The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding is whether Petitioner, a family day care center owner/operator, committed violations of the Florida Statutes and the Florida Administrative Code, as alleged by Respondent, sufficient to justify Respondent's refusal to renew Petitioner's license.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Linda Stewart, on behalf of Stewart Family Day Care (Petitioner), received the business’ first license to operate a family day care center for no more than 10 children on December 20, 1996. Annual renewals of the license followed until January 2002, following Stewart Family Day Care’s renewal application filed the first of that month. On January 22, 2002, Petitioner was notified that the Department of Children and Family Services (Respondent) had declined to renew Stewart Family Day Care’s license to operate as a family day care. Denial was based on Petitioner’s September 24, 2000, arrest and subsequent conviction for Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol (DUI). License denial was also based on a report made to Respondent of domestic violence (Report No. 2000-075894) in the home in which Petitioner operated the Stewart Family Day Care. An additional report, Report No. 2001-04761, which made allegations that Petitioner was intoxicated while caring for children was closed as unfounded. At the time of both occurrences for which Respondent had concerns, there were no children in the care of Petitioner Stewart with the exception of her son, who was at the time of the alleged domestic violence 16 years of age. As established by the evidence, Petitioner was not the first aggressor and did not initiate the altercation that occurred in her home when a guest, not a live-in as alleged in the report, with too much to drink became violent, hitting Petitioner. Petitioner’s son went next door at his mother’s request and called law enforcement. Following Respondent’s refusal to renew Petitioner’s license, Petitioner has become actively involved with Alcoholics Anonymous (AA). Petitioner’s sponsor in AA testified that Petitioner attends meetings and is sincere in her commitment to AA. Petitioner, it is specifically found, has effectively rebutted through clear and convincing evidence, the allegations of domestic violence upon which Respondent relied for denial of re-licensure. Additionally, the evidence convincingly establishes that the DUI offense committed by Petitioner, at night, was unrelated in any way to her day care business. Further, as established by testimony of parents at the final hearing, Petitioner enjoys their full confidence with regard to the care afforded their children. Licensure renewal has never been denied to Petitioner in the past. Additionally, she has attended, through the years, numerous seminars and short courses to compliment and increase her proficiency in the area of child care.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is Recommended that a final order be entered granting renewal of Petitioner’s license to operate a day care center. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of June, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. 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 4th day of June, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Ralph J. McMurphy, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 1601 West Gulf Atlantic Highway Wildwood, Florida 34785 R. Eric Rubio, Esquire 2407 East Bloomingdale Avenue Valrico, Florida 33594-6404 Paul 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
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Princess Roebuck, d/b/a Princess Toddletime Nursery, is licensed by HRS to provide day care services to children in Madison, Florida. Child day care centers, such as that operated by Princess Roebuck, are regulated according to the provisions of Chapter 402, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 10M-12, Florida Administrative Code. Rule 10M-12.002(5)(a)1., prescribes ratios of staff to children according to the ages of the children being supervised. Rule 10M-12.002(5)(a)2. requires and defines direct supervision of children at day care centers. Roebuck has admitted to seven violations of the above rules between February 23, 1982, and October 29, 1985, which are not the subject of the complaint in this proceeding. On January 2, 1986, Darlene Burnette, a representative of HRS, visited Princess Toddletime Nursery, and found one employee supervising 13 children, three of whom were under one year of age. After Ms. Burnette had been at the nursery for several minutes, Ms. Roebuck arrived. She was told by Ms. Burnette that the nursery was in violation of HRS staff ratio requirements, and that because of the prior staff ratio problems, more frequent inspections would be made and that further violations could result in the imposition of a fine. On April 29, 1986, Ms. Burnette conducted a training session to instruct the operators of child day care centers in amendments to Chapter 10M-12 Florida Administrative Code. Ms. Roebuck was present at this meeting. Ms. Roebuck was informed of changes in the administrative rules effective March 1, 1986, governing the operation of child day care centers. Specifically, Ms. Burnette informed the day care center operators of the ratios set out in Rule 10M-12.002(5)(a), Florida Administrative Code. Ms. Burnette also informed the day care operators about the direct supervision requirement of subsection 2. of the subject rule. Copies of the rules discussed at this training session were provided to those in attendance. On May 8, 1986, Ms. Burnette visited Princess Toddletime Nursery. There she counted 20 children, three of whom were under two years of age. Only one staff member, Sally Hall, was present when Ms. Burnette arrived. On this visit, Ms. Burnette also observed children napping in separate rooms at opposite ends of the nursery. From no vantage point in the room could Sally Hall, alone, have supervised or directly observed children in both rooms. Ms. Roebuck arrived at the nursery on May 8, 1986, some 15 to 20 minutes after Ms. Burnette. Until the arrival of Ms. Roebuck, there was only one staff member to supervise the 20 children who were on the premises.