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 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
The Issue Should Respondent’s annual renewal of her family day care home registration be denied?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: The Department is the agency of the State of Florida with whom a family day care home must register annually if that family day care home is not required to be licensed by the Department or the county within which the family day care home is located. Annie P. Smith owns and operates Smith Family Day Care Home, which is located in Highlands County, Florida. Respondent is not required to be licensed by the Department or Highlands County but must register annually with the Department. On or about October 28, 1999, Respondent applied to renew her annual family day care home registration. On or about November 10, 1999, the Department screened Florida Abuse Hotline Information System (FAHIS) which revealed report number 1998-094609, an alleged report of child abuse or neglect filed against Respondent. FAHIS report number 1998-094609 alleges that while the child D.W.H., aged 6 months, was under the care of Respondent the child received a large bruise on his upper, inside left thigh. The report characterizes Respondent's role as an alleged perpetrator of child abuse. On or about March 29, 2000, the Department received FAHIS report number 2000-050228, alleging that the child, K.L.B. was picked up from Respondent's day family care home with a broken arm. By an Amended Administrative Complaint dated April 28, 2000, the Department advised Respondent that it was denying her application for annual renewal of her family day care home registration. The Department's denial of Respondent's application for renewal of her registration for her family day care home was based on Respondent's: (a) failure to provide satisfactory proof of screening in accordance with Section 402.313(1)(a)5., Florida Statutes; (b) failure to protect and maintain the safety of the child, D.W.H. while the child was in her care; and (c) failure to protect and maintain the safety of the child, K.L.B. while the child was in her care. The Department presented no evidence concerning FAHIS report number 2000-050228 or the alleged abuse of the child, K.L.B. In fact, the Department announced at the hearing that it was dropping Count III of the Administrative Complaint concerning the alleged abuse of the child, K.L.B. After picking D.W.H. up from Respondent's family day care home on August 25, 1998, T.W., the child's mother, transported the child to Heartland Pediatrics of Avon Park for a scheduled appointment with Dr. Deshipande for the child's regular check-up. During the child's examination, Dr. Deshipande, discovered bruises on the inner thigh of the child's left leg. Dr. Deshipande described the bruises as a "large area on (l) inner thigh of bruising in various stages -- dark purple to pink. No tenderness. No other bruises elsewhere." (Emphasis furnished). Dr. Deshipande suspected possible child abuse and instructed one of his staff to notify the Department's abuse hotline. Subsequently, the Department conducted an investigation into the allegations of abuse. Ray Starr, a former Child Protective Investigator (CPI), with the Department, was the person primarily responsible for the Department's investigation and preparation of the abuse report. Starr's testimony that he contacted Respondent during his investigation by telephone concerning the alleged abuse is inconsistent with the abuse report and with Respondent's testimony. The abuse report indicates that Starr talked with Respondent in person concerning the alleged abuse. Respondent testified that neither Starr nor anyone else from the Department talked to her by telephone or in person concerning the alleged abuse during the time of the investigation. After discussing the background of the child's parents with local law enforcement and Department personnel, including one Department employee who was a "good friend" of the child's father, Starr determined that the child's parents were not responsible for the bruises. Without any further investigation (except possibly one telephone call to Respondent) Starr determined that the bruises were either the direct result of Respondent's action with the child or her inattention to the child which resulted in the bruises by whatever means. Starr made no effort to discuss Respondent's reputation as a caregiver with any of Respondent's present or past clients or to determine if there had been any problems with Respondent's care of other children. Based on the testimony of several of Respondent's present and past clients, Respondent enjoys a reputation of being an excellent caregiver for children, particularly younger children. On August 25, 1998, the child's mother, while giving the child's medical history to Dr. Deshipande, indicated that the child had been going to Respondent's family day care home for a period of 12 days and that bruising had been noted once before. However, at the hearing the child's mother testified that she could not recall how long the child went to Respondent's family day care home and that there had been no problem with the child's suffering any bruising at Respondent's day care home prior to the day of the alleged incident. The child's mother could not recall what time she left the child at Respondent's home or picked him up from Respondent's home on the day of the alleged incident or any other day. The child's mother could not recall virtually anything about the incident other than her assertion that she checked her child thoroughly before she took him anywhere and checked him thoroughly after picking him up, which she described as "a mother's thing." Based on this assertion, the mother concluded that the