The Issue Was Petitioner properly disqualified from working in a position of special trust pursuant to Section 435.04, Florida Statutes, on the basis of a July 21, 1996, incident? If Petitioner was properly disqualified as a result of the July 21, 1996, incident, has she been sufficiently rehabilitated so as to be eligible for an exemption to work in a position of special trust, pursuant to Section 435.07(3), Florida Statutes?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was licensed through Leon County as a family home day care provider in 1995. Since 1996, she has been operating her family day care home pursuant to an exemption from disqualification by a 1973 disqualifying felony (manslaughter). Petitioner is a high school graduate. She was schooled and certified in New York as a nurse technician. She is certified as a home health aide in Florida. When she sought to renew her license in 2000, Petitioner was required to sign an Affidavit of Good Moral Character. The 2000 Affidavit of Good Moral Character read: By signing this form, I am swearing that I have not been found guilty or entered a plea of guilty of nolo contendere (no contest), regardless of the adjudication, to any of the following charges under the provisions of the Florida Statutes or under any similar statute of another jurisdiction. I also attest that I do not have a delinquency record that is similar to any of these offenses. I understand I must acknowledge the existence of criminal records relating to the following list regardless of whether or not those records have been sealed or expunged. I understand that I am also obligated to notify my employer of any possible disqualifying offenses that may occur while employed in a position subject to background screening under Chapter 435, Florida Statutes. The 2000 Affidavit then listed a number of offenses and the corresponding statute numbers. Among the offenses listed were: Sections 741.30 domestic violence and injunction for protection. 784.03 battery, if the victim was a minor. The 2000 Affidavit is DCF's attempt to paraphrase Section 435.04, Florida Statutes, listing disqualifying offenses. It is flawed and could be misleading because domestic violence can occur without an injunction for protection. Petitioner signed the 2000 Affidavit on January 25, 2000, in the portion declaring herself free of any disqualifying statutory violations and also signed the Affidavit in the portion stating, "To the best of my knowledge and belief, my record may contain one or more of the foregoing disqualifying acts or offenses." Petitioner testified in the instant case that she did not divulge the July 21, 1996, incident on her 2000 Affidavit because she did not think it constituted domestic violence, but why she signed contradictory statements was not explained. Petitioner's day care license was renewed, despite Petitioner's contradictory declarations on her 2000 Affidavit. She was notified of her disqualification when the five-year background screening turned-up an offense that had occurred on July 21, 1996. The Year 2000 background screening results which DCF received from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement indicated that Petitioner had been found guilty of "battery," on the basis of the July 21, 1996, incident. The Department's Background Screening Coordinator then obtained additional documentation from the file of the Leon County Court. Based on the information in the court file, the Department's District II Office concluded that Petitioner was disqualified because of a "domestic battery" offense. Petitioner exhausted informal procedures and timely requested an evidentiary hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (2000). The instant case followed. The instant case is the second occasion Petitioner has appeared before the Division of Administrative Hearings requesting an exemption from disqualification to work in a position of special trust. The first occasion Petitioner appeared before the Division occurred in September 1996, when she sought an exemption because she had been disqualified due to her 1973 felony manslaughter conviction in New York. Petitioner had failed to disclose the 1973 felony conviction on her 1995 affidavit when she first applied to be a child care worker.1 That disqualifying offense showed-up in the initial screening procedures applicable to such applicants. Petitioner was granted an exemption for the 1973 manslaughter conviction in Harris v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, DOAH Case No. 96-2010 (Recommended Order entered September 10, 1996; Final Order entered October 30, 1996), as more fully described below in Findings of Fact 34-36. She has been a licensed day care provider ever since. In 1996, Petitioner and Frank Fields had a romantic involvement bounded by Mr. Fields' keeping most of his belongings at his sister's apartment and merely sleeping over at Petitioner's home two to three nights per week, on a sporadic basis.2 On these occasions, he brought with him, and occasionally left in Petitioner's home, only his underwear and some music CDs. At all times material, Frank Fields was an adult male. Although younger than Petitioner, he was not a minor. On July 21, 1996, Petitioner, who was then 47 years old, was two months' pregnant with Frank Fields' child. She testified that at that time she was very upset and confused because of her pregnancy; because Mr. Fields was not helping with household expenses; and because she had heard that Mr. Fields was moving from his sister's apartment to an apartment of his own. On July 21, 1996, Petitioner was driving her car on Blountstown Highway. She noticed Mr. Fields' van and also noticed that there was a female in the passenger's seat of the van. Apparently, Petitioner believed that Mr. Fields was romantically involved with his female passenger. Petitioner had one adult daughter; the adult daughter's three children, all under the age of nine years, and her own eight-year-old daughter with her in her car. According to Petitioner's testimony, none of the four children in her car were young enough to require a car seat and none of her day care children were in her car. According to the police officer who later arrested Petitioner, there were six "children" in the back seat of Petitioner's car, not six people in the whole car. Regardless of this discrepancy in testimony, it is undisputed that there were no car seats and insufficient car safety belts for the number of passengers in Petitioner's car on July 21, 1996. Without approving either Petitioner's motivation or her reasoning, I find credible her testimony that she would not have taken her next actions had there been any day care children in her car because if day care parents found out about it, Petitioner could be "put in jeopardy"; she "could be in a lot of trouble"; and she would not have had day care children with her over a weekend. July 21, 1996 was, in fact, a Sunday. In making the immediately foregoing Finding of Fact, I have not overlooked Ms. Brantley's testimony that on occasion Petitioner has kept Ms. Brantley's children in Petitioner's home on nights and weekends while Ms. Brantley traveled. However, even assuming arguendo, but not ruling, that six rather than four children were in Petitioner's car on July 21, 1996, there is no direct evidence that any of them were also day care clients. Petitioner drove her car, filled with passengers, following Mr. Fields' van. Mr. Fields turned onto Nekoma Lane and pulled over to the side of the road. Petitioner pulled over and intentionally bumped her car into the back of Mr. Fields' van. Petitioner and Mr. Fields exited their respective vehicles, and Petitioner demanded to know who Mr. Fields' female passenger was, even though Petitioner knew the passenger was named "Melissa." Some screaming ensued, and Petitioner and Mr. Fields "tussled," hitting and scratching each other. Petitioner and her adult daughter testified that they did not know who struck the first blow. The non-hearsay evidence is insufficient to establish that on this occasion Petitioner left a bite mark on Mr. Fields' arm. When Mr. Fields began to wield a stick he had picked up from the side of the road, Petitioner's adult daughter got between him and her mother. Petitioner then drove her car, still containing its passengers, so as to follow Melissa, who had walked around the corner. Petitioner then "had a conversation" with Melissa. There is no evidence that the children were anywhere except inside Petitioner's car during either her confrontation with Mr. Fields or with Melissa. When the police arrived on the scene, Petitioner was arrested for battery and for driving with a suspended driver's license. The suspended license charge arose because, when questioned by the police, Petitioner gave her name as "Veronica L. Wynn." Petitioner's legal name was, in fact, "Veronica Harris." Petitioner also told the officer that her date of birth was September 19, 1959, and that she lived at 2106 Monday Street. Petitioner's true date of birth is September 19, 1949, and her true address was 1229 Elberta Street. When the officer could not find a driver's license record for "Veronica L. Wynn," Petitioner told him that the name on her license might be "Veronica Lee Harris Wynn." After she gave him the name "Veronica Lee Harris Wynn," the officer found Petitioner's driver's license record and learned that her driver's license had been suspended. Petitioner had recently been divorced and had "gone back" to her maiden name, but she testified herein that on July 21, 1996, she deliberately gave incorrect information to the police because she knew her driver's license was suspended and the police were going to check on it. Mr. Fields was provided with a pamphlet explaining his right to request domestic abuse protection and prosecution. Apparently, he did nothing about it. Petitioner was charged, in an Information which recited the statutory language of both Subsections 784.03(1) (a) and (b), Florida Statutes (1995), with "battery (M1)," meaning "first degree misdemeanor battery." The Information cited only "Section 784.03, Florida Statutes," for that offense. The Information also charged Petitioner with "driving while license suspended or revoked (M2)" also a misdemeanor, under Section 322.34(1), Florida Statutes (1995). On August 28, 2000, Petitioner entered a "no contest" plea to both charges. Petitioner was adjudicated guilty of misdemeanor battery and was ordered to serve 12 months of probation with the following conditions: (1) no contact with Frank Fields; (2) $155.00 court costs; and (3) $100.00 fine. She was also required to pay a monthly supervision fee while on probation and a fee for the services of the public defender. There was no charge, plea, or sentence stating "domestic violence" or citing a domestic violence statute. Petitioner was not required to attend a batterers' intervention program, pursuant to Section 741.281, Florida Statutes. No evidence was presented to show that the sentencing court had made written, factual findings that attendance at a batterers' intervention program would be an inappropriate condition for her probation. Petitioner's probation was terminated in December 1997. Petitioner miscarried her child conceived of Frank Fields before a live birth. Petitioner's emotional connection with Mr. Fields seems to have terminated with the July 21, 1996, incident. At the September 9, 1996, formal exemption hearing in Harris v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, DOAH Case No. 96-2010 (see Finding of Fact No. 12) Petitioner and her witnesses did not divulge that six weeks earlier, on July 21, 1996, Petitioner had been arrested for her altercation with Frank Fields or that less than two weeks earlier, on August 28, 1996, Petitioner had pled "no contest" to battery of Frank Fields. Petitioner testified in the instant case that she did not divulge the July 21, 1996, incident during the 1996 formal exemption proceeding before the Division because "it was not part of my day care home and had nothing to do with day care children."3 The Recommended Order in DOAH Case No. 96-2010 observed that "Petitioner, now a grandmother, testified tearfully to her errant behavior at the age of 21, over 24 years ago in New York. Petitioner has never been charged with any legal violation since that time, with the exception of traffic tickets . . .since the [1973] incident, . . . Petitioner has lived an exemplary life . . . ." That Order recommended granting an exemption. The outcome of the Final Order, entered October 26, 1996, was that Petitioner was exempted from the 1973 felony disqualification.4 Petitioner contends that she never committed "domestic violence" and even if she did, she has been "rehabilitated" since July 21, 1996. She feels that she should be granted an exemption because she is sorry for what she did; because if she had been thinking, she would not have done it; and because she loves her day care children. Since 1996, Petitioner has operated her family day care home and has pursued her goal of becoming a Master Provider of day care. In order to become a Master Provider, one must have taken the Second Helping Course (a refresher course for experienced day care providers); have either a Child Development Associate Certificate or national accreditation; and have five years' experience. Currently, there are only two Master Providers in Leon County. In 1998, Petitioner received a $500.00 Caring for Kids Mini-Grant which she used to purchase day care toys. In March 2000, Petitioner received a scholarship from