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent, Princess Roebuck, d/b/a Princess Toddletime Nursery, be assessed an administrative fine of $75.00 per violation for the two violations alleged, for a total fine of $150.00. THIS Recommended Order entered this 30th day of January, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of January, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-3018 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner Accepted. Accepted. Rejected, as not a proposed factual finding, but a conclusion of law. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected, as not a proposed factual finding, but argument. 7.-16. Accepted. Rejected, as not a proposed factual finding, but argument. Accepted. 19.-20. Rejected, as not proposed factual finding, but argument. 21. Rejected, as not relevant. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent Accepted. Accepted. 3.-4. Rejected, as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Accepted. Rejected, as irrelevant. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: John R. Perry, Esquire 2639 North Monroe Street Suite 200-A Tallahassee, Florida 32303 J. R. Zant, Esquire Post Office Box 14 Madison, Florida 32340 William Page, Jr., Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Steven W. Huss General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent, a day-care center, committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and if so, the penalties Petitioner should impose against Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the regulatory authority responsible for licensure and enforcement of day-care centers in Florida. Respondent is a day-care center in Miami, Florida, and currently holds child care license C11MD0340. Respondent has operated as a day-care center since April 19, 1990. At the time of the formal hearing, Kevin Lennon was the owner and operator of Respondent. S.B. and L.B. are young sisters who stayed at Respondent’s day-care center in July 2014. On July 9, 2014, one of Respondent’s employees gave S.B. and L.B. a small cup of Cheez-Its as a snack. Mr. Lennon was present when the two girls were sharing the cup of Cheez-Its. After S.B., who is the older and bigger child, finished her share of the Cheez-Its, S.B. began to hit her sister to take her sister’s share of the Cheez-Its. Mr. Lennon separated the two girls and permitted L.B. to eat her share of the Cheez-Its. Mr. Lennon testified, credibly, that he did not take the Cheez-Its from S.B. to punish S.B. Petitioner offered no competent, credible evidence to refute Mr. Lennon’s testimony. On March 25, 2014, Petitioner received from Respondent an “Application for a License to Operate a Child Care Facility” (the application). Mr. Lennon completed the application on behalf of Respondent. The application contained an attestation section that required Mr. Lennon’s signature to be notarized. On March 25, 2014, Petitioner received an attestation section (first attestation section) signed by Kevin Lennon on February 28, 2014. The first attestation section contains Ivanne Albarran’s notary seal and a signature dated February 28, 2014. Mr. Lennon testified, credibly, that he signed the first attestation section as Kevin Lennon. Mr. Albarran testified, credibly, that he signed the first attestation section as the notary public. Petitioner offered insufficient evidence to refute that testimony. The application package contains a second attestation section that was received by Petitioner on March 28, 2014. The second attestation section contains Mr. Lennon’s signature and a date of March 26, 2014. The second attestation section contains Mr. Albarran’s notary seal and a signature dated March 28, 2014. Mr. Lennon testified, credibly, that he signed the second attestation section as “Kevin Lennon.” Mr. Albarran testified, credibly, that he signed the second attestation section as the notary public. Petitioner offered no competent, credible evidence to refute that testimony.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Families enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of January, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of January, 2015. COPIES FURNISHED: Howard J. Hochman, Esquire Law Offices of Howard J. Hochman 7695 Southwest 104th Street, Suite 210 Miami, Florida 33156 (eServed) Karen A. Milia, Esquire Department of Children and Families 401 Northwest Second Avenue, Suite N-1014 Miami, Florida 33128 (eServed) Paul Sexton, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Families Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Rebecca Kapusta, Interim General Counsel Department of Children and Families Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 (eServed) Mike Carroll, Secretary Department of Children and Families Building 1, Room 202 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 (eServed)