child must have been bruised between the time she left him in Respondent's care on August 25, 1998, and the time she picked him up from Respondent's day care home on August 25, 1998. Karen Babcock, a Licensed Practical Nurse, employed by Heartland Pediatrics of Avon Park saw the bruises on the child on August 25, 1998, while he was being examined by Dr. Deshipande. Babcock testified that although she was not present when the photographs were taken by a Department employee on August 26, 1998, the bruises on the child's leg as shown by the photographs depict a fair and accurate representation of the bruises as they appeared on August 25, 1998. Ray Starr was present when the photographs were taken on August 26, 1998, and testified that the bruises on the child's leg as shown by the photographs depict a fair and accurate representation of the bruises as they appeared on August 26,1998. Dr. Deshipande did not testify at the hearing and, other than his description of the bruises, did not state in his notes an opinion as to when he considered the bruises may have occurred. The fact that he noted bruises "in various stages" indicates that the bruises occurred at various times. Nothing in Ray Starr's testimony or the abuse report indicates that Ray Starr talked with Dr. Deshipande concerning the timing of the bruising. Likewise, none of the other witnesses talked with Dr. Deshipande concerning the timing of the bruising. Dr. Deshipande's description of child's bruises does not describe bruises that are alleged to have occurred earlier in the day on August 25, 1998, during the time the child was in the care of the Respondent. Likewise, the photographs, when viewed in light of Dr. Deshipande's description of the bruising as it appeared to him on August 25, 1998, do not depict bruising that is alleged to have occurred earlier in the day on August 25, 1998, during the time the child was under the care of Respondent. Therefore, although it is clear that the child was bruised, it is not at all clear that the child was bruised during the time he was under the care of Respondent on August 25, 1998, either by Respondent directly or as a result of Respondent's inattention, notwithstanding the testimony of the child's mother to the contrary, which I find lacks credibility.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department enter a final order granting Respondent's application for renewal of her annual family day care home registration. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th of January, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ WILLIAM R. CAVE 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) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of January, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack Emory Farley, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 4720 Old Highway 37 Lakeland, Florida 33813-2030 Sidney M. Crawford, Esquire Sidney M. Crawford, P.A. Post Office Box 5947 Lakeland, Florida 33807 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
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether the Department of Children and Family Services should revoke the family day care license of Respondents.
Findings Of Fact Respondent has been registered with the Department as a family home day care provider since September of 2001. A registered family home day care does not have to meet all of the requirements that a licensed day care home must meet. However, the same background screening and training requirements must be met. Registered family day care homes are not inspected as often as licensed homes. Each year, the registered provider must complete a renewal application that, among other things, identifies household members and substitute care-givers. The operator of the home and all household members are required to pass a Level 2 background screening. Additionally, registered family home applicants must pass a 30-hour family day care home training, a five-hour early literacy course, and each year, complete 10 hours of in-service of continuing education. Operators of the registered homes must designate a substitute care provider who is also required to go through the background screening. Ms. Huewitt designated Teresa Clary as her substitute care provider on her 2007, 2008, and 2009 applications. Previous Disciplinary Action On three occasions in the fall of 2008 and on one occasion in February 2009, Respondent was found to be out of compliance with ratio requirements, i.e., caring for more children than allowed. Additionally, in November 2008, the Family Services Counselor from the Department called the home and the phone was answered by one of Ms. Huewitt’s adult daughters. That daughter informed the Family Services Counselor that Ms. Huewitt was not home and would be back shortly. The Department then determined that this violated the substitute care requirement as Teresa Clary was designated as the substitute care provider. As a result, the Department issued an Administrative Complaint on January 12, 2009, regarding two incidents of being out-of-ratio and for violation of “listed substitute requirements.” A $300 fine was imposed and the registration was placed on probationary status in February 2009. In a letter dated August 27, 2009, the Department informed Ms. Huewitt that the Probationary Registration was lifted effective August 9, 2009, because “the Operator has been in compliance with ratio and capacity requirements during periodic monitoring/inspections while on probationary registration.”2/ Facts concerning the Amended Notice of Administrative Action Ms. Huewitt has three adult children: Jennifer Oliver, Stephanie Oliver, and Anthony Oliver. Jennifer Oliver was listed as an “other family/household member” on the 2007, 2008, and 2009 applications. As a result, a background