual finding, but argument. 21. Rejected, as not relevant. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent Accepted. Accepted. 3.-4. Rejected, as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Accepted. Rejected, as irrelevant. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: John R. Perry, Esquire 2639 North Monroe Street Suite 200-A Tallahassee, Florida 32303 J. R. Zant, Esquire Post Office Box 14 Madison, Florida 32340 William Page, Jr., Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Steven W. Huss General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue addressed in this proceeding is whether Respondent's child care facility license should be disciplined for alleged violation of chapter 402, and if so the appropriate penalties. Neither party timely submitted Proposed Recommended Orders.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Donna J. Downing owns and operates a child care facility known as the Downing House, located at 8508 Lorento Street, Panama City, Florida. The child care facility is also her family's residence. She lives with her husband, son, and daughter who help operate the facility and who have been successfully screened by HRS. Ms. Downing was licensed in 1985 and holds a currently valid license. Her license is endorsed to allow her to operate her facility during nighttime hours. In April 1988, HRS became concerned that the operation of the Downing House into the night was proving too much for the husband and wife team, since HRS regulations require an adult to be present and awake during the night. HRS, therefore, inquired of the Downings concerning their proposed arrangements to ensure the presence of an awake adult. In order to continue to operate into the night, Respondent assured HRS that either she or her husband would be awake during the night while children were present on the premises. However, the evidence established that Respondent and her husband did not always live up to Respondent's representation to HRS. A standard mode of operation by Respondent was for both she and her husband to retire in the evening, leaving the front door unlocked so that the children's parents could pick up their children without disturbing the Downings. However, occasionally one of the Downings would stay up with the children. On May 5, 1988 a two year old male child was left at the Downing House by his mother for nighttime caretaking. At approximately 11:00 - 11:15 pm., Mr. and Ms. Downing had gone to bed. There were three children present at the Downing House when the Downings retired, including the two year old male child. The three children were asleep when Ms. Downing left them in the living room. No other adults were present. Ms. Downing had made arrangements for her adult son to look after the children when he got home from work. He was expected home at about 11:30 p.m. The son arrived home at approximately 11:40 p.m. When he arrived there were two children present. No method had been established by Respondent to advise her son of the number of children who should be present when he arrived home. He therefore did not realize that one child was missing. The son laid down on the couch in the living room and went to sleep. Sometime between the Downings going to bed and the arrival of their son, the two year old male child awakened, opened the front door and left the house. The child then unlatched the front yard gate and headed down Lorento Street towards its intersection with Laurie Lane. He then proceeded down Laurie Lane. At approximately 11:15 p.m., Denise Albert was driving down Laurie Lane. About two tenths of a mile from the Downing House, at 2414 Laurie Lane, Ms. Albert saw the missing child walking down the unlit and unpaved road. He was barefoot and in his pajamas. Ms. Albert stopped and questioned the child for 15 or 20 minutes. She could not obtain any information. She therefore called the Sheriff's office. Officer Troy Johns was dispatched at 11:30 p.m. The officer picked the child up from Ms. Albert and drove him around the neighborhood, including Lorento Avenue. The child could not or would not identify where he had come from and would not give his name. The child was more interested in the officer's gun and vehicle than in his surroundings. The officer took the child to the Sheriff's station and called HRS. Debra Young an HRS protective services investigator took the call and picked the child up from the Sheriff's office. She also could not establish the child's identity or address. She placed the child in a foster home. At 4:11 a.m. the Sheriff's office received a phone call in reference to a missing male child from the Downing House. The missing child was the child the Sheriff's office had turned over to Ms. Young. The Sheriff's office contacted Ms. Young. Mother and child were reunited the next morning. The