The Issue Whether Respondent, a day-care center, committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and if so, the penalties Petitioner should impose against Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the regulatory authority responsible for licensure and enforcement of day-care centers in Florida. Respondent is a day-care center in Miami, Florida, and currently holds child care license C11MD0340. Respondent has operated as a day-care center since April 19, 1990. At the time of the formal hearing, Kevin Lennon was the owner and operator of Respondent. S.B. and L.B. are young sisters who stayed at Respondent’s day-care center in July 2014. On July 9, 2014, one of Respondent’s employees gave S.B. and L.B. a small cup of Cheez-Its as a snack. Mr. Lennon was present when the two girls were sharing the cup of Cheez-Its. After S.B., who is the older and bigger child, finished her share of the Cheez-Its, S.B. began to hit her sister to take her sister’s share of the Cheez-Its. Mr. Lennon separated the two girls and permitted L.B. to eat her share of the Cheez-Its. Mr. Lennon testified, credibly, that he did not take the Cheez-Its from S.B. to punish S.B. Petitioner offered no competent, credible evidence to refute Mr. Lennon’s testimony. On March 25, 2014, Petitioner received from Respondent an “Application for a License to Operate a Child Care Facility” (the application). Mr. Lennon completed the application on behalf of Respondent. The application contained an attestation section that required Mr. Lennon’s signature to be notarized. On March 25, 2014, Petitioner received an attestation section (first attestation section) signed by Kevin Lennon on February 28, 2014. The first attestation section contains Ivanne Albarran’s notary seal and a signature dated February 28, 2014. Mr. Lennon testified, credibly, that he signed the first attestation section as Kevin Lennon. Mr. Albarran testified, credibly, that he signed the first attestation section as the notary public. Petitioner offered insufficient evidence to refute that testimony. The application package contains a second attestation section that was received by Petitioner on March 28, 2014. The second attestation section contains Mr. Lennon’s signature and a date of March 26, 2014. The second attestation section contains Mr. Albarran’s notary seal and a signature dated March 28, 2014. Mr. Lennon testified, credibly, that he signed the second attestation section as “Kevin Lennon.” Mr. Albarran testified, credibly, that he signed the second attestation section as the notary public. Petitioner offered no competent, credible evidence to refute that testimony.
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 dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of January, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 January, 2015. COPIES FURNISHED: Howard J. Hochman, Esquire Law Offices of Howard J. Hochman 7695 Southwest 104th Street, Suite 210 Miami, Florida 33156 (eServed) Karen A. Milia, Esquire Department of Children and Families 401 Northwest Second Avenue, Suite N-1014 Miami, Florida 33128 (eServed) Paul Sexton, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Families Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Rebecca Kapusta, Interim General Counsel Department of Children and Families Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 (eServed) Mike Carroll, Secretary Department of Children and Families Building 1, Room 202 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 (eServed)
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 At issues are whether Respondent committed the violation alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Department is authorized to regulate child care facilities pursuant to sections 402.301-402.319, Florida Statutes. Section 402.310 authorizes the Department to take disciplinary action against child care facilities for violations of sections 402.301-402.319. Ms. Hall owns and operates the child care facility doing business as Children of Liberty pursuant to License Number C04DU0101. The facility is located at 232 East 19th Street, Jacksonville, Florida. Ms. Hall testified that she has operated the facility for 21 years. C.R. was born on October 21, 2013. C.R. was four years old on August 27, 2018, the date of the event that precipitated the investigation in this case. L.S. is the mother of C.R. She enrolled C.R. at Children of Liberty from November 2017 through early August 2018. As of August 9, 2018, L.S. withdrew C.R. from Children of Liberty in order to enroll him in “big boy school,” i.e., the voluntary pre-kindergarten (“VPK”) program at North Shore Elementary School (“North Shore”). Because of his age, C.R. was not yet eligible to attend kindergarten in a Florida public school. See § 1003.21(1)(a)2., Fla. Stat. Therefore, C.R. was not a “school-age child” for purposes of Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C-22.008, or the “School-Age Child Care Licensing Handbook” adopted by reference therein. Supervision of C.R. was