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent should be assessed a $150.00 civil penalty for violating Rule 65C-22.001, Florida Administrative Code, in three respects.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: In this case, Petitioner, Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), has filed an Administrative Complaint against Respondent, Cool School, Inc., a licensed child care facility, seeking to impose a $150.00 civil penalty on Respondent for allegedly violating an agency rule in three respects. Respondent, which operates a facility at 57 College Drive, Orange Park, Florida, disputes the allegations and contends that the charges are either not true, or there are extenuating circumstances present which require dismissal of the charges or a reduction in the penalty. Rule 65C-22.001(5)(a), Florida Administrative Code, underpins this action and requires in relevant part that "[c]hild care personnel at the facility must be assigned to provide direct supervision to a specific group of children and be present with that group of children at all times." The Administrative Complaint alleges that in September 2000 Respondent violated this rule by (a) allowing a two-year-old child to exit the facility to the playground, without supervision, clad only in a shirt and shoes; (b) allowing two children under the age of thirteen to change the diaper of a seven-month-old infant in the bathroom, without supervision by the staff; and (c) allowing at least five school-aged children to leave the premises and get items from their book bags on the front porch, without supervision. The DCFS proposes to impose a $50.00 civil penalty for each violation, or a total of $150.00. DCFS has the responsibility of periodically inspecting licensed child care facilities to ensure that they are complying with agency rules and state law. To carry out this duty, DCFS typically assigns its licensing counselors a number of facilities to monitor. In this case, Susan Kipen, a licensing counselor stationed in Jacksonville, was assigned the task of monitoring more than 90 such facilities in the Jacksonville area, including Respondent. In response to a complaint filed by an unnamed parent on September 18, 2000, Kipen inspected Respondent's facility on the afternoon of September 20, 2000. The parent had reported that her two-year old child had wandered into the playground area without supervision, and that the diapers on her seven-month-old child had been changed by two school age children without appropriate supervision. During her visit, Kipen prepared a document entitled Complaint Investigation in which she recited the alleged violations for which Respondent was being charged. They included, among other things, the two complaints previously lodged by the parent, namely, that a "two year old did get outside by himself, he only had shirt and shoes," and that a "7 month [old] was changed by two schoolers." Although the licensing counselor did not actually observe the two incidents reported by the parent, she included them in her report because she says Respondent's owner, Antoinette Garrity, "confirmed" that they were true by reading and signing the report. However, Garrity understood that her signature merely confirmed that she had read the reported charges, not that she agreed with them. The only first-hand evidence on these two charges was that presented by Respondent. The complaining parent did not testify. In addition to the above two charges, the counselor also charged Respondent with allowing "at least five (5) school-aged children, one at a time, and unsupervised, [to leave] the center by the front door to get items from their book bags located on the front porch." This charge was based on a personal observation by the licensing counselor during her inspection. The first violation concerns a charge that a two- year-old left the facility unattended and was "discovered a few minutes later on the playground by the assistant director." On this issue, the evidence shows that the child was using the potty in the presence of a facility worker, Sharon Dunn, who was also changing a baby's diapers at the same time. The two-year-old suddenly jumped off the potty (without his pants), ran to the door, opened it, and went outside on the porch. Dunn, who had the child in her view at all times from the bathroom window, asked the facility's assistant director, Regina Harewood, who was nearby, "Can you get him?" Harewood acknowledged that she could and proceeded to grab the child and bring him back into into the classroom. The child was never in any danger since he was being observed at all times and was retrieved a few moments after he ran out the door. In addition, Harewood was close enough to be capable of responding to an emergency at all times. Under these circumstances, it is found that no violation of the rule occurred. The second charge concerns an allegation that "two (2) children under the age of 13 years changed the diaper of a 7-month-old infant in the bathroom and no staff was present to supervise [them]." The evidence shows that a new worker had a baby in the bathroom for the purpose of changing his diapers. Garrity acknowledged that when the worker left the room