call to the Sheriff's office from the Downing House had been prompted when the child could not be found after a search. The search ensued when, at approximately 3:00 a.m., the mother arrived to pick up her son. She discovered his absence and woke Respondent's son who in turn woke Mr. and Ms. Downing. One child remained. A second child had been picked up at approximately 2:30 a.m. by that child's mother. The son did not awaken and was not aware that the second child had been taken from the room in which he was asleep. The Downings searched the neighborhood for the missing child, including checking the Lagoon which is within a few blocks of the Downing House. The call to the Sheriff's office located the child. From 1985 until May 1988, Respondent was cited for the following violations of chapter 402, F.S. and the rules related thereto: September 3, 1985 Two gates in the play yard were left unlocked making it possible for children to have access to the road, in violation of Rule 10M-12.003(4)(b), Florida Administrative Code, in that this was an obvious hazard. Medicine was left on the kitchen cabinet within the children's reach, in violation of Rule 10M-12.003(1) and (d), Florida Administrative Code. April 22, 1986 Cleaners were on the washer and dryer within the children's reach and Lysol and Windex were on the kitchen cabinet with food within the children's reach, in violation of Rule 10M-12.003(1)(b) and (d), Florida Administrative Code. No fire drills, in violation of Rule 10M-12.003(8)(a), Florida Administrative Code. October 1, 1987 Clorox, detergent, charcoal, briquettes, pliers, plastic bags, cigarette and cough drops were out at several locations throughout the facility and within the children's reach, in violation of Rule 10M-12.003(1)(b) and (d), Florida Administrative Code. An iron was left with the cord hanging over the table within the children's reach making it possible for the iron to be reached and pulled down on top of a child, in violation of Rule 10M- 12.003(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code. March 23, 1988 A medicine bottle containing medicine and tanning accelerator within the children's reach were located inside the facility and rose dust, Progreen, Spectracide ant killer and touch up paint were at several locations on the porch at the main entrance within the children's reach, in violation of Rule 10M-12.003(1)(b) and (d), Florida Administrative Code. Suntan lotion and tanning accelerator and three sand filled milk cartons, all located on the patio at the back of the house leading to the play yard and all within the children's reach, in violation of Rule 10M-12.003 (1)(b) and (d), Florida Administrative Code. The gate to the play yard was unlocked allowing children access outside the play area, in violation of Rule 10M- 12.003(4)(b), Florida Administrative Code. The store room containing a lawn mower and other tools and hazardous materials was left unlocked, in violation of Rule 10M-12.003(4)(b) , Florida Administrative Code in that it was an obvious hazard, with the children having access to said store room. A throw rug was on the steps leading to the patio and was not secure making an obvious hazard, in violation of Rule 10M-12.003(4)(b), Florida Administrative Code. To Respondent's credit, all of the above violations were corrected within the time frames established by HRS. No fines were ever levied on the Respondent for the above violations. Also, to Respondents credit, the evidence disclosed that Respondent is generally a good caretaker of children.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services revoke the nighttime operation endorsement on Respondent's license and impose an administrative fine of $1000. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of March 1989, in Tallahassee, Lean County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 14th day of March, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: John L. Pearce, Esquire 2639 North Monroe Street Suite 200-A Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Donna J. Downing 8508 Lorento Street Panama City, Florida 32407 R. S. Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Whether Respondent, in November 2006, violated child care facility licensing standards relating to supervision set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C-22.001(5), as alleged by the Department of Children and Family Services (Department) in its December 15, 2006, letter to Respondent. If so, whether Respondent should be fined $1,000.00 for this violation, as proposed by the Department in the aforesaid December 15, 2006, letter.