governed by the Department’s “Child Care Facility Handbook,” adopted by reference in rule 65C-22.001(6). L.S. is a full-time nursing student during the week and works at Panera on the weekends. She testified that her only support system in Jacksonville is her grandparents, both of whom are in precarious health. L.S. stated that it would be very difficult for her to take C.R. to VPK given her school schedule. She was hesitant to place C.R. on a school bus at his young age. She had hoped that her grandparents would be able to help her get C.R. back and forth from the North Shore VPK program, but her grandfather told her that he was unsure of their ability to do so. After discussing the situation with Ms. Hall, L.S. re- enrolled C.R. at Children of Liberty because Ms. Hall agreed to take C.R. to and from his VPK program. L.S. would drop off C.R. at Children of Liberty at 7:30 a.m. C.R. would be given breakfast and then be driven to VPK by 8:00 a.m. Ms. Hall then would pick up C.R. in the afternoon and keep him at Children of Liberty until L.S. could pick him up at 4:30 p.m. North Shore requires its students to wear uniforms. The uniform for North Shore is royal blue, navy blue, or white shirts, and black, khaki, or navy blue pants. Parents sometimes send their children to school out of uniform, but the school sends reminders home to inform the parents of the correct uniform colors. Children are not sent home for being out of uniform. C.R.’s first day of being transported to North Shore by Ms. Hall was August 27, 2018. L.S. brought C.R. to Children of Liberty that morning. C.R. was dressed in the uniform for North Shore. L.S. testified that she had made it clear to Ms. Hall that C.R. was attending North Shore. L.S. was taken aback that morning when Ms. Hall mentioned that C.R. would be attending Andrew Robinson Elementary School (“Andrew Robinson”). L.S. corrected Ms. Hall, reminding her that C.R. was going to North Shore. Ms. Hall said, “That’s right, that’s right.” Ms. Hall denied that any such conversation took place and denied that L.S. ever told her that C.R. was attending North Shore. Ms. Hall testified that when L.S. first broached the subject of C.R.’s needing school transportation, she told L.S. that she drove only to Andrew Robinson. Ms. Hall believed that L.S. understood that Andrew Robinson was the only option for transportation from Children of Liberty to school. Ms. Hall testified that on two occasions prior to August 27, 2018, L.S. asked her to pick C.R. up from school in the afternoon. On both occasions, Ms. Hall drove to Andrew Robinson and did not find C.R. there. She assumed that C.R.’s grandparents had picked him up. Ms. Hall stated that she had no reason to believe she had driven to the wrong school because she never heard a complaint from L.S. about her failure to pick up C.R. C.R.’s enrollment form at Children of Liberty indicated “Andrew Robinson” as the school attended by the child. However, this form was completed by L.S. well before she enrolled the child in VPK. The “Andrew Robinson” notation was made later, apparently by Ms. Hall, and is therefore at best indicative of Ms. Hall’s state of mind on August 27, 2018.2/ Ms. Hall drove another child, K.A., to Andrew Robinson every morning. K.A. was born on January 12, 2013. She was five years old on August 27, 2018, and eligible to attend kindergarten at a Florida public school. Therefore, K.A. met the Department’s definition of a “school-age child.” On the morning of August 27, 2018, K.A. was wearing the uniform of Andrew Robinson. The Andrew Robinson uniform varies depending on the day of the week, but the uniform shirts are required to bear the school’s logo. However, as with North Shore, children are not sent home or disciplined for failing to wear the correct uniform. On this day, the Andrew Robinson uniform was green or pink shirts with khaki, blue, or black pants. Ms. Hall testified that she generally pays little attention to the uniforms the children are wearing. Her experience is that children often go to school out of uniform. The Children of Liberty transportation log for August 27, 2018, shows that C.R. and K.A. left the child care facility at 8:15 a.m. It is undisputed that Ms. Hall was driving the children in a van. Billing records for Ms. Hall’s cell phone show that she phoned or attempted to phone L.S. at 8:15 a.m. on August 27, 2018. The call lasted one minute. Ms. Hall phoned or attempted to phone L.S. again at 8:16 a.m. This call lasted two minutes. Ms. Hall had no explanation for why she phoned L.S. at the precise time she was also driving C.R. to school. She speculated that she must have been returning a call from L.S., but produced no documentation to support her theory. The Children of Liberty transportation log indicates that Ms. Hall dropped off C.R. and K.A. at Andrew Robinson at 8:18 a.m. Ms. Hall testified that she pulled up at the front of the school, made sure that the school patrol and teachers were at the drop-off point, and dropped off the children. Ms. Hall stated that C.R. told her