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
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent should renew Petitioner's license to operate a child care facility based on an alleged Class I violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C- 22.001(5)(a) and an alleged history of noncompliance with the Florida Administrative Code rules regulating child care facilities.
Findings Of Fact At all times material here, Petitioners owned and operated Child Care 2000, #1 (the facility), located on State Road 44, Sorrento, Florida. Petitioner George Barrett was the licensed child care director of the facility, which had been a child care center for 14 years. The facility had an employee's manual that addresses its policies. The manual contained policies regarding regular staff meetings, parent/teacher conferences, and mandatory initial/in-service training requirements. The manual also included a section on safety, which stated as follows: Do not leave your classroom unsupervised at anytime, indoors or out. All electrical outlets must be covered at all times. Any broken or damaged equipment must be removed or brought to the Director's attention. Remember to count your children every hour. All of these things must be done daily. DO NOT leave children unattended. There will be tolerance for this action. The facility had a time clock, which the employees used to record their time at work. The information from the time clock transferred electronically to the facility's computer, which captured the information for use in a software program that generated payroll. If a teacher's time card was incorrect for any reason, the bookkeeper could manually override the system to correct any error. The facility also used the time clock to log the time that children attended the facility. The attendance records transferred electronically to the facility's computer, which captured the data for use in a software program that generated billing statements. The children's parents used a password to activate the time clock when they dropped off or picked up their children. There is no evidence that anyone at the facility knew how to manually override the children's electronic attendance log. Respondent alleges that its inspector, Glenda McDonald, performed an inspection of the facility on October 27, 2005. The inspection checklist contains allegations that the facility was noncompliant in the following areas: (a) Outdoor Play Area, Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C-22.002(4)(c)(g); (b) Fencing, Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C-22.002(4)(d)(e); (c) Outdoor Equipment/Suitable, Safe, Maintained, Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C-22.002(9)(b); (d) 10-hour In- service, Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C-22.003(6)(a)-(c); (e) Bottles Sanitary and Labeled, Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C-22.005(3)(b)(c); (f) Children's Health/Immunization Records, Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C-22.006(2)(a)-(c); (g) Personnel Records, Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C- 22.006(5)(a)-(c), (e), (f), (6)(e); and (h) Form 5131/Screening Documents, Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C-22.006(5)(d). Respondent did not present Ms. McDonald as a witness at the hearing. Without Ms. McDonald's testimony or an admission by Petitioners, there is no competent evidence by Respondent to show the facility's noncompliance on October 27, 2005. During the hearing, Petitioners did admit that the facility failed to comply with the rules on October 27, 2005, in the following respects: (a) the need to remove or replace a broken swing as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C-22.002(9)(b); and (b) the need to update children's shot records and physicals as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C-22.006(2)(a)-(c). Petitioners presented testimony that the broken swing was repaired immediately after the October 27, 2005, inspection. Additionally, Petitioners admitted that they found it impossible to keep the children's shot records and physicals updated, but that they corrected the problem in a timely manner after the October 27, 2005, inspection. On January 30, 2006, one of Respondent's inspectors, Debbi Mitchell, performed an inspection of the facility. Ms. Mitchell observed that the facility was noncompliant in the following ways: (a) failure to update children's shot records as required by Administrative Code Rule 65C-22.006(2)(a)-(c); and (b) failure to update personnel screening documents as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C-22.006(5)(d) and Section 435.04, Florida Statutes. There is no evidence to dispute Ms. Mitchell's testimony regarding the January 30, 2006, inspection. The failure to keep the children's shot records updated was a repeated offense. On or about March 31, 2006, Petitioner filed an application with Respondent to renew their license. Petitioners' daughter-in-law was the facility's office manager. When Petitioners were unable to be present at the facility, the daughter-in-law was the person in charge of the child care center. If the Petitioners were absent and the daughter-in-law had to leave the premises, Linda Race, a senior pre-kindergarten teacher was in charge of the facility. Ms. Race would take over as the person in charge when Petitioner's daughter-in-law