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: At all times material to the instant case, including Thursday, November 16, 2006, Respondent operated a child care facility located at 780 Fisherman Street in Opa Locka, Florida (Facility) pursuant to a license issued by the Department, which was effective June 10, 2006, through June 9, 2007. On November 16, 2006, J. D. was one of nine children between the ages of 12 and 23 months in the Facility's Wobbler/Toddler class. Two properly credentialed Facility staff members, Charnette Muldrow and Barry Thompson, were assigned to oversee the children in the class that day. Cheryl Smith is now, and was at all times material to the instant case, including November 16, 2006, the Facility's office manager. Among her various responsibilities is to make sure that state-mandated staff-to-child ratios are maintained in each of the Facility's classrooms. To this end, she has placed posters in the classrooms indicating what these "appropriate ratios" are and that they "must be maintained at all times." In addition, she "do[es] counts [of staff and children in each classroom] every hour on the hour." She did these "counts" in J. D.'s Wobbler/Toddler classroom on November 16, 2006, and each time found the staff-to-child ratio to be "correct" (one staff member for every six children). Sometime around noon on November 16, 2006, a Facility staff member brought J. D. to Ms. Smith's office. J. D. was not crying, although she had a roundish red mark on her right cheek that she had not had when her mother had dropped her off at the Facility earlier that day. "It looked like ringworm to [Ms. Smith] at first." There were no discernible "puncture wounds," nor was there any blood. The staff member who had brought J. D. to the office explained to Ms Smith that J. D. had "bumped her face" on the "corner cabinet in the classroom." After administering first-aid to J. D., Ms. Smith attempted to contact J. D.'s mother, J. F., by telephone. She was unable to reach J. F., but left a message at J. F.'s workplace. J. F. returned Ms. Smith's call at 12:54 p.m. and was told by Ms. Smith that J. D. had "bumped her head on a cabinet while playing, and she ha[d] a little bruise," but was "doing fine." J. F. left work at 4:30 p.m. and went directly to the Facility to pick up J. D. Upon arriving at the Facility, J. F. first went "upstairs" to see Ms. Smith, who told her "about the incident and what [had] happened." J. F. then went to retrieve J. D. (who was "downstairs"). It did not appear to J. F., when she examined the mark on J. D.'s cheek, that the mark was "from the cabinet." In her opinion, it looked like J. D. had been bitten by "somebody,"4 a view that she expressed upon returning to Ms. Smith's office. Ms. Smith replied, "There's no biters in here.5 Nobody bit J." Before leaving the Facility with J. D., J. F. signed an Accident/Incident Report that Ms. Smith had filled out. According to the completed report, on "11/16/06 at 12:00 noon," J. D. "was playing with . . . toys and bumped her face on the corner cabinet," leaving a "red mark on the right side of her face"; Mr. Thompson was a "[w]itness[] to [the] [a]ccident/[i]ncident"; the injured area was treated with "antiseptic spray[,] triple antibiotic ointment and a cold compress"; and a message was left with J. F. "to call school." J. F. took J. D. directly from the Facility to the Skylake office of Pediatric Associates, a pediatric group practice to which J. D.'s regular pediatrician belonged. J. D.'s regular pediatrician was unavailable that evening, so J. D. saw someone else,6 who gave her a signed and dated handwritten note, which read as follows: To whom it may concern The injuries on [J. D.'s] cheek and back are consistent with a human bite. Please investigate.[7] Thank you. J. F. reported to the local police department, as well as to the Department, that J. D. had been injured at the Facility. J. F. provided this information to Ian Fleary, the Department's childcare licensing supervisor for the north area of the southeast zone, during a visit that she made to Mr. Fleary's office late in the afternoon on Friday, November 17, 2006. J. F. brought J. D. with her to Mr. Fleary's office and showed Mr. Fleary the red mark on J. F.'s cheek, as well as three other, less visible marks on J. F. (one on her cheek, beneath the red mark; one on her lower back; and one on her right forearm).8 Mr. Fleary took photographs of all four marks.9 Mr. Fleary asked one of his subordinates, Linda Reiling, to "address [J. F.'s] complaint as soon as possible." Ms. Reiling, accompanied by Mr. Fleary, went to the Facility on Monday, November 20, 2006, to investigate J. F.'s complaint. Ms. Reiling and Mr. Fleary interviewed Facility staff members, including Ms. Muldrow and Mr. Thompson.10 Ms. Muldrow stated that she had gone to the restroom, having asked another staff member "to watch the children" in her absence, and first "saw the mark on [J. D.'s] cheek" upon her return to the classroom. Mr. Thompson advised that he was "on