that he knew where to go. She did not personally hand the child off to responsible school personnel at the drop-off point. Ms. Hall’s practice of dropping off the students was acceptable under Department standards for K.A., who was a school-age child. See Section 2.5.2, “Driver Requirements,” of the School-Age Child Care Licensing Handbook. However, C.R. was not a school-age child. Ms. Hall was required by Department standards to directly place C.R. into the care of an authorized individual from the school. See Section 2.4.1E of the Child Care Facility Handbook. Ms. Hall claimed that Department rules prevented her from leaving the van to ensure that an authorized individual took over supervision of C.R. However, the Department standard referenced by Ms. Hall requires only that the correct staff-to- child ratio be maintained during transportation. See Section 2.5.4.C of the Child Care Facility Handbook. Because Ms. Hall was dropping off both of the children in her van, nothing prevented her from exiting the van to make sure that C.R. was received by an authorized individual at the school. Had Ms. Hall escorted C.R. onto the Andrew Robinson campus, she likely would have learned the child was not enrolled at that school. The school patrol at Andrew Robinson realized that C.R. was not a student there. They brought C.R. to school staff, who took him to the main office. They looked through the child’s backpack and found paperwork indicating C.R. was enrolled at North Shore. They contacted their counterparts at North Shore, who in turn contacted C.R.’s family. L.S. testified that she learned of the situation from her grandmother, who had received the call from North Shore. She was not sure why they called her grandmother first, but shortly thereafter she got a call from the principal of North Shore. L.S. was informed that the school could not undertake the liability of transporting C.R. and that she would have to pick him up at Andrew Robinson and deliver him to North Shore. She drove to Andrew Robinson and picked up C.R., then headed to Children of Liberty to find out why Ms. Hall dropped her child off at the wrong school. C.R. was at the wrong school for at least an hour before his mother picked him up. Ms. Hall testified that L.S. cursed and threatened her bodily harm upon her arrival at Children of Liberty, although no physical altercation took place. L.S. conceded that she was very angry and used inappropriate language, though she said much of her anger was due to Ms. Hall’s refusal to take responsibility for taking C.R. to the wrong school. L.S. never took C.R. back to Children of Liberty after August 27, 2018. Ms. Hall testified that she believed C.R. was enrolled at Andrew Robinson. Her phone calls to L.S. during the drive to the school raise the question of whether she was in doubt about the matter. Her alteration of C.R.’s enrollment form, and her unlikely story about her two attempts to pick up C.R. at Andrew Robinson, also call into question her good faith belief that the child attended Andrew Robinson. As she stated repeatedly, Ms. Hall had no reason to drop off the child at the wrong school. Nonetheless, Ms. Hall took on the responsibility for C.R.’s safe transport to and from his VPK. Even giving full credit to her good intentions does not change the fact that she left C.R. at the wrong school and, in so doing, failed to supervise the child in accordance with the standards set forth in the Department’s rules and Child Care Facility Handbook.
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 finding that Respondent provided inadequate supervision in violation of Section 2.4.1E of the Child Care Facility Handbook, and imposing a fine of $250.00 upon Terri Hall, d/b/a Children of Liberty Child Care Center. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of May, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 1st day of May, 2019.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner is entitled to the renewal of her license as the operator of a child care facility.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was licensed to operate a child care facility continuously from December 31, 1985, through June 30, 1997. Several licenses issued by Respondent to Petitioner were provisional due to Respondent's concerns about Petitioner's compliance with various statutes and rules governing child care facilities. (References to Respondent include the predecessor agency to the Department of Children and Family Services.) On June 5, 1997, Respondent notified Petitioner that it would not renew her child care facility license when it expired on June 30, 1997. Presumably because Petitioner timely requested a hearing, Respondent allowed her to continue to operate her facility past June 30. However, on July 3, 1997, Respondent issued an order of emergency suspension pending review of the decision not to renew. Petitioner has not since operated her child care facility. The two major issues in this case involve Petitioner's repeated failures to employ sufficient staff to satisfy