screening was conducted on Jennifer. The background screening revealed a disqualifying offense. Jennifer requested an exemption from disqualification, but was denied. Consequently, Jennifer Oliver was not permitted to be in the home during the operational hours of the day care. On February 2, 2009, Ms. Huewitt entered into a safety plan in which she agreed not to allow her daughter, Jennifer, to supervise the children while in her care, or even to allow Jennifer to be in the residence while children are in her care during business hours. Despite this, on August 11, 2009, at approximately 9:25 a.m., the Family Services Counselor, Miatta Jalaber, went to Ms. Huewitt’s home and saw Jennifer in the home. Jennifer exited the home as Ms. Jalaber did her walk-through. As a result, Ms. Jalaber called her supervisor, who instructed Ms. Jalaber to write another safety plan for Ms. Huewitt. The August 11, 2009, safety plan was hand-written by Ms. Jalaber while at Ms. Huewitt’s home day care and states, “I Alisa Huewitt understand that my daughter, Jennifer Oliver, must not be present in my residence [address] during operating hours 7:30 a.m.-6:00 p.m. M-F while I have children in care.” The safety plan was signed by both Ms. Jalaber and Ms. Huewitt. Ms. Jalaber made subsequent visits to Ms. Huewitt’s home on October 30, 2009, December 29, 2009, January 29, 2010, February 5, 2010, February 19, 2010, and March 30, 2010. No other persons were present and Ms. Huewitt’s home was in ratio during those visits. She did observe Jennifer in the home on April 16, 2010, but the day care was closed that day. Stephanie Oliver is not listed on any of the applications as a person residing in the home, but has been seen at Ms. Huewitt’s during hours when the day care is open. While there was some testimony that both Stephanie and Ms. Huewitt’s son Anthony have some sort of criminal background and that they have been seen at the day care during business hours, the record is insufficient to establish that their criminal records contain disqualifying offenses, or that they actually live in the home. What is clear is that Ms. Huewitt is of the belief that it is not necessary to list persons who do not actually reside in the home, but who frequently visit the home, on her applications under the category “Other Family/Household Members.” There were instances in which Ms. Jalaber went to the day care home and was led to believe that Jennifer Oliver was Stephanie Oliver. Ms. Jalaber only learned that the daughter she saw and spoke to at the home was Jennifer, who was not supposed to be there during working hours, when she attended Jennifer’s exemption from disqualifying fact-finding meeting. While the record is insufficient to clearly support a finding that Ms. Huewitt lied to Ms. Jalaber about her daughter’s identity, she was not forthcoming with clarifying the confusion. In July 2009, the Department received an abuse report that Ms. Huewitt’s grandson, Kory Hill, Jr., sustained a skull fracture in her residence during business hours. Ms. Jalaber went to Ms. Huewitt’s home, not to investigate the abuse report, but because there was concern that Kory Hill, Sr., who reportedly was taking care of Kory Hill, Jr., on the day of the incident, was residing in the home. Kory Hill, Jr., is Jennifer’s son. Ms. Jalaber addressed her concerns with Ms. Huewitt.3/ During this visit, Ms. Jalaber learned that there was a separate structure in back of Ms. Huewitt’s house. Ms. Jalaber describes it as being just three steps in back of the main house. The structure contains a large room, a closet, and a bathroom and will hereinafter be referred to as “the apartment.” Ms. Jalaber observed clothes in the apartment’s closet and throughout the apartment, and sofa cushions on the floor. It appeared to Ms. Jalaber that someone was residing in the apartment. Ms. Huewitt denies that Mr. Hill, Sr., resided in her home. However, Ms. Huewitt acknowledges that her infant grandson, Kory Hill, Jr., was injured while in the care of his father, Kory Hill, Sr., and that the injury took place in the apartment in back of her house. The injury took place during the day while children were in her care in the main part of her house. Jhaismen Collins is a Child Protective Investigator with the Department. She was assigned to investigate the abuse report regarding this incident. Her investigation began July 1, 2009, at the emergency room where Kory Hill, Jr., had been taken. While there, she spoke to Ms. Huewitt and other family members present in the emergency room. She then made several visits to Ms. Huewitt’s home to follow-up, after the baby was discharged from the hospital. During the follow-up visits, Ms. Collins observed Stephanie in the home and observed Kory Hill, Sr., packing his belongings to leave the home. While the evidence is inconclusive as to whether Mr. Hill actually resided in the apartment behind Ms. Huewitt’s home, it is clear that he frequented the home and the apartment behind the home to visit his son. His son, Kory, Jr., and another son, Kentavious, who is also Ms. Huewitt's grandson, are now attending Ms. Huewitt’s day care. Ayuana Hale is a Dependency Case manager for the Department. Her job is to provide needed services to the child and family in the case of a verified finding of abuse, neglect, or abandonment. She was assigned to the case involving Kory Hill, Jr., after the abuse investigation was closed as verified. Ms. Hale testified that Mr. Hill is currently incarcerated. She has knowledge of this because she is obligated to try to offer Mr. Hill services while he is incarcerated. Parents of children who attend Ms. Huewitt’s home day care are extremely complimentary of the care their children receive, and are not concerned with the safety of their children while there.