handed her the facility's telephone. A.B. was the son of the daughter-in-law/office manager and the grandson of Petitioners. In the spring of 2006, A.B. was two-years-old. He attended one of the pre-kindergarten classes at the facility. It was not unusual for A.B. to see his mother during the school day. Sometimes A.B. would become upset and cry if he was not allowed to leave his class and go to his mother in the office. On April 25, 2006, Petitioners were not at the facility. Petitioner Alicia Barrett was taking care of Petitioner George Barrett, who was recovering from a serious illness. On April 25, 2006, Petitioner's daughter-in-law clocked into work at the facility at 8:10 a.m. A.B. arrived with his mother then joined his class. Later that morning, A.B. began crying for his mother. Ms. Race attempted to refocus A.B.'s attention before letting him go to his mother. From that time on, Ms. Race believed that A.B. was no longer participating in her class because he was with his mother. Ms. Race understood that A.B.'s mother was planning to leave the facility in the early part of the morning. On April 25, 2006, Petitioner's daughter-in-law clocked out of the facility at 9:59 a.m. She had been at the facility for one hour and 49 minutes before she clocked out. A.B.'s electronic attendance log for that day indicates that he was in attendance for one hour and 49 minutes. A.B.'s mother did not testify at the hearing. Sometime after 10:00 a.m. on April 25, 2006, Ms. Race and her assistant, another teacher identified as Brittany Russell, were with the children on the facility's porch. As the children prepared to move from the porch to their classroom, Ms. Race and Ms. Russell, began taking a head count. About that time, A.B.'s mother approached Ms. Race and handed the facility's telephone to her. Accepting the telephone with a call on the line, Ms. Race realized that A.B. was not with his mother and that he was at the Circle K, a convenience store and gas station located next to the facility. Apparently, employees of the Circle K had called the facility to see if a child was missing. Ms. Race immediately ran from the facility to the Circle K to retrieve A.B. The totality of the circumstances indicates that A.B. was with his mother when he left the facility. The facility's teachers had no reason to believe otherwise. No one at the facility prepared an incident report relative to the events that occurred on April 25, 2006. However, under the circumstances of this case, it is clear that A.B.'s mother was aware of the emergency that was created when A.B. left his mother and went to the Circle K. On May 12, 2006, Ms. Mitchell investigated a complaint against the facility involving the events of April 25, 2006. The investigation of the complaint resulted in Respondent's issuance of an Intent to Impose Administrative Action for the following alleged violations: (a) inadequate supervision as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C-22.001(5)(a), (b), (d)1.-3.; and (b) failure to document the incident involving A.B. as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C-22.004(2)(d)2. There is no clear and convincing evidence to support these allegations. The facility did not provide inadequate supervision for A.B. because he was with his mother and not under the supervision of the facility when he went to the Circle K. Accordingly, there was no need for the facility to document the incident. On May 12, 2006, Ms. Mitchell also performed an inspection of the facility. During the inspection, Ms. Mitchell observed the following alleged noncompliance: (a) Planned Activities Posted and Followed as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C-22.001(7)(a); (b) Outdoor Equipment/Suitable, Safe, Maintained as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C-22.002(9)(b); (c) First Aid Staff/Supplies as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C-22.004(2)(a)-(c); (d) Accident/Incident Documented as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C-22.004(2)(d)2.- 4.; and (e) Children's Health/Immunization Records as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C-22.006(2)(a)-(c). On May 12, 2006, the plan of classroom activities/schedule for each age group was posted in entrance to the facility near the office. That area was an appropriate place for all parents entering or leaving the facility to access the plan. On May 12, 2006, the facility's playhouse, which was located on its playground, had broken boards. After Ms. Mitchell's inspection, Petitioner immediately repaired the broken boards. The failure to keep the playground equipment properly maintained was a repeated violation. On May 12, 2006, Ms. Mitchell inspected the facility's fist aid kit, finding it extremely incomplete. Petitioners immediately corrected this noncompliance. On May 12, 2006, Ms. Mitchell determined that Petitioner did not prepared an incident report relative to A.B. leaving the facility on April 25, 2006. However, such documentation was not required because A.B. was with his mother, who had clocked him out of the facility. On May 12, 2006, Ms. Mitchell found that the facility had outdated shot records and/or physicals for four students. This was the third consecutive instance of this type of noncompliance. After the inspection, Petitioner corrected the problem in a timely manner. At the time of the hearing, the facility was closed.