the staff-to-child ratios and repeated failures to ensure that staff directly supervise all children. Although these standards are related in purpose, the staffing-ratio standard requires that a certain number of staffpersons be responsible for a maximum number of children, with a lower ratio for younger children, and the direct-supervision standard requires in most instances that a staffperson be in the same room as the children. As a result of 31 facility inspections, Respondent identified 40 violations of these two standards. Five of these inspections resulted in Respondent filing administrative complaints, in response to which Petitioner eventually paid relatively small fines. The remaining 26 inspections resulted in nothing more serious than Respondent issuing warning letters. The first Administrative Complaint, which is dated February 8, 1993, alleges that Respondent conducted inspections on August 9 and September 22, 1992, and found each time insufficient staff to satisfy the required ratio of staff to children. The Administrative Complaint alleges that Respondent sent Petitioner a letter on October 2, 1992, warning that further infractions of the staffing ratio could result in a fine, but Respondent's inspectors found on December 16, 1992, another staffing-ratio violation, as well as a direct-supervision violation. The Administrative Complaint seeks a fine of $30. Petitioner did not contest the allegations of the February 8 Administrative Complaint. Instead, she paid the $30 fine on April 19, 1993. Respondent filed another Administrative Complaint dated June 9, 1993. The Administrative Complaint alleges that a 15-year-old staffperson had not undergone the necessary screening. Three months later, Respondent converted the Administrative Complaint to a warning due to Petitioner's confusion concerning the screening requirements applicable to such a young staffperson. Respondent filed a third Administrative Complaint on December 9, 1993. The Administrative Complaint alleges that, on November 17, 1993, three staffpersons were supervising 37 children, in violation of the staffing ratios and Petitioner's licensed capacity. Issuing a warning as to the capacity violation, Respondent sought a $75 fine for the staffing-ratio violation. Petitioner did not contest the December 9 Administrative Complaint. Instead, she paid the $75 fine on February 17, 1994. Respondent filed a fourth Administrative Complaint on February 17, 1995. The Administrative Complaint alleges, among other things, that Petitioner did not have a sink with the required number of compartments to allow the kind of food preparation that she was undertaking at the facility. The parties settled this allegation without the imposition of a fine or other discipline. Respondent filed a fifth Administrative Complaint on May 23, 1996. The Administrative Complaint alleges that Petitioner's employees propped up three feeding bottles for infants. The Administrative Complaint seeks a $50 fine. Petitioner paid the $50 fine on June 27, 1996. Respondent filed the sixth and seventh Administrative Complaints on February 11 and 26, 1997. Petitioner contested these allegations, as well as the allegations contained in an eighth Administrative Complaint dated March 18, 1997. All three complaints were consolidated for a single hearing. The partial final order resulting from the hearing on the three complaints imposed $400 in fines against Petitioner for two violations of the staffing ratios (alleged in the February 11 Administrative Complaint), one violation of the staffing ratios (alleged in the February 26 Administrative Complaint), and one violation of the direct-supervision requirement (alleged in the February 26 Administrative Complaint). The partial final order dismissed the March 18 Administrative Complaint and remanded allegations of inadequate training of staff. (The administrative law judge declined the remand, and the Respondent has appealed the order declining remand.) In addition to the above instances of violations of staffing ratios or direct supervision, Respondent also proved numerous other instances of violations of these two minimum- care standards. Respondent proved that Petitioner violated the following minimum-care standards: May 7, 1986 (staffing ratio); May 13, 1987 (staffing ratio and capacity limit); June 20, 1987 (staffing ratio); November 18, 1987 (staffing ratio); April 14, 1988 (staffing ratio); May 6, 1988 (staffing ratio); June 7, 1988 (staffing ratio); August 16, 1988 (staffing ratio); May 16, 1989 (staffing ratio and direct supervision); March 2, 1990 (staffing ratio); June 22, 1990 (direct supervision); October 2, 1990 (staffing ratio); October 5, 1990 (staffing ratio and direct supervision); November 5, 1990 (staffing ratio and direct supervision); November 8, 1990 (staffing ratio); November 15, 1990 (staffing ratio); May 14, 1991 (direct supervision); December 16, 1992 (staffing ratio and direct supervision); March 26, 1993 (staffing ratio); April 7, 1994 (staffing ratio and direct supervision); June 29, 