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 placing the license on probation, requiring Respondent to attend further training in the requirements of applicable statutes and rules regarding who must be listed on her applications, requiring those listed to undergo background screening, and requiring successful completion of such training, with no further incidents, prior to approval of Respondent's application for renewal of her registration. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of June, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BARBARA J. STAROS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of June, 2010
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner's license to operate a family day care home should be denied based upon the reasons asserted in the denial letter.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, until denial of licensure, owned and operated a licensed day care facility, licensed under Chapter 402, Florida Statutes. The Respondent is an agency of the State of Florida charged, in pertinent part, with administering and regulating the statutory and regulatory provisions governing entry into and licensure of the business of operating day care facilities and with regulating the practice of day care facilities and operators such as the Petitioner. Witness Tamika McConner is the mother of a child who was placed by Ms. McConner in the Petitioner's day care facility under Petitioner's care at the time pertinent hereto. Ms. McConner maintains that the Petitioner struck her child with a sandal while they were in the Petitioner's car or van on one occasion and that the Petitioner did not see to it that the child ate properly or at the proper times while in her facility. The Petitioner denies these occurrences or indications of improper child care. The evidence show that there is a hostile relationship between Ms. McConner and the Petitioner, apparently stemming from a check written by Ms. McConner for services to the Petitioner which was returned for insufficient funds and concerning which they apparently had a dispute. Under these circumstances, it is not found that Ms. McConner's testimony is preponderant evidence to establish that the occurrences she related actually happened. Moreover, as near as can be gleaned from the paucity of concise pleadings of the agency's allegations, this incident or incidents was not the subject of the report which led to license denial. On or shortly before October 3, 1996, an abuse report was received by the above-named agency concerning a child T.S. T.S. was enrolled in the care of the Petitioner in her day care center. An incident occurred that day when the Petitioner was taking the children in her charge to the Regency Mall for shopping. While at the mall, when the Petitioner was in a store shopping with the children, the child T.S. got to close to her and almost knocked something over on a shelf in the store. The Petitioner maintained that the child was so close to her that she contacted him when she turned around and it caused her to lose her balance and start to fall with the result that she reached out, accidentally knocking the child to the floor. Instead, however, witness Quinones testified and at least one witness in the store verified to the Department's investigator (see Respondent's exhibit 5 in evidence and the testimony of Mr. Gore) that the Petitioner struck the child in anger and knocked him to the floor. Ms. Quinones testified that the child didn't cry but was visibly shaken and Ms. Quinones was concerned that the Petitioner appeared to lose control of her temper on that occasion. Witness David Gore of the Department of Children and Family Services is in the business of inspecting and licensing child care facilities and has owned and operated a child care facility himself. He inspected the Petitioner's facility and found deficiency problems involving immunization records, some sanitary conditions, inoperative smoke detectors and hazardous household products left in reach of children, an incomplete first aid kit and paint and lumber left in the play area. The paint and lumber was there temporarily for the purpose of building a swing set for the children. The deficiencies were promptly corrected by the Petitioner. These deficiencies, however, were not the basis for the notice of licensure denial to the Petitioner however. Witness Roxanne Jordan testified on behalf of the Petitioner. The Petitioner cares for her child or did before the licensure problem arose and said she never had a problem with the Petitioner's care for her child nor did she observe any deficiencies or improprieties in the care of other children she observed at the Petitioner's facility. Ms. Jordan's describes the Petitioner as an excellent caregiver for children. This testimony is corroborated by substantial number of "testimonial letters" from people who have experience with her child care activities, in evidence as "corroborative hearsay." These served to establish that indeed the Petitioner is a caring, compassionate keeper of children in the operation of her day care facility and in the course of her duties baby-sitting for friends' children before she was licensed as a day care facility operator. The Petitioner is in earnest about pursuing the profession of child care and becoming re-licensed to do that. The Petitioner has demonstrated a long-standing interest and aptitude for caring for children. Indeed, in the last two years, she has earned approximately 55 hours of educational training at Florida Community College in Jacksonville in courses generally applicable to the profession of child care. The direct, competent evidence of record and the corroborative hearsay evidence in the form of testimonial letters, from people who have experience with her child care skills and her personality, establish that she has been, in most ways, a competent child care facility operator and caregiver for children and has the capability of becoming more so. In order to justify her re- licensure, however, she must demonstrate a willingness to and a capability of controlling her anger and enhancing her positive child discipline skills.
Recommendation Accordingly, in consideration of the greater weight of the evidence, supportive of the above findings of fact and these conclusions of law, it is