the T.E.A.C.H. Early Childhood Project, which she had planned to use to take classes at Tallahassee Community Hospital towards her Child Development Associate certification. Petitioner has put this project on "hold" during the pendancy of the instant case. In May 2000, Petitioner completed the Second Helping Course. In Leon County, only approximately 20 family home day care providers have taken this course. In 2000, Petitioner received a $275.00 Caring for Kids Mini-Grant which she used to help pay for her Second Helping Course. Petitioner was selected to receive a Kids Incorporated Infant/Toddler Initiative Grant of $3,000, which she intended to use to purchase toys and equipment for her day care home. Petitioner was hand-picked by Kids Incorporated because of her genuine love and concern for the children and because Kids Incorporated felt that Petitioner only needed additional toys and equipment in order to improve her day care home. However, because of the instant case, Kids Incorporated has not yet disbursed this money to Petitioner. Kids Incorporated wants to be assured the money will go to someone who will be a day care provider for the long-term. Petitioner has volunteered for the school readiness program sponsored by Kids Incorporated, which has resulted in additional visits and evaluations of her day care home. Her day care children have all scored "above average" in the program. Katherine Schmidt, a Family Child Care Specialist with Kids Incorporated, testified that she has evaluated and assessed Petitioner's day care home in her capacity with Kids Incorporated and during the period she was helping Petitioner obtain the grants mentioned above. Ms. Schmidt believes Petitioner is an excellent day care provider and would not be a danger to the children in her care. Ms. Schmidt also believes Petitioner would be a benefit to the children and their families. The Leon County Home Day Care Providers Association and Support Group meets monthly, and Petitioner regularly attends. Two day care providers wrote letters in support of Petitioner. Cicely Brantley is a professional music education teacher in Leon County's public school system. Ms. Brantley's two children attend Petitioner's family day care home. She has seen Petitioner briefly at least five days per week for the last two years. Ms. Brantley's older child is two and one-half years old and has been in Petitioner's day care home since he was nine months' old. Her younger child is 15 months old and has been in Petitioner's day care home since she was eight weeks old. Ms. Brantley testified that she trusts Petitioner with her children and that she trusts and values Petitioner's judgment when it comes to the children. Ms. Brantley often asks Petitioner's advice about parenting, discipline, and health issues involving her children. Ms. Brantley testified that other than her husband, Petitioner is the person she trusts the most with her children and that Petitioner goes above and beyond what most day care providers would do, both in education and care. Ms. Brantley was aware of the battery incident that occurred between Petitioner and Mr. Fields, but it did not change her opinion of Petitioner. She does not believe that Petitioner would ever be a danger to her children. Ms. Brantley really does not want to have to find other child care if Petitioner is unsuccessful in getting an exemption, and it is apparent that this concern has influenced her testimony. Versee Hoffman is a Pioneer with the Jehovah's Witnesses. This means that she has committed to serving 70 hours per month with her ministry. Ms. Hoffman met Petitioner approximately five years ago through church. Ms. Hoffman and Petitioner studied the Bible together periodically. At that time, Ms. Hoffman felt that Petitioner was not really committed to the church or its moral standards, and their studies ended. Thereafter, Ms. Hoffman did not see Petitioner for approximately two years. In early 1999, Petitioner approached Ms. Hoffman and told Ms. Hoffman that she wanted to renew their Bible studies. Ms. Hoffman agreed, and they have been studying the Bible together weekly ever since. Ms. Hoffman testified that the Jehovah's Witnesses expect their members to attend five weekly meetings and that Petitioner consistently attends those meetings. Ms. Hoffman testified that Petitioner has grown spiritually and personally since Ms. Hoffman first met her five years ago. Ms. Hoffman believes that Petitioner is truly committed to leading a spiritual life and to meeting the Jehovah's Witnesses' moral standards against violence. Ms. Hoffman believes that Petitioner will continue to meet these standards.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Children and Family Services enter a final order determining that Petitioner is not disqualified from working in a position of special trust solely on the basis of her 1996 battery conviction. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of November, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 13th day of November, 2000.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence allegations contained in its Proposed Revocation of Respondent's Family Day Care License No. 907 dated January 21, 2004.
Findings Of Fact Based upon observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, exhibits admitted into evidence, stipulations and arguments of the parties, evidentiary rulings made pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes (2003), and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant and material facts are determined: The Parties Petitioner is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating child care facilities, including family day care homes. Petitioner routinely conducts inspections of licensed family day care homes to determine whether the home is in compliance with the applicable statutes and rules. Any problems found during the inspections are noted on a report, which is provided to the home’s operator immediately following the inspection. When appropriate, the inspection report provides a time frame within which the problems must be corrected. Regular inspections are conducted approximately twice a year. More frequent inspections--monthly or every six weeks-- are conducted on family day care homes that have a provisional license rather than a standard license. Petitioner also conducts inspections in response to complaints it receives, and it has the authority to inspect family day care homes at any time without notice. Respondent is the provider and licensed owner of a licensed family day care home located at 965 Waldon Avenue in Bartow, Florida (hereinafter “Respondent’s facility” or “the facility”). Respondent’s facility consists of a family residence with a connecting door to the converted garage. The number of children Respondent may have in “care” each day depends upon: (1) the ages of the children in care and (2) the number of qualified caregivers available to supervise the children in various age groups. This restrictive requirement, referred to as the “child care ratio,” is mandated by statute, the violation of which creates a dangerous situation and a dangerous condition for the safety and well-being of the children in care. The Inspection and violations On March 12, 2003, Respondent’s facility was inspected by Gloria Mathews (Ms. Mathews) and Tricia Step (Ms. Step), and several areas of non-compliance were identified during this inspection. The following non-compliant items were noted on Petitioner’s Family Child Care Home Inspection Checklist: unsafe storage of materials dangerous to children was observed in the bathroom drawers, litter was observed in areas where children play, equipment or plumbing not in working order (item was a baby crib and toilet with tissue the children had not flushed), no operable smoke detector or fire extinguisher, the surface of the diaper changing area was not impermeable, no record of fire drills for the past six months, and an up-to-date and age-appropriate immunization record was missing for one child. Two other non-compliant items, Ipecac not labeled with poison control phone number and seven pre-school age children ages 12 months and older were in the facility. Respondent may provide care to only six children in this age group. The extra child was taken home, and this item was corrected at the time of inspection. On December 18, 2003, Respondent’s facility was inspected by Ms. Mathews and Ms. Step, and the following non- compliant items were noted on the Family Child Care Home Complaint: Respondent had 18 children in the facility three of which were infants. Respondent was not present at the time of inspection, and the substitute caregiver was in charge. Petitioner could not determine whether screening of the substitute caregiver, Elizabeth Ricks, had been completed. Ms. Mathews and Ms. Step remained at Respondent’s facility until the parents picked up their children. James Hayes (Mr. Hayes), Respondent’s husband, took one child home. On January 21, 2004, Petitioner informed Respondent by certified mail of the proposed revocation of her family day care license initially issued in March 2002. Petitioner alleged that the decision to revoke Respondent’s license to operate a family child care facility was based on her failure to ensure that the children' substitute caregivers were adequately screened and because Respondent's home was over capacity and out of ratio. The notice stated: On December 18, 2003, there were eighteen (18) children in your day care home. Three (3) of the children were under the age of twelve (12) months. With 3 infants in your care, your license permits you to care for a maximum of six (6) children. The number of children in your home far exceeds the number of children allowed. During an inspection on March 12, 2003, seven (7) preschool age children ages 12 months and older were observed in your home. You are permitted six (6) children in this age group. This violates section 402.302(7), F.S. You also failed to insure [sic] that the substitute care persons in your home caring for children were properly screened in accordance with section 402.313, Florida Statutes. At the final hearing, Petitioner’s inspectors, Ms. Mathews and Ms. Step testified that when they arrived at Respondent’s facility on December 18, 2003, Mr. Hayes was in the facility. Based upon the testimony of the inspectors, Petitioner argued in its post-hearing submittal that Mr. Hayes had not been screened and that he had a criminal record. Petitioner presented no evidence to substantiate the claim that Mr. Hayes had a criminal record. The testimony and argument regarding this issue is hearsay without corroboration and disregarded. Respondent's Evidence Respondent testified that she was out of town on December 18, 2003, and that her substitute caregiver had begun training classes, but apparently had not completed the course and, therefore, had no background check performed. According to Respondent, non-compliant items identified by Petitioner’s inspectors were corrected as soon thereafter as possible. Respondent testified that she was confused regarding the infant and pre-school child-to-caregiver ratio because it was never explained to her in the manner testified to by both Ms. Mathews and Ms. Step. Continuing, Respondent testified that her substitute caregiver(s) had completed the required training and are now qualified to assist her. She contended that submission of the names and certification of training completion had been provided to Petitioner and that she was awaiting Petitioner's response. This testimony was not disputed by Petitioner. Respondent, to counter allegations that her facility and personnel presented a significant or potential risk of harm to the children, provided four testimonial letters from parents who were regular patrons of her facility. Each of the four parents expressed confidence in the assurance of safety and the ready necessity of Respondent’s child care services during the work week and often times during the weekend. Respondent presented photographs of her facility evidencing the facility’s configuration, carpeting, equipment, beds, and other furniture. Respondent testified that Mr. Hayes does not enter the facility during the time children are present. To ensure separation between the family’s living area and the attached rooms used for child care, Respondent installed a door between the room leading from the family’s living area to the anteroom and the garage. Respondent corrected every non-compliant item identified by Petitioner during their two inspections of her facility. Many, if not all, corrections were made when identified; i.e., the clogged toilet was flushed. The non- compliant items, individually or collectively, were minor and did not directly create an unsafe situation for the children in care. These efforts demonstrated a sincere intent and desire to comply with Petitioner's rules and regulations and to continue to provide a safe and necessary family day care home for working parents in her immediate neighborhood. Violations Proven by Petitioner Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence that on March 12, 2003, there were seven preschool children ages 12 months and older in the facility, Family Day Care License No. 907 permits a maximum of six children in care, an amount in violation of Subsection 402.302(7)(c), Florida Statutes (2003). Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence that on December 18, 2003, there were 18 children in Respondent's facility in violation of Subsection 402.302(7)(b), Florida Statutes (2003).