to go outside for a moment, the worker improperly allowed two schoolers who were in the same room to change the diapers. While the diapers were being changed, the baby's mother came into the room. She then complained to staff personnel and later filed a complaint with DCFS. Garrity admonished both the worker and children that this situation should never occur again. Although there was no evidence on how this set of events actually or potentially jeopardized the baby's safety or well-being, a technical violation of the rule has been established since there were no supervisory personnel in the bathroom for a few moments. Finally, during her inspection, the counselor observed at least five children, one at a time, walk outside the front door to retrieve items from their book bags, which were lying on the front porch of the facility, and then return inside. At that time, it was the practice of the children to leave their book bags on the front porch when they arrived at the facility each day. This evidence was not contradicted. Because the front porch was no more than 25 or 30 feet from the sidewalk, which was used by the general public, and there was an apartment complex nearby, the children had the opportunity to gain access to areas frequented by the public. This is true even though the assistant director says that while she was on duty, she was by the front door "the majority of the time." Therefore, the children were potentially at risk when they briefly left the premises to retrieve items from their book bags. Respondent's owner admitted that she "hadn't thought of this situation," and after the incident occurred, she instructed the children that all book bags must be brought into the dayroom. Notwithstanding this corrective action, a violation of the rule has been established. In mitigation, Respondent's owner suggested that the entire matter was caused by a vindictive parent who owed her facility money and filed the charges after a heated confrontation. She also worries that each time the facility receives a civil penalty, it "kills" her business. Finally, she described her facility as a "pretty good" day care facility, and insisted that she puts safety first for the children. Respondent has been the subject of one other disciplinary action in which she was found guilty of failing to submit background screening documents within ten days of employment of seven staff members. In that matter, which was concluded after the Administrative Complaint in this case was issued, she was given a $350.00 civil penalty. See Cool School, Inc. v. Dep't of Children and Family Services, DOAH Case No. 00-1421 (Final Order, Feb. 28, 2001).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Family Services enter a final order finding that Respondent violated Rule 65C-22.001(5)(a), Florida Administrative Code, in two respects, and that it have a $100.00 civil penalty imposed. The remaining charge should be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of March, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 23rd day of March, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Virginia A. Daire, 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 Antoinette Garrity Cool School, Inc. 57 College Drive Orange Park, Florida 32065 Robin Whipple-Hunter, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services Post Office Box 2417 Jacksonville, Florida 32231-0083
Findings Of Fact Respondent's facility is a duly licensed child care facility. Rule Section 10M-12.002(5), Florida Administrative Code, requires direct supervision of groups of children by specified numbers of a child care facility's staff personnel. The number of staff personnel required for supervision is generated by the age and number of children to be supervised. Children three years of age must be supervised by at least one staff member for each group of 15 or less children. On June 12, 1990, two of Respondent's staff members were assigned to oversee 16 three-year-old children. The children were taken by the two staff members to the facility's outdoor play ground. While on the playground, one staff member left for a period of time not exceeding two minutes to retrieve snacks for the children. The 16 children were left to the supervision of another staff member while the one staff member walked alone approximately seventy-six (76) feet from the playground to an area inside a building where the snacks are kept. During the brief time she was inside the building, she could not see or observe children on the playground. During the staff member's absence, one of the children became entangled in playground equipment. Upon her return with the snacks, the staff member spotted the child. The child appeared to be unconscious. Mouth-to-mouth resuscitation was administered by the staff member and another Respondent employee telephoned emergency medical personnel. Immediately after the incident, Respondent's facility manager reported the matter by telephone to an investigator employed by Petitioner's licensing division. One week later, the investigator visited Respondent's facility, conducted a review of the premises and found no violations at that time. However, based upon the momentary absence of the one staff worker at the time of the incident the previous week, Petitioner's investigator determined that Respondent had violated provisions of Chapter 10M-12.002(5), Florida Administrative Code, relating to the number of staff members