Recommendation Based on the forgoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent enter a final order granting Petitioners' application to renew their license to operate the facility, subject to terms and conditions that Respondent deems appropriate. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of September, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S 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 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of September, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Ralph J. McMurphy, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 1601 West Gulf Atlantic Highway Wildwood, Florida 34785 Stella V. Balandran Qualified Representative 95 South Trowell Avenue Umatilla, Florida 32784 Gregory D. Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204B 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Copelan, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Luci D. Hadi, Secretary Department of Children and Family Services Building 1, Room 202 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issues in the case are whether the Respondent violated applicable rules of the Florida Administrative Code, and whether a fine of $150 is warranted for the alleged violations.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Respondent was a Florida-licensed Child Care Facility located at 650 West Main Street, Bartow, Florida. On June 3, 2003, an employee representing the Petitioner conducted a routine inspection of the Respondent facility. Upon completion of the inspection, the Respondent received a copy of the inspection report. At the time of the June 3 inspection, some children were moving back and forth without supervision between their assigned areas, which resulted in the facility being out of compliance with staff-to-child ratio requirements set forth in the Florida Administrative Code. Applicable rules require that there be one staff member responsible for every four children between the ages of birth and one-year-old. At the time of the inspection, there were four children in the infant area, plus an additional two children beyond the age of one walking without supervision through the area. The older children were not directed to return to their assigned area by the one facility employee in the infant area. Because there was only one staff person in the infant's area, the facility was out of compliance with the required ratio. Applicable rules require that there be one staff member responsible for every six children between the ages of one and two years old. At the time of the inspection there were six children in the one-year-old area, plus two additional children beyond the age of two who were playing in the area. The older children were not directed to return to their assigned area by the staff member present. Because there was only one staff person in the area, the facility was out of compliance with the required ratio. On December 2, 2003, an employee representing the Petitioner conducted a routine inspection of the Respondent facility. Upon completion of the inspection, the Respondent received a copy of the inspection report. At the time of the December 2 inspection, there were a total of six children in the infant area with one staff person present. Because there was only one staff person in the infant's area, the facility was out of compliance with the required ratio of one staff member responsible for every four children present. The Petitioner regards the failure to comply with staffing ratio requirements as a serious child safety issue. Lack of compliance with required staffing ratios poses the potential for injury or other harm to children who are left without sufficient supervision. By letter dated March 15, 2004, the Petitioner notified the Respondent of the proposed fine and set forth the following as the basis for the penalty: The Department proposes to fine your child care facility for violations of the Florida Administrative Code by authority of section 402.310, Florida Statutes. This letter is considered an administrative complaint for the purposes of section 120.60(5), Florida Statutes. . . . Inspections on June 3, 2003 and December 2, 2003 reflected repeat violations. On June 3, 2003, the infant and one year old groups were both over ratio. On December 2, 2003, during a routine child care inspection of your facility a Department licensing inspector found the infant room to be over ratio. This situation violates the Florida Administrative Code, Rule 65C-22.001(4), which requires a staff-to-children ratio as established in section 402.305(4), F.S. For these violations, the Department proposes to fine your facility the sum of $150.00. The Respondent testified at the hearing. The Respondent asserted that at the time of the inspections, adequate staff were present in the facility, but for various reasons were not in the areas being observed by the inspectors, and that ratio requirements were unmet for minimal periods of time. The Respondent also asserted that at the time of the inspections, there was a lack of barriers in the facility that would prevent children from wandering in and out of the age- related areas. Additional walls have now been constructed to prevent the children from wandering.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner enter a Final Order imposing a fine of $150 against the Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of July, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 7th day of July, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack Emory Farley, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 4720 Old Highway 37 Lakeland, Florida 33813-2030 Carla Meeks Ruth Johnson Best Academy 650 West Main Street Bartow, Florida 33830 Paul Flounlacker, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204B 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Josie Tomayo, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Whether CAP Head Start – Gibson Center (“Respondent”) committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint issued by the Department of Children and Families (“the Department”) on February 12, 2018.