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Finding of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Family Services issue a final order as follows: Finding Petitioner guilty of violating Subsection 402.302(7), Florida Statutes (2003), twice. Finding Petitioner not guilty of violating Section 402.313(3), Florida Statutes (2003). Setting aside the revocation of Respondent's family day care home license. Suspending Respondent's family day care home license until such time that the following conditions are met to the satisfaction of the Department: Respondent's substitute caregivers are identified, trained, qualified, and approved by Petitioner. Respondent demonstrates an understanding of the required child-to-child caregiver ratios. Respondent has trained each of her substitute caregivers on the child-to-child caregiver ratios and provides written instructions to be followed by her caregivers each day when the children in care in a specific age group are out of ratio to the number of caregivers present. That all conditions hereinabove are completed to the satisfaction of Petitioner as the condition for lifting the suspension. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of September 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FRED L. BUCKINE 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 17th day of September, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack Emory Farley, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 4720 Old Highway 37 Lakeland, Florida 33813-2030 Theresa Hayes Arielle's Angel Care 965 Waldon Avenue Bartow, Florida 33830 Paul F. Flounlacker, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204B Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Josie Tomayo, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent should have granted Petitioner a license to operate a family day care home.
Findings Of Fact In January 1992, Petitioner operated a foster home for dependent children. The foster home was licensed by Respondent's predecessor, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (hereinafter referred to as Respondent). In January 1992, Respondent received a report that Petitioner and her husband, Jim Shell, had meted out bizarre and excessive punishments to the children in their foster home. The report also alleged that Petitioner tied the younger foster children into their cribs at night. This report resulted in an investigation by Respondent. In the year prior to the initiation of the investigation, the following children stayed in Petitioner's foster home: H.S. (d.o.b. 4-6-89); S.S. (d.o.b. 10-1-86); T.H. (d.o.b. 5-3-89); S.A.C. (d.o.b. 9-18-88); B.Y. (d.o.b. 11-2-80) and G.Y. (d.o.b. 12-2-82. H.S. and S.S. were sisters. S.A.C., B.Y. and G.Y. were siblings. T.H. was mentally retarded. Petitioner gave B.Y. more household duties in the home than would be expected as chores for a child of her age. These responsibilities included housecleaning, laundry and child care. Additionally, Petitioner often kept B.Y. home from school to do housework. To excuse B.Y.'s absence, Petitioner would write notes to the school, falsely stating that B.Y. had a doctor's note and stayed home sick. B.Y. and G.Y. were forced to do push-ups as punishment for minor infractions. Petitioner's testimony that the children were required to do these push-ups as a joke or game is not persuasive. Mr. Shell spanked G.Y. for mis-reciting spelling words. This occurred once a week. On one occasion, B.Y. observed Mr. Shell hit G.Y. on the buttocks with a two by four. On another occasion, Mr. Shell jerked S.A.C. off a trampoline in the backyard, spanked her and threw her onto the ground. As a result of this rough treatment, S.A.C.'s head struck a tree. Petitioner regularly tied H.S.; S.S.; T.H.; and S.A.C. into their cribs at night because they would get up after being put down for the night. When B.Y. untied the children, Petitioner told her that when the children are tied up, they are supposed to remain that way. There was great strife in the Shell household. Petitioner and her husband often argued. For example, on B.Y's first night in the home, Petitioner hit Mr. Shell on the head with a frying pan. It is contrary to Department policy to physically restrain or punish children in foster care. Foster parents learn this in the training they receive before receiving their foster care licenses. Notwithstanding Petitioner's claim that she is separated from her husband, they continue to live under one roof. The house they live in is on the same property where Petitioner intends to operate a family day care home. The foregoing facts, among others, were set forth in the Respondent's final investigative report, Florida Protective Services System Abuse Report Number 92-007405. On April 22, 1992, the Respondent sent a certified letter to Petitioner informing her that the investigative report had been classified as proposed confirmed, that she had the right to request that Respondent amend or expunge the report, and that any such request would be considered only if received by Respondent within sixty days of her receipt of the April 22, 1992 letter. The letter contained the following language: If you do nothing, your right to appeal the classification of the report will be completely barred. By not choosing [to ask for amendment or expungement], this report will automatically be classified as CONFIRMED. This means that you do not contest the department's right to maintain the report findings as stated, including your identification as a perpetrator. A perpetrator in a confirmed report of abuse, neglect or exploitation may be disqualified from working in certain positions of trust, including working with children, disabled adults or aged persons. (Emphasis supplied). Petitioner signed the acknowledgment of receipt for the April 22, 1992, letter on April 27, 1992. She never requested amendment or expungement of the investigative report. Because neither amendment nor expungement of the report was sought, the confirmed classification became final agency action sixty days after Petitioner's receipt of the letter on April 27, 1992. In other words, the agency action became final on June 26, 1992. No appeal was taken from this action.1 In 1994, the Agency for Health Care Administration granted Petitioner an exemption from disqualification from employment in positions covered by Section 400.512, Florida Statutes. That section discusses the requirement for employment screening, using level 1 standards, for home health agency personnel, persons referred for employment by nurse registries, and persons employed by sitter, companion, or homemaker services registered under Section 400.509, Florida Statutes. The record does not indicate whether the Agency for Health Care Administration conducted an evidentiary hearing before making its decision to grant Petitioner the exemption.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Children and Family Services enter a Final Order denying the application of Petitioner Patricia Shell to operate a registered family day care home. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of November, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 2nd day of November, 1998.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent's license to operate a family day care home should be revoked.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony and evidence received at the hearing, the following findings are made: Parties The Department is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating child care facilities, including family day care homes. The Department routinely conducts inspections of licensed family day care homes to determine whether the home is in compliance with the applicable statutes and rules. Any problems found during the inspection are noted on a report which is provided to the home's operator immediately following the inspection. When appropriate, the inspection report provides a time frame within which the problems must be corrected. Regular inspections are conducted approximately twice a year. More frequent inspections -- monthly or every six weeks - - are conducted on family day care homes which have a provisional license rather than a standard license. The Department also conducts inspections in response to complaints it receives, and it has the authority to inspect family day care homes at any time with or without notice. Respondent is the owner and operator of a licensed family day care home located at 1218 Jordan Avenue in Orlando, Florida (hereafter "Respondent's facility" or "the facility"). Respondent and her husband reside at that address as well. Respondent has operated day care homes in Florida since 1992, and she has been involved in child care for approximately 21 years. As a result, she is or should be familiar with the rules regulating family day care homes. Respondent keeps children in the back portion of her home. The children also play in Respondent's backyard, which is enclosed by an approximately six-foot high wooden fence. A wooden gate in the fence connects Respondent's backyard to the backyard of the house immediately behind Respondent's home. That house has been rented by Annette Rodgers since November 2002. Respondent does not have a pool in her yard. Ms. Rodgers' yard does have a pool, which at the time of the Department's February 27, 2003 inspection (discussed below), was only partially filled with water. Ms. Rodgers' pool is not visible from Respondent's back yard because of the wooden fence and gate. The photographs and videotape received into evidence show that Ms. Rodgers' pool is now completely enclosed by a series of fences.4 The evidence does not clearly and convincingly establish that the fences were not in place on February 27, 2003. Indeed, the weeds and high grass which can be seen along the base of and around the posts of the chain-link fence and the discoloration on some of the fence posts indicate that at least that fence has been in place for quite some time.5 Previous Inspections of Respondent's Facility and Actions Taken by the Department Respondent's facility was inspected on May 28, June 14, and September 30, 2002. Several areas of noncompliance were identified during each of those inspections, including inadequate supervision of children, unsafe storage of chemicals, evidence of roaches in the home, and incomplete enrollment and health records for the children at the home. On each occasion, Respondent was given a period of time within which to correct the areas of noncompliance. The inadequate supervision for which Respondent was cited in June 14, 2002, involved several children playing unsupervised in Respondent's carport area, which has access to the street; several children playing in the backyard under the "supervision" of Respondent's mother, who was not an authorized caregiver; and several children playing unsupervised on the porch area in the vicinity of tools and small screws. The Department issued Respondent a provisional license on October 28, 2002, presumably as part of the license renewal process. The provisional license was based upon Respondent's history of noncompliance with the Department's minimum standards, and it was valid through April 2, 2003, unless