1994 (direct supervision); July 28, 1995 (staffing ratio and direct supervision); December 6, 1995 (staffing ratio); January 28, 1997 (staffing ratio and direct supervision); February 17, 1997 (staffing ratio and direct supervision); June 25, 1997 (staffing ratio); and June 30, 1997 (staffing ratio). Respondent issued inspection reports for all of the violations listed in the preceding paragraph and provided Petitioner with copies of this documentation. Respondent periodically wrote letters to Petitioner advising her of the legal requirements as to staff ratios and direct supervision. Respondent repeatedly offered Petitioner technical advice regarding these crucial minimum standards for the provision of child care. There is no possibility that Petitioner did not understand the staffing-ratio and direct-supervision requirements. Petitioner's noncompliance constituted nothing less than defiance of these two minimum-care requirements over a period of 11 years. From 1986 through 1990, Petitioner violated these two standards 16 times. In 1991, she violated them only once. However, she violated them three times in 1992--resulting in the first administrative fine for the violation of these standards. Petitioner violated these standards twice in 1993--the second violation resulting in the second administrative fine for the violation of these standards. Petitioner violated the staffing-ratio and direct- supervision standards twice in 1994 and twice in 1995, but not at all in 1996. However, she violated these standards six times in 1997, including twice after the issuance of a third administrative complaint concerning the violation of these standards. These last two, particularly ill-timed violations, led directly to the decision not to renew her license and the later decision not to allow her to operate pending review of the nonrenewal decision. Although Petitioner has greatly reduced the number of her violations of the staffing-ratio and direct-supervision standards, she has nonetheless refused to comply with these important requirements designed to ensure the safety of the children for whom she is caring. Her violation of these standards while cases were still pending over earlier violations betrays a hardened resolve not to comply with these two standards. Respondent also proved that Petitioner repeatedly violated other requirements, such as for timely screening of employees and recordkeeping. However, Petitioner's repeated failures to comply with the staffing-ratio and direct- supervision requirements are sufficient to warrant the denial of her application for renewal of her license or, in the alternative, the revocation of her license.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Family Services enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for renewal of her child care facility license. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of April, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of April, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce A. Tischler Greene & Tischler, P.A. 10175 Six Mile Cypress Parkway Suite 4 Fort Myers, Florida 33912 Eugenie G. Rehak District Legal Counsel Department of Children and Family Services Post Office Box 60085 Fort Myers, Florida 33906 Gregory D. Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Richard A. Doran, General Counsel Office of the General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Whether Respondent, Tender Loving Care Christian Learning Academy, violated section 402.305(4), Florida Statutes (2012),1/ and Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C-22.001(4)(a), regarding proper staff-to-child for a child care facility; and, if so, the appropriate penalty. Whether Respondent violated section 435.04(1), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C-22.006, by not having proper documentation of Level II background screening for a staff member; and, if so, the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact The Department is statutorily charged with the licensing and regulation of child care facilities. See § 402.301, et seq., Fla. Stat.; and Fla. Admin. Code R. ch. 65C-20 and 65C-22. Respondent operates a child care facility located at 1234 North Martin Luther King, Jr., Avenue, Lakeland, Florida, and holds state license number C-10PO0380. On August 27, 2012, Ms. Richmond, an investigator for the Department inspected Respondent's child care facility. The inspection was the result of a complaint made against Respondent that stemmed from a child custody dispute. Ms. Richmond arrived at Respondent's facility at approximately 2:40 p.m., where she saw six children being cared for by one staff member. Ms. Richmond saw two children asleep in bouncy-seats. One of the children sleeping in a bouncy-seat appeared to Ms. Richmond to be less than one year of age. Ms. Richmond asked the staff member the age of the child, and the staff member told her that the child was six months old. Ms. Richmond informed the staff member that the room was out of compliance for staff-to-child ratio