Findings Of Fact The following Findings of Fact are based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing, matters subject to official recognition, and the entire record in this proceeding: The Parties and Relevant Provisions of Law The Department is the state agency responsible for licensing child care facilities in Florida and ensuring that those facilities comply with requirements imposed through the Florida Statutes and the Florida Administrative Code. In order to fulfill that duty, the Department conducts routine and complaint inspections. Every facility receives three routine inspections a year. If the Department learns that a facility may have committed a violation, then the Department conducts a complaint inspection within 48 hours of receiving the information. The Department classifies violations as Class I, Class II, or Class III. Rule 65C-22.010(1)(d)1., defines Class I violations as those that “are the most serious in nature, pose an imminent threat to a child including abuse or neglect and which could or [do] result in death or serious harm to the health, safety or well-being of a child.” Rule 65C-22.010(1)(d)2., states that Class II violations “are less serious in nature than Class I violations, and could be anticipated to pose a threat to the health, safety or well-being of a child, although the threat is not imminent.” Rule 65C-22.010(1)(d)3. provides that Class III violations “are less serious in nature than either Class I or Class II violations, and pose a low potential for harm to children.” If a facility commits three or more Class I violations within a two-year period, Rule 65C-22.010(2)(e)1.b., mandates that the Department shall suspend, deny or revoke the facility’s license. Section 39.201(1)(a), Florida Statutes, requires that [a]ny person who knows, or has reasonable cause to suspect, that a child is abused, abandoned, or neglected by a parent, legal custodian, caregiver, or other person responsible for the child’s welfare, as defined in this chapter, or that a child is in need of supervision and care and has no parent, legal custodian, or responsible adult relative immediately known and available to provide supervision and care shall report such knowledge or suspicion to [the Department] in the manner provided in subsection (2). Section 39.201(2)(a), requires that [e]ach report of known or suspected child abuse, abandonment, or neglect by a parent, legal custodian, caregiver, or other person responsible for the child’s welfare as defined in this chapter, except those solely under s. 827.04(3), and each report that a child is in need of supervision and care and has no parent, legal custodian, or responsible adult relative immediately known and available to provide supervision and care shall be made immediately to [the Department]’s central abuse hotline. Rule 65C-22.001(11)(b) specifies that “[f]ailure to perform the duties of a mandatory reporter pursuant to Section 39.201, F.S., constitutes a violation of the standards in Sections 402.301-.319, F.S.” Respondent is a federally funded, nonprofit agency with its corporate headquarters in Pensacola, Florida. Respondent has 190 employees and four core programs, the largest of which is a Head Start program serving 935 children in Escambia County. The Gibson Center in Pensacola is a Florida-licensed childcare facility and part of Respondent’s Head Start program. The Gibson Center cares for 190 children every school day and transports 160 children to and from its facility on buses. The September 20, 2017 Incident On September 20, 2017, a bus dropped off children at the Gibson Center, but the bus driver and her aide failed to conduct a complete visual sweep3/ to ensure that all the children had left the bus. As a result, no one realized that a five- year-old child, J.H., was still on the bus until the children arrived at their classroom. The bus driver briefly left the bus to retrieve a stapler from her car, drove to the “bus pen,” and began completing paperwork. After the aide called the driver to inquire if J.H. was still on the bus, the driver found J.H. asleep on a seat and unbuckled. J.H. was unattended on the bus for approximately five minutes. The bus driver and aide disclosed the incident to their supervisors. The September 28, 2017 Incident On September 28, 2017, Shenevia Jones, a bus driver’s aide, conducted a visual sweep to ensure that all of the children were off a bus but failed to notice that a four-year- old child, M.J., was hiding under a seat. M.J. remained on the bus while it took 20 minutes to complete an additional route. Upon the bus’s return to the Gibson Center, Ms. Jones discovered the child after he sprang from under a seat and said “ta dah.” Respondent’s Actions Following the Incidents Respondent’s