Respondent applied for an received a change in license status (which she apparently did not) or "if the license is suspended or revoked by the Department." A provisional license is issued where the Department has continued concerns regarding the day care home's compliance with the applicable statutes and rules. A provisional license is issued in lieu of denying a license renewal or suspending or revoking the home's license. A provisional license gives the licensee an opportunity to correct the areas of noncompliance, and because such homes are inspected more frequently, the Department has an opportunity to monitor the licensee's progress. On October 29, 2002, Respondent was assessed an administrative fine of $100.00 based upon deficiencies identified during the May 28 and June 14, 2002, inspections. The fine was based primarily upon the incident described above involving inadequate supervision of the children at the home. Respondent apparently did not contest the administrative fine or the issuance of the provisional license rather than a standard license. Despite the provisional license and the administrative fine, the Department's inspections continued to identify areas of noncompliance at Respondent's facility. For example, the November 14, 2002, inspection identified "evidence of rodents/vermin in the home" as well as incomplete enrollment and immunization records for the children in the home. The December 18, 2002, inspection identified these same deficiencies, including "live roaches in the children's area and the kitchen," as well as the storage of plastic shopping bags and chemicals which can pose dangers to children in an unlocked cabinet accessible to the children. These violations were the same as or similar to those for which Respondent had been previously cited and which led to the imposition of the administrative fine and issuance of the provisional license. The Department did not take immediate action to suspend or revoke Respondent's license based upon the results of the November 14 and December 18, 2002, inspections. Instead, the Department continued to give Respondent an opportunity to bring her home into compliance with the minimum standards in the Department's licensing rules and statutes. Inspection of Respondent's Facility on February 27, 2003 The Department next inspected Respondent's facility on February 27, 2003. That inspection was conducted by Department employee Brandi Blanchard. Ms. Blanchard had been responsible for inspecting Respondent's facility since at least September 2002, so she was familiar with the layout of the facility and its history of noncompliance. Respondent testified that Ms. Blanchard, unlike the prior inspector, had been "very good to her." Ms. Blanchard arrived at Respondent's facility by car between 8:30 a.m. and 8:45 a.m. As she arrived, Respondent was pulling her car into the driveway/carport at the facility. Ms. Blanchard parked her car directly behind Respondent's car. Ms. Blanchard got out of her car as Respondent was getting out of hers, and she said, "Hello, Ms. Alli," to Respondent. Upon seeing Ms. Blanchard, Respondent quickly went into the house through the carport door. Ms. Blanchard followed Respondent into the facility. Ms. Blanchard lost sight of Respondent as she went down a hallway towards the back of the house where the children were located. The backdoor of the house was open, and by the time that Ms. Blanchard caught up with Respondent, Respondent was directing the children through the facility's backyard towards the back gate connecting Respondent's yard to Ms. Rodgers' yard. Several of the children, led by Ms. Rodgers' 14-year-old son carrying an infant in a car seat and Ms. Rodgers' 13-year-old son carrying a toddler had already reached Ms. Rodgers' yard. Ms. Blanchard told Respondent to stop and return to the facility with the children, which she did. Ms. Blanchard went through the open gate onto Ms. Rodgers' property and directed Ms. Rodgers' sons to return to Respondent's facility with the children, which they did. While on Ms. Rodgers' property, Ms. Blanchard saw a partially-filled swimming pool and other ongoing construction. Ms. Blanchard did not notice any fencing around the pool and saw one of the children, which she estimated to be three or four years old, walking in the construction area close to the edge of the pool. After the children had been returned, Ms. Blanchard assessed the situation and commenced her inspection of the remainder of Respondent's facility. Ms. Blanchard found roach droppings in the bathtub and in other locations in the facility. Respondent acknowledged a roach problem, but claimed that she had an exterminator working on the problem and that he was due to come out and treat the facility. Respondent did not present any documentation to Ms. Blanchard to corroborate her claims regarding the exterminator, nor did she introduce such documentation at the hearing. Ms. Blanchard found plastic bags in an unlocked cabinet accessible to the children. Respondent acknowledged at the hearing that the bags were in the cabinet and further acknowledged the suffocation danger that they posed to young children. Ms. Blanchard's review of the facility's records identified missing enrollment and immunization records for the children in the home. However, Ms. Blanchard did not document the children whose records were missing and she did not determine whether, as Respondent claimed at the time and in her testimony at the hearing, any of the missing records were for students who had enrolled in Respondent's facility within the prior two weeks. Ms. Blanchard documented the results of her inspection, including the events surrounding the movement of the children to Ms. Rodgers' yard on her inspection report. The inspection report identified each of the violations that she observed, including inadequate supervision based upon Respondent's absence from the facility, unsafe storage of materials dangerous to children (i.e., plastic bags) in a location accessible to the children, evidence of roaches, incomplete enrollment and immunization records, and more than the allowed number of children in the home. Ms. Blanchard also cited Respondent's facility for the dangers posed by Ms. Rodgers' pool since the children were being taken onto Ms. Rodgers' property. With respect to the citation for having too many children, Ms. Blanchard's inspection report did not include any detailed information about the children such as their names (or initials), ages, or descriptions. The report simply stated that Ms. Blanchard counted seven children at the facility -- i.e., "3 infants, 3 preschool and 1 school age child." Ms. Blanchard's testimony at the hearing referred to only two infants, which was consistent with Respondent's testimony on that issue. As a result, the evidence is not clear and convincing that there were seven children in Respondent's care at the facility rather than the authorized six children. During the course of her inspection, Ms. Blanchard did not see any adults (other than Respondent, who arrived as Ms. Blanchard was arriving) at the facility. It is undisputed that Respondent's husband, who is the designated substitute caregiver, was not at the facility that morning. There is no credible evidence that Respondent's 22- year-old son, Abdel, was at the facility that morning. He did not testify at the hearing, and, if as Respondent claims, Abdel was at the facility that morning, Ms. Blanchard would have seen him at some point during the commotion surrounding Respondent's rushing the children out the back door or during her subsequent inspection of the facility. In any event, Abdel was not the substitute caregiver designated by Respondent. He was not even authorized to watch the children because, although he had been background screened by the Department, he had not taken the Department's mandatory child care training program and was not certified in cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). It is more likely than not that Ms. Rodgers' teenage sons were actually left to supervise the children at Respondent's facility during the time that Respondent was gone on the morning of February 27, 2003. Indeed, that is the most likely explanation of their presence at the facility and their involvement in the movement of the children to Ms. Rodgers' yard. However, the evidence on this issue is not clear and convincing. Respondent's explanation of her actions on the morning of the inspection -- i.e., that she hurried into the house upon her arrival and directed all of the children to Ms. Rodgers' yard so she could convey an important message to Ms. Rodgers -- is not credible. Her explanation of the roach droppings that Ms. Blanchard found in the bathtub -- i.e., that it was actually dirt from washing one of the children's feet -- is also not credible. By contrast, Respondent's explanation of the incomplete records -- i.e., that the missing records were for those children who had enrolled in the facility within the prior two weeks -- is reasonable. Because Ms. Blanchard's inspection report did not identify the children whose records were missing and did not document the date of their enrollment, the evidence is insufficient to prove this violation. Respondent admitted at the hearing that she "was taking a chance" by leaving the children at the facility without her husband, the designated substitute caregiver, being present. Respondent testified that she was gone only 15 minutes to drop one of her children off at school, and that she follows that same routine every day although her husband is usually at the facility while she is gone. After Ms. Blanchard completed her inspection, she discussed the results with Respondent and provided Respondent a copy of the inspection report. Ms. Blanchard then went back to her office and discussed the results of the inspection with her supervisor, Patricia Richardson. Based upon the results of the February 27, 2003, inspection and the history of noncompliance at Respondent's facility (both before and after the provisional license), Ms. Richardson determined that Respondent's license should be revoked. Thereafter, on February 28, 2003, Ms. Richardson sent a letter to Respondent informing her that her license was being revoked and advising Respondent of her right to "appeal" that decision through the administrative process.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Family Services issue a final order revoking Respondent's license to operate a family day care home. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of June, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II 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 June, 2003.
The Issue The issues in these cases are: whether the Davis Family Day Care Home violated provisions of chapter 402, Florida Statutes,1/ and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 65C-20,2/ and, if so, what penalty should be imposed; whether the Davis Family Day Care Home's renewal application for a license to operate a regular family day care center should be approved or denied; and whether the Davis Family Day Care Home's initial application for a license to operate as a large family child care home should be approved or denied.