for supervising an infant. The staff member then removed the sleeping child from the bouncy-seat and took the child to the infant room, placing the sleeping child in a crib. The Department did not bring forward any other evidence showing the age of the child that Ms. Richmond believed was less than one year of age. Ms. Ross-Waring credibly testified that the child in question was her grandchild, and that the child's age was over one year of age. Ms. Ross-Waring explained that the child was small for her age because the child had been born prematurely. During the inspection, Ms. Richmond recognized one of Respondent's staff members as a former employee with a different child care facility. Moreover, Ms. Richmond knew that the staff member had a prior disciplinary history with the other facility. Ms. Richmond testified that staff members with a disciplinary history are required to disclose the prior discipline to the current employer. In order to determine if the staff member had disclosed the prior discipline, Ms. Richmond reviewed Respondent's employment file for the staff member. In reviewing the employment file, Ms. Richmond found that the staff member's records contained Level II background screening from the Agency of Health Care Administration (AHCA), but not one from the Department. Ms. Richmond informed Ms. Ross-Waring, the owner and operator of the child care facility, and Ms. Poe, the director of the child care facility, that the staff member did not have the proper documentation. As a result, the staff member immediately left the premises, and did not return until she secured the Level II background screening from the Department. The staff member obtained the required background screening and returned to work on August 30, 2012, two days after the inspection. Ms. Ross-Waring explained that she believed that the background check provided by the AHCA addressed the same information required by the Department. Therefore, she relied upon the AHCA background check. A past inspection of Respondent's child care facility dated October 7, 2011, resulted in the finding that Respondent did not have background screening documentation for a staff member, D.S., despite D.S. being hired on August 15, 2011. Respondent did not dispute the finding of the lack of proper documentation. As a means of correcting the error, the Department provided Respondent with technical support concerning the required proper background screening documentation. Respondent's failure to have the proper background screening documentation at the August 28, 2012, inspection was Respondent's second violation within two years.
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 finding that: Respondent did not violate section 402.305(4) and rule 65C-22.001(4) concerning the staff-to-child ratios; and Respondent violated rule 65C-22.010, failure to keep proper records, and that Respondent be fined $50.00 for non- compliance pursuant to rule 65C-22.010(1)(e)2.b. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of April, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S THOMAS P. CRAPPS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of April, 2013.
The Issue Whether Respondent, a licensed child care facility, committed two Class I violations as alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, the appropriate penalty, including whether Petitioner may terminate Respondent's participation in the Gold Seal Quality Care program.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating child care facilities in the state in Florida. StarChild is a licensed child care facility located in Apopka, Florida. StarChild is designated as a Gold Seal Provider and has a contract with the Early Learning Coalition to provide school readiness services. As a designated Gold Seal Quality Care Provider, StarChild is subject to the provisions of section 402.281, Florida Statutes. In order to obtain and maintain a designation as a Gold Seal Quality Care provider, a child care facility must not have had any Class I violations, as defined by rule, within the two years preceding its application for designation as a Gold Seal Quality Care provider. § 402.281(4)(a), Fla. Stat. "Commission of a Class I violation shall be grounds for termination of the designation as a Gold Seal Quality Care provider until the provider has no Class I violations for a period of two years." § 402.281(4)(a), Fla. Stat. 1 By agreeing to an extended deadline for post-hearing submissions beyond ten days after the filing of the transcript, the parties waived the 30-day timeframe for issuance of the Recommended Order. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 28-106.216. As of the date of the final hearing, StarChild had never had a Class I violation. The May 5, 2020, Incident At all times relevant to this case, CJ was a two-year-old boy who attended StarChild. On May 5, 2020, CJ, along with several other children and two teachers, were in a two-year-old classroom at StarChild. The actions of the children and a teacher, Ms. Crisman, were recorded by a surveillance camera mounted in the room. The factual allegations in the Administrative Complaint are primarily based on an incident captured on video. In the video, CJ is seen interacting with other children in the room. The children are all engaged in different activities; some are standing while others are sitting on the floor. CJ stood near a group of children who were sitting on the floor in close proximity to Ms. Crisman, who also sat on the floor. CJ walked up behind another child who sat in front of Ms. Crisman. CJ placed his hands on the other child's shoulders. The other child turned his torso toward CJ, while still sitting, and pushed CJ away from him. This was by no means a hard push. CJ stumbled into a seated position and then immediately thereafter laid on his back. CJ remained laying on his back for approximately five to ten seconds, during which he playfully kicked his feet. Ms. Crisman stood up from her seated position, walked over to CJ, and stood over him. She then grabbed CJ by both wrists and forcefully yanked him off the ground. It is clear from the video that Ms. Crisman used great force when she pulled CJ off the floor—CJ's feet flew up in the air and his head flew back. Ms. Crisman then pulled CJ, by his wrists, approximately ten feet across the room, and placed him in a corner in timeout. CJ sat in the corner clutching his arm. Zuleika Martinez (Ms. Martinez) was one of the two teachers assigned to CJ's classroom. She was not present during the incident, but came back to see CJ sitting in timeout. Ms. Martinez noticed that CJ was favoring one hand over the other. Approximately 30 minutes after noticing this, Ms. Martinez notified Deborah Files (Ms. Files). Ms. Files has been employed by StarChild since March 2005, and has been serving as the Director of StarChild since April 2020. Ms. Files walked over to the classroom to check on CJ and speak to Ms. Martinez. She learned that CJ was holding his arm and he would not use it for play or to eat. Ms. Files brought CJ into StarChild's front-desk area—the area typically used for children who are not feeling well. Ms. Files iced CJ's arm. Shortly thereafter, Ms. Files contacted Shelby Feinberg (Ms. Feinberg). At the time of the incident, Ms. Feinberg was the Executive Director of StarChild. Ms. Feinberg was working remotely and, therefore, not at StarChild's facility. Ms. Files explained to Ms. Feinberg that CJ appeared to be having difficulty utilizing one of his arms. Ms. Feinberg advised Ms. Files to contact CJ's parents. Ms. Files contacted CJ's mother, Meghan Jones, at approximately 11:00 a.m. Ms. Files reported to the mother that CJ was favoring one arm, and that he was not using the other arm at all. Ms. Files encouraged Ms. Jones to pick CJ up. At approximately 12:30 p.m., CJ's father, Kurt Jones (Mr. Jones), arrived at StarChild to pick CJ up. Mr. Jones found CJ in the classroom, lying on the floor. He told CJ to get up. CJ attempted to push himself up off the floor but was unable to do so. CJ appeared to be in pain and unable to support his body weight on his arm. It was clear to Mr. Jones that his son was in pain. Mr. Jones had difficulty getting CJ strapped into his car seat. Mr. Jones drove CJ to their home, which was five minutes away. When at home, Mr. Jones noticed that CJ still appeared to be in pain. Mr. Jones noticed that CJ would not move or touch his arm. He was holding his arm as if it was in a sling. CJ would periodically cry. Mr. Jones grew worried as his son still appeared to be in pain and did not seem to be getting better as time passed. Mr. Jones considered taking CJ to the emergency room but decided against it because of concerns related to the COVID-19 pandemic. He could not take CJ to his primary care pediatrician as there were scheduling difficulties also tied to the COVID-19 pandemic. The family's usual after-hours urgent care pediatrics office did not open until 4:00 p.m. At approximately three or four hours after picking CJ up from StarChild, Mr. Jones, with few options, searched for help on the internet. He researched possible causes of CJ's pain and why he was holding his arm like a sling. After watching several videos, he came across a YouTube video made by a nurse who described a condition called "nursemaid elbow." A nursemaid elbow is a dislocated elbow. The symptoms matched what CJ was experiencing and Mr. Jones determined CJ had dislocated his elbow. The video provided instructions on how to correct the nursemaid elbow. Desperate to help his son who was still in pain, he attempted the procedure to put CJ's elbow back in place. Mr. Jones followed the instructions. He heard a "pop" noise, which was to be expected per the instructions in the video. CJ cried for ten to 15 seconds. Thereafter, CJ regained full mobility of his arm and no longer appeared to be in pain. CJ began acting like his typical self. The next day, Mr. and Mrs. Jones took CJ to his pediatrician. CJ was diagnosed with nursemaid elbow. They were advised that the procedure that Mr. Jones conducted the