upper management met on September 21, 2017, to discuss the September 20th incident and decided that a review of the loading and unloading procedures would be conducted with drivers and aides on September 22, 2017. In addition, the Executive Director would discuss the incident with all employees on September 23, 2017. After the September 28th incident, Respondent’s management decided that a more robust response was necessary. As a result, Ms. Jones was suspended for three days without pay, and Respondent rewrote its procedures for loading and unloading buses.4/ According to Respondent, these new procedures were “site specific” in that larger facilities such as the Gibson Center had different procedures than smaller ones.5/ Deborah Nagle, Respondent’s Director of Compliance, Governance, and Head Start, reported both incidents to the regional Health and Human Services (“HHS”) Office in Atlanta, Georgia via an October 6, 2017, e-mail. As a federally-funded, non-profit agency, Respondent receives funding from HHS. HHS issued a report on February 15, 2018, finding that Respondent violated a federal regulation prohibiting a child care program from leaving a child behind in a classroom or on a vehicle. Ms. Nagle and Doug Brown, Respondent’s Executive Director, discussed whether the incidents amounted to “neglect” within the meaning of Chapter 39 and determined they were not reportable events. In October of 2017, the Department issued a new handbook to child care facilities, and this handbook contained a section about reporting neglect. After reviewing the aforementioned section, Ms. Nagle sent an e-mail to Roger Thompson, the Department’s Supervisor of Child Care Regulation in Escambia, Santa Rosa, Okaloosa and Walton Counties, on Friday, December 8, 2017,6/ describing the incidents: I have attached 2 incidents we had with children on the bus along with the revised procedure. We had reported this to our Regional office and have worked with our Training and Technical Assistance to complete a corrective action plan and put enhanced monitoring in place. All staff will be trained on Jan. 2 when we return from the Christmas break on the revised procedures. I felt it necessary to send this information to you after reading the new Field manual which lists items we must have in policy on reporting on page 27. I will be out of the office until Dec 15th, but will be able to retrieve e-mail while traveling. Mr. Thompson responded on Monday, December 11, 2017, with the following message: Was the Hotline called on the incident? Also, that needs to be addressed in the [corrective action plan]. Anything like this needs to be reported immediately to the Hotline. Not reporting can resort in an additional Class I violation. Ms. Nagle responded 13 minutes later by stating the incidents were not reported. Just over an hour later, Ms. Nagle transmitted the following inquiry: I have a question. Is what happened considered an abuse report? To my knowledge there has not been any specifics on what is reported other [than] injury to a child or a report from a parent or other staff member that there was abuse []. We did not consider these as reportable, but due to the new field guide thought it necessary to inform you. So far every call we have made to the hotline when it was deemed an abuse situation was only taken as information. Mr. Thompson responded five minutes later with the following: Remember . . . it isn’t always ABUSE. It is anything that possibly fits Abuse and/or Neglect. This was NEGLECT. If you contact Paula Doty at the Gulf Coast Kids House, she will do a great training for free at your location. She goes into the details. It would be great for your staff, in-service training credit, and it may head some of this stuff off at the pass. The Department’s Investigation Mr. Thompson initiated a complaint investigation, and two Department employees, Casey Gully and Shacondra Primm, inspected the Gibson Center on December 13, 2017. During that inspection, one of Respondent’s teachers showed Ms. Primm a hole in the floor of a modular classroom unit. Approximately one week prior to the inspection, the teacher’s foot had fallen through the floor, resulting in a 6 inch by 12 inch hole about 3 to 4 feet from the classroom’s entrance. At the time of the inspection, a trashcan and caution tape covered the hole. Respondent was in the process of collecting bids to have the hole fixed over the Christmas break.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Families issue a Final Order imposing a $1,000.00 fine on Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of September, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S G. W. CHISENHALL 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 10th day of September, 2018.