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Department is responsible for inspecting, licensing and monitoring child care facilities such as the one operated by the Davis Day Care. It is also the Department's responsibility to ensure that all such facilities are safe and secure for the protection of the children utilizing those facilities. The Department routinely conducts inspections of licensed family day care homes to determine whether the home is in compliance with the applicable statutes and rules. Following such inspections, a report is provided to the operator which provides a time frame to correct any outstanding deficiencies. The Department also conducts inspections or investigations of child care facilities in response to complaints it receives. LaShandra Davis (Ms. Davis) owns and operates the Davis Day Care, a family day care facility licensed by the Department. The Davis Day Care was initially licensed in April 2007 and was in continuous operation at all times material to these issues. No testimony was offered that the facility had prior disciplinary actions against it. Ms. Davis is a nurse, has an associate of science (A.S.) degree in nursing from Polk Community College, and is attending college to obtain an A.S. degree in early childhood education. Additionally, Ms. Davis has five sons and one daughter. Their names include (from youngest to oldest): Layla Davis, Steven Davis, Devondrae Davis, Deshawn Williams, Daniel Williams, and Rafael Davis. No testimony was received regarding Ms. Davis using any other name or names from August 3, 2010, through December 2, 2010.5/ On February 23, 2011, Ms. Davis submitted an application to obtain a license to operate a large family day care home at her current location. On March 15, 2011, Ms. Davis submitted her renewal application to retain her license to operate a family day care home at her current location. October 29, 2010, AC 1 (August 3, 2010, Inspection) On August 3, 2010, the Davis Day Care was subjected to an inspection based on a complaint that it was "over-ratio." This over-ratio issue involves the number of children in the care of a family day care operation to the number of adults providing that care. The Department received a complaint that the facility was seeking meal reimbursements for more children than were allowed for the type of child care license it held. Vicki Richmond (Ms. Richmond) testified that she conducted the inspection on August 3, 2010, and cited the facility for being over the licensed capacity ratio by more than two children. Because the facility was over ratio by more than two children, it was a Class I violation. At that August inspection, Ms. Davis explained to Ms. Richmond that she (Ms. Davis) had a license to provide child care for ten children, and she had ten children in her care. Ms. Richmond explained the ratio requirement to Ms. Davis. Based on the age of the children, Ms. Davis was authorized to have a maximum of ten children provided no more than five were preschool age, and, of those five, no more than two were under 12 months of age. At this August inspection, Ms. Davis was over-ratio by two children. Ms. Davis executed and received a copy of the complaint report prepared on August 3, 2010, that discussed the over-ratio limitations. Three other technical violations were brought to Ms. Davis's attention during that inspection, and two of those violations were corrected immediately. Ms. Davis was given a two-week extension to correct the third violation involving an expired fire extinguisher.6/ Additionally, Ms. Richmond testified that Ms. Davis's mother ("Ms. Jones")7/ was visiting the facility while Ms. Richmond was conducting this August inspection. According to Ms. Richmond, Ms. Jones had been previously screened, but did not meet the Department's standards to be in a child care facility. Ms. Jones should not have been present either for a visit or to be preparing lunches as the testimony revealed. Ms. Richmond recommended to Ms. Davis that it was important to check into getting an exemption for Ms. Jones to be at the facility. Ms. Davis later testified that Ms. Jones had cleared up the screening issue, and both had been told Ms. Jones was allowed to be present at the facility. At hearing, Ms. Davis admitted that she was over-ratio on August 3, 2010. Further, she stated that she "just flat out misunderstood" the adult-child ratio requirement issue until Ms. Richmond explained it to her in August 2010. Ms. Brooks and Mr. Giordano testified that they had each individually explained the ratio requirement to Ms. Davis during prior inspections or discussions at the facility. Although there is some discrepancy between Ms. Davis's recollection and the two witnesses on this point, Ms. Davis admitted this violation and was quite candid about her lack of knowledge with respect to it. Credible testimony from both Ms. Richmond and Shelia Nobles (Ms. Nobles) established that having two or more children over-ratio was a Class I violation, which would subject any child care facility to discipline by the Department. When Ms. Davis received the Department's three-page October 29, 2010, AC 1 advising her of the Class I violation (over-ratio by two or more children) and assessing a $500 fine, she was "shocked." Ms. Davis testified that, at the time of the inspection (August 3, 2010), Ms. Richmond had stated the fine might be $50 or maybe more, leading Ms. Davis to believe the fine would not be that high. AC 1 advised Ms. Davis that the over-ratio issue was a Class I violation of section 402.302(7). AC 1 provided one Department address for two reasons, to pay the $500 fine or to request an administrative hearing. There is no language within AC 1 that advised Ms. Davis of an optional payment plan. Ms. Davis testified she was unaware of a payment plan option, and her only option was to appeal the decision, which she did. Ms. Richmond confirmed that the Department would accept payments as long as the total fine amount was paid in full prior to the next renewal. However, that information was not shared with Ms. Davis until the hearing. Department's March 23, 2011, Proposed Denial Application to Operate a Family Day Care Home (AC 2) and Department's April 11, 2011, Proposed Denial Application to Operate a Large Family Day Care Home (AC 3). Both AC 2 and AC 3 set forth five allegations in support of the Department's denial of the renewal application and the large family child care home application. Two alleged abuse allegations from 2007 and 2008 were included in these administrative complaints; however, as previously stated, no testimony or evidence was offered, presented or substantiated at hearing. Thus, any attempt to reference either the 2007 or 2008 allegations as fact is disregarded as unfounded and not supported by credible testimony or evidence. AC 2 and AC 3 rest on three allegations: the alleged abuse of child E.B., the alleged lying during the investigation of the alleged child (E.B.) abuse, and the inspection conducted on August 3, 2010, regarding the facility being over ratio.8/ Natalie Barton (Ms. Barton), E.B.'s mother, testified that she saw marks on E.B.'s bottom at the end of November 2010 (November 30, 2010) that "could only have occurred at the day care." Ms. Barton testified she picked E.B. up from the facility prior to 5:30 p.m. and discovered the marks on E.B.'s bottom during bath time that evening. Both Ms. Barton and Ms. Davis testified that E.B.'s mother sent a picture of the injury to Ms. Davis via her cell phone the evening the injury was first seen. At that point, Ms. Davis told E.B.'s mother that she (Ms. Davis) didn't know what or how the injury occurred and recommended taking the child to E.B.'s doctor. Ms. Davis had no hesitation in making this recommendation to Ms. Barton. Ms. Barton took E.B. to her (E.B.'s) pediatrician the morning after she discovered the injury (December 1, 2010). However, E.B.'s physician indicated he wanted to see the child in two days, as he could not make a determination what, if anything, had caused the injury as there was no bruising. Ms. Barton also testified that she took E.B. back to the Davis Day Care after she was seen by her pediatrician so she could see how E.B. reacted. While at the facility, E.B. was "in her routine," that she (E.B.) walked in and sat on the couch like she did every day. Ms. Barton did not return E.B. to her own pediatrician for further evaluation. Ms. Barton testified E.B. was seen by the child protective team the day after she was seen by the pediatrician (December 2, 2010). On December 2, 2010, after receiving information about the possible physical abuse of a child (E.B.) (documented as being received at 11:08 p.m. on December 1, 2010), Deanna McCain (Investigator McCain) contacted Ms. Barton to obtain additional information. Investigator McCain also spoke with E.B., who said she had been hit by "Ms. Shawna." After observing E.B.'s injuries and obtaining a photograph of E.B.'s buttocks, an appointment was made for E.B. to be seen by a member of the child protection team, i.e., the nurse practitioner. During the afternoon of December 2, 2010, Nurse Practitioner Connie Fleming (Nurse Fleming) performed a medical evaluation of E.B., a then two-year, nine-month old child. During E.B.'s evaluation, Nurse Fleming noticed bruising on E.B.'s buttocks. When Nurse Fleming asked E.B. what happened, E.B. responded "Ms. Shawn spanked me." Nurse Fleming stated the bruising appeared to be consistent with an outline of a hand. Pictures taken during the medical evaluation reflect red areas on E.B.'s buttocks. Based on her nine-plus years of training and experience as a nurse practitioner, Nurse Fleming determined that E.B. had suffered physical abuse; however, she never stated who caused the injury. Nurse Fleming contended that the injuries were indicative of a rapid-force compression injury, typical of a slap with a hand. Later on December 2, 2010, Investigator McCain went to the facility to investigate the alleged abuse report. Upon her arrival at the location, Investigator McCain had to wait for a local law enforcement officer (LEO) before she could enter the facility. While Investigator McCain waited for the LEO to arrive (between 3:30 p.m. and 4:45 p.m.), she spoke with parents who were picking up their children from the facility. Each parent she spoke with had supportive comments about the facility ("great day care provider," their child had "no injuries," had never seen "inappropriate behavior," "no concerns"). Whether all these comments came from one parent or multiple parents is unclear. Investigator McCain did not observe any injuries to any of the children leaving the facility. Ms. Richmond also went to the facility at approximately the same time as Investigator McCain; however, Ms. Richmond could enter the home without a LEO, and she did so. Ms. Richmond made contact with Ms. Davis and explained there was a complaint. Ms. Richmond's task at the time was to obtain information about the number of children Ms. Davis had in the facility. According to the sign in sheet, there were seven children present, plus Ms. Davis's four-year-old son. Ms. Richmond testified that Ms. Davis initially stated there were four children present, but later a sleeping child was found in a crib, and her (then) four-year-old son ran through the home.9/ Although Ms. Richmond asked for the attendance sheets for the previous month (November 2010), Ms. Davis was only able to provide the attendance sheets for December 1 and 2, 2010.10/ According to Ms. Richmond, those two attendance sheets documented that Ms. Davis's facility was again over-ratio for those two days. When Investigator McCain entered the facility with the LEO, she explained the reason for her presence to Ms. Davis. Investigator McCain testified Ms. Davis was asked how many children were present and together they conducted a "walk- through" of the facility. Investigator McCain testified that, at the time of the walk-through, she was told there were four children present, three toddlers and a small child in Ms. Davis's arms. Investigator McCain also testified that, during the walk-through, they found an additional child sleeping in a crib. She further testified that, at some later point, another young child ran through the facility, and Ms. Davis identified him as her son. On December 2, 2010, Investigator McCain questioned Ms. Davis about the alleged physical abuse of E.B. During the investigation discussion, Ms. Davis reported to Investigator McCain that "she [Ms. Davis] had no idea how they [E.B.'s injuries] occurred." Ms. Davis further reported E.B. was "fully potty trained." Ms. Davis reported that the child had a toileting accident the day before and had cleaned herself. Still, later in the investigation discussion, Ms. Davis told Investigator McCain that she (Ms. Davis) had helped clean E.B. after the toileting accident, but only from the front, and she had not observed E.B.'s buttocks. Ms. Davis also shared with the investigator that when Ms. Davis questioned E.B. about the injury, E.B. said her mother (Ms. Barton) did it (the abuse). At hearing, Investigator McCain testified that Ms. Davis was "very far along in" a pregnancy and that Ms. Davis was upset, shocked, and surprised by the presence of the investigators. Investigator McCain also confirmed that DCF's presence tends to raise anxiety levels and that people feel like they are being attacked. Further, Ms. Davis confirmed that she was two weeks from her delivery due date when this investigation started. Thus, under the circumstances, forgetfulness may be perceived by some as lying, when in reality it is simply being overwhelmed by the situation. As part of the investigation, it was Investigator McCain's responsibility to also check for any hazards in the facility and to ensure adequate supervision of the children. Although Ms. Davis initially reported there were no other adults to supervise the children, she later reported that her mother, Ms. Jones, came each day around 10:15 a.m. to make lunch for the children. Ms. Barton confirmed that Ms. Jones was sometimes present in the mornings when Ms. Barton brought E.B. to the facility. Several technical violations were noted during the December 2010 investigation; however, they are not the subject of this hearing. Ms. Davis testified she did not spank E.B. Ms. Davis testified that she did not know how the injury occurred, and the child's hearsay statement that her mother had spanked her is not supported by other testimony. However, the time lapses between when the injury was alleged to have occurred (the "end of November," or November 30, 2010, according to the mother), when the injury was "discovered" (the night of November 30, 2010, according to the mother), when the alleged abuse was reported (December 1, 2010, at 11:08 p.m.), when the pediatrician's examination occurred on December 1, 2010, and when the child protective team became involved (December 2, 2010), create confusion and doubt as to when the injury actually occurred and by whom. Even taking the thought process to try to find that the events happened a day later does not relieve the doubt or confusion, nor is that supported by the Department's documentation. Investigator McCain testified that this investigation was closed with a verified finding of physical injury to E.B. However, simply finding a "verified finding of physical injury to E.B." does not establish who perpetrated that physical injury. No testimony was provided that any other possible explanation for the injury was explained. Further, other than indicating that E.B. had red marks on her bottom, no testimony was provided that indicated the degree of harm to the child. That being said, this not to say that logic has left the building with respect to some harm being caused to the child. There were marks on E.B.'s buttocks. Several current and former parents of children who attend or attended the Davis Day Care testified on Ms. Davis's behalf. Each testified that they did not have any concerns with their child attending Ms. Davis's facility. On March 11, 2011, after receipt of the facility's application for the large family day care home license,11/ the Department conducted an inspection of the facility and found it to be in compliance with all the licensing standard requirements (including those previously cited during the December 2010 inspection that were corrected). Upon completion of its investigation, the Department determined to deny Ms. Davis's renewal application and to deny her application for a large family day care license, based on "numerous complaints to our office alleging physical abuse of children in your care and Class I violations of licensing standards." There was one verified complaint of abuse, not "numerous complaints" as alleged. There was a Class I violation regarding the over-ratio issue; however, that could have been resolved with better communication skills. The misrepresentation could have been avoided. Neither notification includes any indication that the March 11, 2011, inspection was taken into consideration prior to making the denial decision. The Department presented testimony indicating that there had been past complaints regarding Ms. Davis and/or the facility. However, no documented prior complaints or final orders were submitted with respect to any prior actions.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: With respect to the October 29, 2010, administrative complaint, that a final order be entered by the Department of Children and Families finding that the facility was over-ratio on August 3, 2010, and imposing an administrative fine of $500 with no less than ten months to pay the fine. It is further RECOMMENDED that Ms. Davis be ordered to attend remedial classes on the financial operations and management of a child care facility; With respect to the March 23, 2011, administrative complaint, that a final order be entered by the Department of Children and Families renewing the family day care home license on probation status for six months with periodic inspections to ensure the continued safe operation of the facility; and With respect to the April 11, 2011, administrative complaint, that a final order be entered by the Department of Children and Families finding that the large family child care home application be issued a provisional license for a minimum of six months with periodic inspections to ensure the continued safe operation of the facility, with the ability for an additional six-month provisional period. In the event the large family child care home provisional license is not activated within two months of the issuance of the final order in this matter, a new application shall be required, subject to all the applicable statutory requirements. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of October, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of October, 2011.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner's application for licensure to operate a family day care home should be denied.