previous day was the correct one. The Department conducted an investigation of the incident. As part of its investigation, the Department scheduled an examination of CJ by its Child Protective Team (CPT). Margarita Diaz (Nurse Diaz) is a pediatric nurse practitioner who works for CPT. She has been with CPT for three years. She has received extensive training in child abuse. On May 7, 2020, she did a complete head- to-toe examination of CJ. She reviewed the history of CJ's injury provided by CJ's parents and collateral information which included the video of the incident. She diagnosed CJ as having suffered a nursemaid elbow due to child abuse. Nurse Diaz described a nursemaid elbow as a condition that occurs when the ligament in the elbow gets trapped between two bones. When a child's arm is pulled away, the tendon slips down. When the arm goes back into place, the tendon gets stuck between the humerus and the radial bones. When this condition happens, it is usually very painful for the child. The child often presents as protective of the arm and will not move it. Nurse Diaz further testified that the most common mechanism of injury is when a child is pulled. Other mechanisms for injury include swinging or lifting a child by the arm. She testified that a nursemaid elbow is easy to correct and once corrected, a child is back to normal in five to ten minutes. Nurse Diaz testified that her finding of child abuse was based on her observations of the actions of the teacher as shown in the video. She confirmed that the actions of the teacher in the video were consistent with the infliction of a nursemaid elbow injury on CJ. StarChild's Response to Incident When Ms. Martinez reported CJ's injury, StarChild took immediate action to address the situation. They removed CJ from the classroom, tended to his injuries, promptly contacted his parents, and set out to find out the cause of the injury. StarChild administrators watched video footage of the activity leading up to CJ's change in behavior. In reviewing the video, StarChild determined that Ms. Crisman used improper form by lifting CJ by his wrists when moving CJ to the timeout corner. By noon on the same day of the incident, StarChild terminated Ms. Crisman's employment. StarChild then contacted the Department to report the incident. Mr. Jones made a request to review video footage of the incident. Danny King, the owner of StarChild, reached out to Mr. Jones personally and agreed to meet with him and Mrs. Jones to review the video together in person. The parents were informed that Ms. Crisman was terminated. Following the incident, StarChild developed a self-imposed Corrective Action Plan, that included re-training its entire staff. Ms. Feinberg met with all members of the staff and conducted in-person training in small class settings. All staff members were provided StarChild's discipline policy and child interaction policies. Staff members were also required to take a child abuse and training course. StarChild re-wrote its staff handbook to include stronger and clearer language about how children are to be moved and repositioned in the classroom. Additionally, StarChild implemented permanent policy changes which required discussions during weekly staff meetings about behavior and how staff members should positively deal with behavior in the classroom. All staff members were also provided with information on nursemaid elbow, specifically. StarChild has current plans to bring in guest speakers, such as a behavior management professional and a CPT speaker, to further educate their staff members. StarChild acted commendably in response to the incident. It took immediate and comprehensive action to try to reduce the probability of an incident like that occurring again. It must be noted that complete prevention is an impossibility. CJ continued to attend StarChild after the incident. Indeed, he attended StarChild the day after the incident and appeared to be in good spirits. CJ's younger sister was also enrolled at StarChild after the incident, when she was three-and-a-half months old.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Families impose a fine of $100.00 against StarChild and revoke its designation as a Gold Seal Quality Care provider. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of May, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Brian Christopher Meola, Assistant General Counsel Department of Children and Families Suite S-1129 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Lacey Kantor, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Families Building 2, Room 204Z 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 S JODI-ANN V. LIVINGSTONE Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of May, 2021. Lucia C. Pineiro, Esquire Lucia C. Pineiro & Associates, P.A. Suite 309 717 Ponce de Leon Boulevard Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Javier A. Enriquez, General Counsel Department of Children and Families Building 2, Room 204F 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