lunch break at the time the incident occurred."11 No one to whom Ms. Reiling and Mr. Fleary spoke at the Facility "admitted seeing [J. D.] being bitten." Based on her investigation, Ms. Reiling was unable to determine, one way or another, whether the staff-to-child ratio in J. D.'s classroom was "correct" on "[t]he day of the incident," but she did find that there was a "lack of supervision." Ms. Reiling prepared a written complaint documenting this finding and provided it to Ms. Smith. Meloni Fincher, a child protective investigator with the Department, also investigated the matter. She was assigned the case on November 17, 2006, after the incident had been reported to the Florida Abuse Hotline. Ms. Fincher began her investigation by visiting J. F. and J. D. at their home that same day (November 17, 2006), some time after 4:00 p.m. During her visit, Ms. Fincher observed that J. D. had "bruises to her cheek, her back, and [also] her arm." Ms. Fincher was unable to determine the nature or cause of these injuries, so she made arrangements for J. D. to be seen on November 21, 2006, by a University of Miami Child Protection Team physician. Ms. Fincher went to the Facility on November 21, 2006, but was unable to speak to any staff members about the incident at that time. She returned to the Facility on December 7, 2006. This time, she interviewed Ms. Muldrow, Mr. Thompson, Ms. Smith, and Dawnise Mobley.12 None of the interviewees claimed to be an eyewitness to the incident, having personal knowledge of what happened to J. D. After receiving a copy of the Child Protection Team's "medical report," which contained the team's determination that J. D. had "bite marks at different stages [of] healing [which were] consistent with another child [having] bit[ten] [her]," Ms. Fincher, on December 12, 2006, "closed the case" finding "[v]erified indicators of inadequate supervision."13 The evidence received at the final hearing does not allow the undersigned, applying a clear and convincing competent evidence standard, to reach the same conclusion that Ms. Fincher and Ms. Reiling did regarding the adequacy of the supervision J. D. received at the Facility on November 16, 2006. While the evidence is sufficient to support a finding that J. D. suffered a single (red) mark on her right cheek while at the Facility that day, it does not clearly and convincingly establish that she was being inadequately supervised at the time. Inferring that Respondent failed to provide J. D. with adequate supervision based on the mere fact that she received this mark while in Respondent's care is unwarranted, absent a clear and convincing showing (enabling the undersigned to conclude, with a firm belief and conviction and without hesitancy) that a toddler would not receive such a mark while at a child care facility in a classroom setting like J. D. was in unless there was a lack of adequate supervision.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a final order dismissing the "inadequate supervision" charge made in its December 15, 2006, letter to Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of October, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER 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 11th day of October, 2007.
The Issue The issue is whether to deny Respondent's application to renew its child care facility license and impose an administrative fine for the reasons stated in the Department's letter dated September 16, 2016.
Findings Of Fact Ms. Garcia operated a child care facility at 5600 Old Cheney Highway, Orlando, for almost two years. A probationary license expired on September 21, 2016. This proceeding concerns Ms. Garcia's application for renewal of her license. The Department has regulatory authority over the licensing of child care facilities. To ensure compliance with regulations, the Department conducts periodic inspections of licensed facilities. Unless violations are observed during an inspection, the Department's Orlando office annually conducts two routine and one license renewal inspection of each of the 395 licensed facilities in Orange and Seminole Counties. If a license is placed on probation because of violations, inspections are made at least once a month during the probationary period to ensure the deficiencies are corrected. Violations by a licensee of Department rules or a statute are treated as Class 1, 2, or 3 violations. A Class 1 violation is the most serious, as it "pose[s] an imminent threat to a child including abuse or neglect and which could or does result in death or serious harm to the health, safety or well- being of a child." Fla. Admin. Code R. 65C-22.010(1)(d). For example, it is a Class 1 violation for a facility operator to allow unsupervised individuals who have no current background screening to be with children. This is because all child care personnel must have a current Level 2 background screening performed before they begin work in the facility. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 65C-22.006(4)(d)1. In 2015, Respondent's facility was inspected on at least four occasions: January 13, March 20, May 18, and August 11. On each occasion, violations of Department rules and relevant statutes were observed. Because the first three inspections were performed by a non-Spanish speaking counselor, Ms. Garcia requested that her facility be inspected by a counselor who spoke Spanish. In June 2015, the Department assigned Roy Garcia (no relation to Ms. Garcia) to perform future inspections, as he is bi-lingual. Later, Ms. Garcia expressed her dissatisfaction with Roy Garcia as well. On January 15, 2016, Roy Garcia conducted an inspection of Respondent's facility. Based on violations observed during the inspection, on February 19, 2016, the Department issued an Administrative Complaint seeking to impose a $270.00 fine. See Dep't Ex. 2. The Administrative Complaint cited the following violations observed during the inspection: Two violations of sections 402.302(3) and (15) and 402.305(2) and Florida Administrative Code Rule 62C-22.006(4)(d) by failing to perform required background screening for two employees. Two violations of rule 65C-22.006(d) and (e) by failing to have background screening documents in the staff files. Three violations of the staff/ratio rule, as required by section 402.305(3) and (4) and rule 65C-22.001(4). Two violations of section 402.302(3) and rule 65C-22.001(5) by allowing a volunteer to supervise children without a qualified employee being present. Four violations of rule 65C-22.006(2) by failing to have student health examinations on file. Four violations of rule 65C-22.006(2) by failing to have required student immunization records on file. At hearing, Ms. Garcia took the position that the charges were not warranted. However, in April 2016, she paid the $270.00 fine. Even though the Department informed her that she could request a hearing, a request was not filed. Therefore, the agency action became final. On April 29, 2016, Roy Garcia conducted another inspection of the facility. Based on violations observed during the inspection, on June 30, 2016, the Department issued an Administrative Complaint seeking to impose a $125.00 fine and to convert her annual license to probationary status, given the number of recurring violations during the preceding year. See Dep't Ex. 3. The Administrative Complaint cited the following violations observed during the inspection: Three violations of section 402.305(3) and (4) and rule 65C-22.001(4) by failing to maintain a ratio of two staff personnel for each five infants under one year of age. One violation of rules 65C-22.006 and 65C-22.010 for failing to have background screening documents and employment history checks in the facility files. At hearing, Ms. Garcia disagreed with the merits of these charges. However, in August 2016, she paid a $125.00 fine. Even though the Department informed her she could request a hearing to contest the charges, a request was not filed. Therefore, the agency action became final. A probation-status license was issued on July 31, 2016, with an expiration date of September 21, 2016, which coincided with the date on which her original annual license expired. See Dep't Ex. 4. A probation-status license is issued for a short period of time during which the licensee must come back into compliance. See § 402.310(1)(a)2., Fla. Stat. On August 4, 2016, Ms. Garcia filed an application for renewal of her license. Because the license was on probation, follow-up inspections of the facility were conducted by Roy Garcia on August 26, 29, 30, and 31, 2016. Multiple inspections were conducted because he believed the safety of the children was at risk. Although Ms. Garcia contends these inspections constituted an "abuse of authority," the Department routinely performs follow-up inspections if a facility's license is on probation. Multiple violations were observed during these inspections. See Dep't Ex. 1. They included the following: Four Class I violations of section 402.305(2)(a) by allowing unscreened individuals to be left alone to supervise children in the facility's care. These violations call for a fine of $400.00, or $100.00 per violation. Three Class 2 violations of rule 65C- 22.002(3)(a) by failing to maintain 20 or 35 square feet per child in areas occupied by children. These violations call for a fine of $180.00, or $60.00 per violation. Three Class 2 violations of section 402.305(4) and rule 65C-22.001(4)(a) and (b) by failing to maintain a sufficient staff to children ratio. These violations call for a fine of $300.00, or $100.00 per violation. Two Class 2 violations of rule 65C- 22.006(4)(d)1. by