Findings Of Fact On June 6, 2008, Petitioner applied for a license to operate a family day care home in Bartow, Florida. As part of the licensure process, the Department is required to conduct an inspection of the home where Petitioner's proposed family day care would be operated. The inspections are conducted by the Department's family safety counselors. Patricia Step was the family safety counselor initially responsible for conducting the licensure inspection of Petitioner's home. On February 20, 2009, prior to conducting the actual inspection, Ms. Step completed a preliminary walk-through of Petitioner's home. The purpose of the walk-through was to advise Petitioner of areas of her home and property that were not in compliance with required standards and needed to be corrected or addressed prior to the licensure inspection. After completing the initial walk-through, Ms. Step listed the areas that needed to be corrected or addressed prior to the licensure inspection in preliminary review notes, which she gave to Petitioner. Those areas were as follows: (1) a fence at least four feet high was needed around the playground area in the backyard; (2) the alarm on one of the two doors in the master bedroom, specifically, the master bathroom door leading to the pool, needed to be repaired; (3) the screen door needed to be locked from the inside so that a child playing outside could not access the swimming pool5; and (4) locks needed to be placed on kitchen cabinets containing cleaning supplies and other harmful items, and knives needed to be placed in upper cabinets. On February 27, 2009, a week after the initial walk-through, Ms. Step conducted a licensure inspection of Petitioner's home. This date was mutually agreed upon by Petitioner and Ms. Step on February 20, 2009, after Petitioner indicated that she could have the four areas of non-compliance corrected or addressed in a week. During the licensure inspection, Ms. Step determined that Petitioner had addressed and/or corrected three of the four items listed in the preliminary review. The one item that had not been addressed was the "pool alarm on the [master bathroom] door" leading to the swimming pool. The alarm on the master bathroom door was part of Brinks' alarm system that included all the other doors in the house which led outside or to the pool area. Petitioner and her husband had this "high tech" alarm system installed after the April 23, 2006, incident discussed below. The alarm system could be programmed to allow each interior door to cause either the alarm to sound or a "chiming sound" when anyone opened the interior door to exit the house. At the time of the inspection, all the interior doors leading to the pool were programmed so that when the alarm system was turned on, the alarm would sound if anyone opened those doors.6 Except for the master bathroom door, the alarm on all the other doors leading to the pool were working properly. Ms. Step recorded the results of the February 27, 2009, inspection on the Department's Inspection Checklist form ("Inspection Checklist"). Of the 38 areas listed on the Inspection Checklist, Ms. Step indicated that Petitioner's application and/or home were non-compliant in two areas-- background screening and swimming pools. In the area of background screening, Ms. Step noted that there was no local criminal background check on file for Carlos Granados, Petitioner's cousin who was temporarily living in Petitioner's household. In the area of swimming pools, Ms. Step noted two areas of non-compliance: (1) the swimming pool at Petitioner's home was not properly maintained; and (2) the "pool alarm" was inoperable. Although the Inspection Checklist noted that the "pool alarm" was inoperable, Ms. Step never told Petitioner that a "pool alarm" needed to be in the swimming pool. Rather, Ms. Step spoke to Petitioner only about the need to repair the alarm on the master bathroom door that led to the pool.7 Based on Ms. Step's statements to Petitioner about the "alarm" and her preliminary review notes, both Ms. Step and Petitioner understood the reference to "pool alarm" on the Inspection Checklist to mean the alarm on the master bathroom door. The Inspection Checklist completed on February 27, 2009, specified that the "due date" to correct the non-compliant areas was April 3, 2009. After completing the licensure inspection on February 27, 2009, Ms. Step intended to return to Petitioner's home to determine if the non-compliant areas had been brought into compliance. However, Ms. Step never returned to Petitioner's home. Instead, Vicki Richmond, a family safety counselor, followed up on Petitioner's progress in addressing the non-compliant areas8 while she was at Petitioner's home conducting a complaint investigation.9 On March 13, 2009, nine months after Petitioner submitted her licensure application, Ms. Richmond conducted a Central Abuse Hotline search on Petitioner and her husband as part of the application review process. The Department is required to search the records of the Central Abuse Hotline for reports of abuse, neglect, or abandonment. This search provides information as to whether Petitioner's name appears in those records, and, if so, whether there were "verified" indicators of maltreatment of children. Both Petitioner and her husband consented to this search. The Central Abuse Hotline search revealed a verified report for inadequate supervision by Petitioner and her husband and some indicators of maltreatment, asphyxiation. The report involved an incident that occurred on April 23, 2006, in which Petitioner and her husband's then three-year-old daughter almost drowned. On or about March 13, 2009, Ms. Richmond notified Ms. Step of the report and advised her that the verified findings needed to be addressed prior to proceeding with the license. On March 20, 2009, while driving across Highway 60 in the Bartow area, Ms. Richmond saw a sign with the name of Petitioner's prospective family day care home and her address and telephone number. Concerned that the sign did not include a license number, Ms. Richmond contacted the licensing office to verify whether Petitioner's home was a licensed family day care home. She was advised that Petitioner's licensure application was "pending" and had not been approved. Ms. Richmond then called Ms. Step to check the status of Petitioner's licensure application. During that conversation, Ms. Step reminded Ms. Richmond that this was the applicant for whom she (Richmond) had recently done the Central Abuse Hotline search. On March 23, 2009, as part of the complaint investigation about Petitioner's sign, Ms. Richmond made an unannounced visit to Petitioner's home. Ms. Richmond advised Petitioner that it was illegal for her to post a sign advertising her home as a family day care home before it was licensed. In response, Petitioner informed Ms. Richmond that after the February 27, 2009, licensure inspection, she (Petitioner) had been told that she could put a sign up and start a waiting list of people interested in day care services. After hearing Petitioner's explanation, Ms. Richmond then told Petitioner that "if" she put up a sign prior to licensure, the sign had to "at least" include in bold letters, "License Pending." On March 23, 2009, immediately after addressing the "sign" issue, Ms. Richmond conducted an unannounced or inspection walk-through of Petitioner's home and discussed issues with Petitioner that Ms. Richmond believed were of concern to the Department. During the walk-through, Petitioner advised Ms. Richmond that the "door alarm" had not yet been repaired. Among the issues Ms. Richmond raised and discussed with Petitioner were: (1) the need to install either a pool alarm or portable pool barriers; (2) the pool was not clean and was only partially filled with water; (3) the spa in the backyard needed a cover; (4) the local criminal background check for Petitioner's cousin had not been received. Ms. Richmond described to Petitioner and her husband two options related to the swimming pool--the "portable pool barriers" and a "pool alarm." In describing the "pool alarm," Ms. Richmond indicated that it was a device that was placed in the pool. She further explained that with this type of "pool alarm," if a child fell in the swimming pool, the alarm would sound. Although the alarm on the master bathroom door was not working on March 23, 2009, Petitioner's husband was making efforts to get the door alarm repaired. However, that day, Ms. Richmond told Petitioner and her husband that even if the alarm on the master bathroom door was repaired, they still needed to have an alarm in the pool. In response to this directive, Petitioner agreed that they would install a "pool alarm" in the swimming pool. After completing the March 23, 2009, walk-through, Ms. Richmond informed Petitioner that the items she had discussed needed to be corrected prior to a license being granted. However, no written documentation was provided to Petitioner regarding the areas of non-compliance discussed during the walk-through or inspection. Ms. Richmond returned to Petitioner's home on March 27, 2009, for her second unannounced visit, which was described as a follow-up to her "complaint investigation." Once there, Ms. Richmond observed that the sign advertising the family day care home was still displayed. However, Petitioner's husband came home while Ms. Richmond was there and immediately took down the sign. During the March 27, 2009, unannounced complaint investigation visit, Petitioner told Ms. Richmond that the alarm on the master bathroom door was not working. About that time, Petitioner's husband arrived and told Ms. Richmond that he had purchased a pool alarm and even showed her the alarm. The "pool alarm" was purchased in response to Ms. Richmond's directive during the March 23, 2009, walk-through but had not been put in the pool, because the pool had not yet been cleaned.10 At the end of the March 27, 2009, unannounced visit, Ms. Richmond talked to Petitioner and her husband about the verified abuse/neglect report regarding the April 23, 2006, incident in which their daughter almost drowned. The findings in the report were "verified" for inadequate supervision by Petitioner and her husband. Given the implications of the abuse/neglect report, Ms. Richmond explained that although Petitioner needed to address the areas of non-compliance, the most pressing and immediate concern was the abuse/neglect report. Petitioner's husband testified credibly that during the conversation described in paragraph 23, Ms. Richmond told him and Petitioner that because of the abuse/neglect report, there was "no way" Petitioner would get a family day care home license. Based on that comment, Petitioner and her husband reasonably believed that Petitioner's application would be denied because of the abuse/neglect report. On March 27, 2009, after being told about the abuse/neglect report and the ramifications of that report, Petitioner and her husband "stopped moving forward" on the areas of non-compliance related to the swimming pool (i.e., cleaning the pool and installing the pool alarm).11 Believing the abuse/neglect report would result in denial of her licensure application, Petitioner and her husband began to focus on issues related to the report. They were also concerned and had questions about the Department's licensing process as it related to the abuse/neglect report. Ms. Richmond's third visit to Petitioner's home was on April 7, 2009. The sole purpose of that visit was to answer the "real" questions that Petitioner and her husband had about the abuse/neglect report and the licensing process. Ms. Richmond answered their questions as best she could, but recommended that they schedule an appointment with the licensing supervisor at the licensing office.12 That same day, Petitioner and her husband scheduled a meeting and met with Sheila Nobles, administrator and supervisor for child care licensing, to discuss, ask questions about, and review the abuse/neglect report. On April 8, 2009, Ms. Richmond finalized her "report" on the complaint investigation regarding the sign. Ms. Richmond's notes in the "comment" section of the pre-printed "Notice to Cease and Desist" form described the events of March 20, 23 and 27, 2009, as they related to the sign issue.13 Decision to Deny Application As the family safety counselor responsible for reviewing Petitioner's application and conducting the licensure inspections, Ms. Step recommended to Ms. Nobles that Petitioner's license be denied. Ms. Step's recommendation was based on the verbal reports provided to her by Ms. Richmond, which indicated that the areas of non-compliance on the Inspection Checklist had not been corrected. Prior to making a decision about Petitioner's application, Ms. Nobles reviewed the application file, the abuse/neglect report, the Inspection Checklist and the preliminary review notes. Ms. Nobles testified that she considered the "five different inspections"14 of Petitioner's home and property by the two licensing counselors, the areas of non-compliance that had not been corrected, and the abuse/neglect report with a "verified" finding of inadequate supervision. The Central Abuse Hotline Report Applicants seeking licensure to operate a family day care home are required to undergo a Level II screening. That screening included a check to determine if the applicant had a report in the Central Abuse Hotline. Due to concern for the safety of children, the Department is authorized to deny a family day care home license if the applicant has a verified abuse/neglect report. Because of its concern about the safety of children in Petitioner's care, the Department alleges that the abuse/neglect report revealed during a Central Abuse Hotline search is ground for denying Petitioner's license. As it relates to the abuse/neglect report, the denial letter states in relevant part: The Department has documented a verified abuse neglect report whereby your then 3-year-old daughter was not supervised correctly on June 21, 2006.[sic][15] These actions allowed your child to wonder [sic] outside the family swimming pool were [sic] she was found after an undetermined time under water and not breathing. During the investigation it was determined that the lock to get access [presumably to the pool] had been broken for a few days. The abuse/neglect report was initiated when a call was received by the Central Abuse Hotline on April 23, 2006. According to the intake-report, an incident occurred at Petitioner's and her husband's home in which their then three- year-old daughter ("child") almost drowned. Jermaine Turner, a child protective investigator ("CPI"), was assigned to investigate the incident. As the investigator, CPI Turner was responsible for making contact with the family of the child and other appropriate individuals. During the investigation, CPI Turner worked under the supervision and direction of Terry Lynn Reinhardt, a child protective supervisor. As CPI Turner's supervisor, Ms. Reinhardt had contact with CPI Turner and gave him directives related to follow-up activities on case-related matters. The abuse/neglect report includes a summary of notes which purport to summarize interviews CPI Turner conducted with Petitioner and her husband on May 18, 2006, about a month after the subject incident. Petitioner's husband recalled that this interview was conducted by telephone. Ms. Reinhardt testified that CPI Turner interviewed the child's parents and also made telephone contact with them to follow-up on an issue involving a "broken door." Ms. Reinhardt was not present at the interviews that CPI Turner conducted with Petitioner and her husband. Thus, she had no first-hand knowledge of what, if anything, they said to CPI Turner. Rather, Ms. Reinhardt relied on CPI Turner's verbal reports to her and the notes and summaries in the abuse/neglect report attributed to him. CPI Turner did not testify at this proceeding. Moreover, no competent evidence was presented regarding any entries (i.e., notes, comments, and/or interview summaries) in the abuse/neglect report attributed to CPI Turner. The case was closed on June 21, 2006, and the findings and conclusions in the matter were summarized in a two-page document titled, Investigative Summary. The Investigative Summary includes an "updated" note dated June 6, 2006, that provided: "The child . . . was left to watch cartoons; however, she was found face down in a swimming pool. The lock to get access from the pool to the house had been broke [sic] for approximately two day [sic]. They stated they planned to fix the lock but never got around to it." No evidence was presented as to who made the "updated" note or the source of the information in that note. After the investigation was complete, Ms. Reinhardt concluded that there were "some indicators" of maltreatment, asphyxiation, and verified findings of inadequate supervision as to both parents. In reaching that conclusion, Ms. Reinhardt relied on information provided by Mr. Turner and then applied the Department's CFOP 175-28 in reaching those conclusions. Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C-30.001(6) incorporates by reference the "Allegation Matrix" set forth in the Department's CFOP 175-28. Pursuant to that rule, the "Allegation Matrix" is a document that defines specific types of abuse, neglect or abandonment; guides staff in determining whether abuse, neglect or abandonment has occurred; and assists in ensuring that all factors are considered when assessing each type of maltreatment. The Department's CFOP 175-28 was not offered into evidence during this proceeding. Based on the conclusion reached by Ms. Reinhardt, the abuse/neglect report was closed on June 21, 2006, with the finding of some indicators of maltreatment, asphyxiation, and verified findings of inadequate supervision. Notwithstanding those findings, the Investigative Summary reflects that there was no prior history of abuse or neglect and no criminal history. Moreover, the Investigative Summary indicated that no intervention services were needed, no placement outside the home was required, and no judicial action was required. Finally, Petitioner and her husband were not given any safety plan to implement. The April 23, 2006, incident was also investigated by the Polk County Sheriff's Office ("Sheriff's Office"). That investigation included at least two or three detectives and/or officers taking and tape recording sworn statements from Petitioner, her husband, and her father-in-law. All of these sworn statements were "in-person" interviews taken within 24 hours of the incident. Petitioner's husband testified credibly that the written summaries of the sworn statements taken by the Sheriff's Office detectives, particularly that of Detective Wharton, accurately reflect not only the substance of the interviews, but also what actually occurred on April 23, 2006. Petitioner's husband testified credibly about the facts related to the April 23, 2006, incident and the accuracy of written summaries of the tape-recorded sworn statements taken by detectives as set forth below in paragraphs 51 through 60. On April 23, 2006, Petitioner was in the family pool with her then three-year-old daughter. While Petitioner and her daughter were in the pool, Petitioner's husband and his father arrived at the house. Petitioner then went into the house to prepare dinner and her husband stayed at the pool with the child. Shortly thereafter, Petitioner's husband removed the child from the pool, took off the floatation device the child was wearing while in the pool, took her into the house, and then closed and locked the bottom lock of the door. Once in the house, Mr. Best put on a movie for his daughter in her bedroom and then told his wife that the child was in the room watching a movie. The child left the bedroom and went to the kitchen where her mother was preparing dinner. For some time, the child went back and forth between the kitchen, playing near her mother and/or "helping" her mother, and the living room where she (the child) was sitting on the floor watching cartoons on television. The kitchen and living room were adjacent rooms with a large opening between them which allowed a person in one room to see into the other room. When Mr. Best and his daughter went into the house, his father (the child's grandfather) was taking a shower. A few minutes later, after taking his shower and getting dressed, the child's paternal grandfather got out his new video camera and went to the kitchen/living room area to videotape his granddaughter while she was playing. He videotaped her playing for several minutes and then went to the bedroom to put away the video camera. It took the child's grandfather about two or three minutes to put away his video camera and return to the kitchen area. When the grandfather returned to the kitchen/living room area, he asked Petitioner where the child was. Believing the child was in the living room, Petitioner told her father-in-law that the child was in the living room looking at television. Petitioner then went into the living room to look for the child and discovered she was not there. Petitioner then immediately went outside to the patio and saw the child laying face down in the pool. Petitioner screamed for help, jumped in the pool and lifted the child from the water. Petitioner's husband was close enough to the kitchen/living room area that he heard the exchange between his father and Petitioner about the child's whereabouts and Petitioner's subsequent scream. Within a few seconds, Petitioner's husband ran from the house, jumped in the pool, removed his daughter from the pool, and placed her on the pool deck. Once the child was on the pool deck, the child's father and her grandfather immediately began administering CPR while Petitioner called 911. They continued performing CPR on the child until the emergency medical services and the fire department arrived on the scene. Both parents reported to detectives investigating the incident that the child knew how to open and unlock doors. Based on the facts established at or near the time of the incident, it was concluded that the child slipped out of the house and went undetected for about two or three minutes. Petitioner and her husband described the child's "slipping out of the house" as unusual and something she had never done prior to April 23, 2006. Until that day, the child had never gone off on her own and had been fearful of and never gotten into the swimming pool at that house. (Petitioner and her family had moved to this house only two or three months before the incident.) Based on its investigation, which included sworn statements by Petitioner, her husband, and her father-in-law, the Sheriff's Office concluded that the April 23, 2006, incident was an accident. The Department does not disagree with the conclusion reached by the Sheriff's Office (i.e., the April 23, 2006, incident was an accident). Nevertheless, according to Ms. Reinhardt, irrespective of whether the incident was an accident or done on purpose, the Department still found "verified" indicators of inadequate supervision, because the child got out of the house and into the pool and almost drowned. The factual allegations in the