failing to have Level 2 background screening documentation on file. These violations call for a fine of $150.00, or $75.00 per violation. Two Class 2 violations of rule 65C- 22.006(4)(d) by failing to have employee CF- FSP Form 5131 on file. These violations call for a fine of $150.00, or $75.00 per violation. Two Class 2 violations of rule 65C- 22.006(4)(d)2. by failing to have employment history checks on file. These violations call for a fine of $150.00, or $75.00 per violation. One Class 2 violation of rule 65C- 22.003(2)(a) for a facility employee having not completed the 40-clock-hour Introductory Child Care Training. This violation calls for a fine of $75.00. One Class 3 violation of rule 65C- 22.006(2)(a) and (d) by failing to have on file student health examinations for all children enrolled in the facility for at least 30 days. This violation calls for a fine of $40.00. One Class 3 violation of rule 65C- 22.006(2)(c) and (d) by failing to have on file immunization records for all children enrolled in the facility for at least 30 days. This violation calls for a fine of $40.00. The Department's letter of September 16, 2016, proposes to impose an administrative fine in the amount of $1,565.00. See § 402.310(1)(a)1., Fla. Stat. Ms. Garcia did not challenge the amount or manner in which the fine was calculated. Rather, she contends the charges were not justified and therefore no fine should be imposed. However, by clear and convincing evidence, the Department has proven the allegations described in its letter. After each inspection, Roy Garcia explained the nature of each violation and how it must be corrected in order to comply with Department rules. Despite his efforts to help Ms. Garcia, repeat violations were observed. Unscreened individuals were supervising the children on two of the four days. Therefore, it was necessary for Roy Garcia to call the parents and ask that they come to the facility and pick up their children. After observing staff ratio violations on August 29, Roy Garcia returned the next day and observed the same violation. He also observed unsupervised volunteers alone with children three times (August 29, 30, and 31) during the same week.2/ When Roy Garcia asked Ms. Garcia why she was not following his instructions, she would argue with him, deny that any violation occurred, and contend he was out to shut her down and discriminate against her because she was an "entrepreneurial woman." While conceding that she made "mistakes," Ms. Garcia contended Roy Garcia was harassing her and simply trying to find violations when he inspected the facility. She also contends the violations were not serious, were technical in nature, and did not threaten the safety or welfare of the children. However, Class 1 violations were repeatedly observed. Ms. Garcia stressed the fact that her family is dependent on the income she derives from operating the facility, and she will not be able to support her family if the license is not renewed. She added that she is now in limbo on whether to prepay the rent on the building where her current facility is located. Had the facility been operated in compliance with Department rules, these concerns would not be present. Ms. Garcia also contended that Roy Garcia would not allow her husband, Elmer, to substitute for a missing teacher. However, Elmer works in the kitchen, drives a facility vehicle, and at that time did not have the minimum training necessary to qualify as a facility employee who supervises children. Ms. Garcia further contended she was never given appropriate training on how to determine if a prospective employee has current background screening, especially since she has very few computer skills. This assertion is contrary to the accepted evidence, as she could have simply called the Department's Orlando office to verify the eligibility of prospective employees or volunteers before they were hired. Notably, even after a series of administrative complaints were issued concerning unscreened employees/volunteers, as of January 5, 2017, four persons who had worked or volunteered at the facility still had no Level 2 background screening. Ms. Garcia presented the testimony of four mothers whose children used the facility when the license was active. All were pleased with the care of their children. They especially appreciate the fact that the facility is open until midnight, is located in an area convenient to where they live or work, and charges less than other child care facilities in the area.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Families enter a final order denying the application to renew Respondent's license and imposing an administrative fine of $1,565.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of February, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of February, 2017.