report upon which the Department relied were not established by competent and substantial evidence. In absence of such evidence, the Department's verified finding of inadequate supervision has not been proven. The record in this case is devoid of any evidence to establish the Department's finding of any indicators of maltreatment. Therefore, the Department's findings that there were "some" indicators of maltreatment has not been proven. Alarm on the Master Bathroom Door The Department alleges that during the applicable time period, the swimming pool at Petitioner's home did not comply with the requirements in Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C-20.010(1)(i). That rule requires that swimming pools at least one-foot-deep have either a barrier at least four-feet- high around the pool, separating the pool from the house, or a pool alarm that is operable at all times when children are in their care. There was conflicting and inconsistent information provided to Petitioner as to whether a "pool alarm" that floats in the swimming pool was required instead of a door alarm, which is also apparently referred to as a pool alarm. Despite any confusion that may have been caused by the different representations made to Petitioner, it is undisputed that the preliminary review notes and the Inspection Checklist clearly indicate that Petitioner was required to repair the alarm on the master bathroom door which led to the pool. It appears that Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C-20.010(1)(i) refers to door alarms as pool alarms. Petitioner's husband testified credibly that he attempted to have the door repaired by service personnel of the alarm company that installed the alarm system, but has been unsuccessful in doing so. In light of these futile attempts, Petitioner's husband purchased a battery-operated door. However, it is unknown when the battery-operated door was purchased, whether it has been installed, and, if so, how it works. The alarm on the door of the master bathroom had not been repaired by the April 3, 2009, "due date" or any time thereafter, nor had any acceptable alternatives been installed. Maintenance of the Swimming Pool The Department alleges that the swimming pool at Petitioner's home was not clean and maintained as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C-20.010(1)(j). That Rule requires that if a family day care home uses a swimming pool, it shall be maintained by using chlorine and other suitable chemicals. Petitioner acknowledges that, at all times relevant hereto, the swimming pool at her home was not clean and properly maintained. Some time after the denial letter was issued, Petitioner's swimming pool was emptied, a full-processed cleaning was completed, and the pool was filled with water. However, a leak in a light in the pool was discovered. In order to repair that leak, the pool had to be emptied. At the time of this proceeding, the leak was being repaired. Once the leak is fixed, the pool can be filled with water and the "pool alarm" that floats in the pool can be installed. Local Law Enforcement Background Check The application process requires that each person living in the home that will serve as the family day care home have a background screening. Such background screening includes a check by the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI"), the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE"), and a local criminal history check. In February 2009, Petitioner's cousin, Carlos Granados, was living with Petitioner and her husband. Accordingly, Mr. Granados was required to have a local criminal history check, and a copy of that criminal history check was to be provided to the Department. Petitioner testified credibly that she submitted all the documents for completion of Mr. Granados' background checks and could not explain why the Department did not receive the local criminal history check for Mr. Granados.16 The evidence established that Mr. Granados no longer lives in Petitioner's home. Therefore, the Department does not need, and is not required to have, a local criminal history check for him.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Finding of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Department of Children and Family Services, enter a final order: (1) finding that Petitioner, Best Family Day Care Home, failed to meet the standards in Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C-20.010(1)(i) and (j); and (2) denying Petitioner's application for a family day care home on those grounds. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of February, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of February, 2010.
The Issue The issues in this case are: (a) Whether Petitioner's license as a family day care should be renewed; (b) Whether Petitioner was required to list Halvert Swanson as a household member on her annual application for a family day care license; and (c) Whether Halvert Swanson, a convicted sex offender, was a member of Petitioner's household at any time between 1997 and 2000.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: At all times relevant to this matter, Petitioner, Gennell Hardnett, d/b/a Nell's Day Care, was licensed by Respondent to operate a family day care out of her home located at 513 West 14th Street, Apopka, Florida. Petitioner had been licensed by Respondent in 1995 as a family day care facility, and her license has been renewed on an annual basis therefor. Petitioner's license permitted her to operate 24 hours a day, Monday through Saturday. However, Petitioner actually operated her day care from 6:30 a.m. until midnight, Monday through Friday. She was never open during the weekends. Petitioner's application for renewal of her license for the year 2000-2001 was denied. As part of her licensing requirements, Petitioner knew she was to list on her Application for Licensing all of her household members for possible background screening. This is to ensure that all members of her household were properly screened for disqualifying offenses. For each of the five years since 1995, Petitioner listed herself and her sons, Quantas Hardnett and Demetric Hardnett, as household members on her licensing application. She did not list another son, Halvert Swanson, as a household member. On her renewal application for the year 2000-2001, Petitioner listed as household members, herself and her son Quantas Swanson because Demetric, at the time, was residing with an aunt. Halvert Swanson was, again, not listed. Halvert Swanson, also the son of Petitioner, had been convicted of the felony of attempted lewd acts upon a child under the age of sixteen in approximately 1990. Swanson was in the custody of the Department of Corrections from approximately February 3, 1990 to June 1, 1993. He was released from custody in 1993. Following his release from prison, Swanson listed the address of his mother, Petitioner, as his residence address with the State of Florida, Department of Corrections. Petitioner was aware that her son Halvert had been convicted of this crime. She also knew that her son Halvert Swanson was not permitted to be a holdhold member, and was not to be permitted unsupervised contact with children under Petitioner's care. Petitioner has never listed on her applications, nor notified Respondent, that her son, Halvert Swanson, resided at her family day care facilities, located at 513 West 14th Street, Apopka, Florida On September 23, 1997, Barbara Osborne, a Department of Corrections probation specialist, visited with Halvert Swanson in the residence located at 513 West 14th Street, Apopka, Florida. The purpose of Osborne's visit with Swanson was to monitor his compliance with conditions of his release from prison. This visit with Swanson was unannounced. During the visit with Swanson, Osborne confirmed that Swanson resided at the address on 513 West 14th Street. During her visit with Swanson, Osborne also observed several children at the home. She was not aware if Petitioner was present or not. Osborne informed Swanson that if he intended to continue to reside at the house at 513 West 14th Street, Petitioner would need to complete an affidavit addressing whether Swanson had unsupervised contact with children. Osborne returned to the house at 513 West 14th Street on November 18, 1997, because Swanson had not reported to Osborne as required. During her visit to the house, Osborne spoke with Petitioner who confirmed that Swanson was still residing at the home at 513 West 14th Street. Osborne reminded Petitioner of the conditions on Swanson's release regarding no unsupervised contact with children, and let her know that she would have to complete an affidavit if he continued to reside at Petitioner's home. Early in the year 2000, a local television reporter for WKMG, Channel Six, Tony Pipitone, while investigating a news story, visited Petitioner's home. While there, Pipitone asked if Halvert Swanson was there. Petitioner replied "No," and Pipitone left. He later returned to Petitioner's home, this time with a cameraman. Pipitone asked Petitioner if Halvert Swanson lived there, and this time Petitioner replied "Yes," and that he stayed there on weekends. The story aired on local television, and Respondent was made aware of the allegation that a felon with a conviction of attempted lewd acts on a child under the age of sixteen was living at a family day care. In April 2000, Respondent learned from a local television reporter that Petitioner stated to the reporter that Halvert Swanson stays at her house on weekends. Some of Respondent's staff reviewed a video-tape of Petitioner's statement to the local reporter. By letter dated April 21, 2000, Respondent denied Petitioner's application for re-licensure of her facility for the year covering May 2000-2001. Petitioner offered testimony of several witnesses who were unable to recall accurate details about Halvert Swanson's whereabouts from 1990 through 2000. However, it appears that, since his release from prison, Swanson had no permanent place of residence, but moved about, living with various relatives and girlfriends at his convenience. In addition, he was incarcerated for parts of this time period. During the relevant time period, Halvert Swanson, on occasion, visited the home of Petitioner and stayed overnight with his mother and his brothers on weekends. Swanson was also asked to stay at and look after Petitioner's home on several weekends while Petitioner and her other sons were out of town. Swanson continued to visit with his mother and brothers at 513 West 14th Street, Apopka, Florida, and continued to use her home as his permanent address. In the five years that Petitioner operated her licensed family day care center, the children under the care of Petitioner have not been injured or hurt.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Family Services deny Petitioner's application for re-licensure of her family day care home, for the year 2000-2001. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of October, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of October, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Paul V. Moyer, Esquire Moyer, Straus & Patel, P.A. 815 Orienta Avenue, Suite 6 Post office Box 151058 Altamonte Springs, Florida 32715-1058 Eric D. Dunlap, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 400 West Robinson Street, Suite S-1106 Orlando, Florida 32801 Virginia A. Daire, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204B Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Josie Tomayo, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