required to provide direct supervision of the children in Respondent's facility at that time. Petitioner's investigator interpreted the "ratio" provision of Rule Section 10M-12.002(5), Florida Administrative Code, to require issuance of a citation for a violation at any time an assigned worker left the exact area in which children were at the time such children were playing. Petitioner has cited other child care providers for staffing ratio violations, even when the absence of a facility's supervising staff member was temporary. Petitioner's interpretation of the requirements of Rule Section 10M- 12.002(5), Florida Administrative Code, does not exclude a facility from the exercise of reasonable alternatives which would prevent a citation for staffing ratio violations. Such an alternative would include having another facility employee temporarily provide supervision when one of the staff supervisors is required to leave the children.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered imposing an administrative fine of $75 against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of January, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1500 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of January, 1991. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. RESPONDENT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS 1.-12. Adopted in substance, but not verbatim. 13.-18. Rejected as unnecessary to result. PETITIONER'S PROPOSED FINDINGS 1.-15. Adopted in substance, though not verbatim. COPIES FURNISHED: Scott D. Leemis, Esq. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services P.O. Box 2417 Jacksonville, FL 32231-0083 Mary S. Kearsey, Esq. 13000 Sawgrass Village Circle Suite 16 Ponte Vedra Beach, FL 32082 General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Sam Power Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner's child care license should be renewed based upon a purported violation of rules contained in Florida Administrative Code Chapter 65C-20, concerning adequate supervision of children left in the Petitioner's care and custody.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Clara Fail, is the operator of a licensed child care home or facility. The Respondent is an agency of the State of Florida charged with licensure and regulation of the operation of child care facilities in accordance with Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 65C-20. By its letter of July 7, 2004, the Respondent Agency advised the Petitioner that her application to renew her license to operate a child care facility was denied based upon failure to adequately supervise a child left in her care. In essence, it is charged that the Petitioner failed to supervise a minor child left in her care by failing to safely maintain the child at the Petitioner's home, the licensed facility. On or about April 9, 2004, Heidi Stalice who lives in the neighborhood of the Petitioner's daycare facility located a nine year-old child wondering on her street. The nine-year-old identified himself and was unsure where he lived, upon inquiry from Ms. Stalice. Ms. Stalice took the child to her nearby residence and kept him safe with her own son, who is approximately the same age. Mr. Stalice attempted to locate the child's address by driving him around the neighborhood without success. She then contacted the Marion County Sheriff's Office and Deputy Shively. Deputy Shively went to Ms. Stalice's residence and also contacted the foster care personnel of the Department. He was advised by them that the child's foster mother was Patti Green. The employees at the foster care office made contact with Ms. Green who advised them that the child was supposed to be at the Petitioner's house at 5501 Southeast 29th Court, his "babysitter." Deputy Shively made contact with the Petitioner Clara Fail, by phone who advised him that this was the first day she had kept the child who was a foster child of Ms. Green and had been placed in foster care with her the day before. Ms. Fail advised Deputy Shively that the child had walked away from her residence earlier that morning at approximately 11:00 a.m., and had returned a short time later and ate lunch. Ms. Fail advised Deputy Shively that the child again left the residence on foot at approximately 2:00 p.m., at which time she stated that she called the foster mother Ms. Green, at work, but did not get a response. Investigator Blystone spoke with Deputy Shively by phone and advised the deputy that the foster mother, Patti Green, was going to Ms. Stalice's residence and that he was to relinquish custody of the child to Ms. Green, his foster mother with the understanding that the child was not to be taken back to Ms. Fail's residence until an investigation by DCF could be completed. Ms. Michaeline Cone is a family services counselor. She and her supervisor Diana McKenzie, who is a family services counselor supervisor both went to Ms. Fail's home to investigate this matter. Ms. Fail acknowledged the incident and told Ms. Cone that the child had wandered away twice and she had been unable to keep him in the fenced area that day. Ms. McKenzie established that children playing in the fenced yard area at Ms. Fail's home could not be in Ms. Fail's view at all times if Ms. Fail was inside the house, and that therefore to that extent they were sometimes unsupervised. Upon Ms. Cone's June 2, 2004, visit she had asked Ms. Fail if the three dogs she saw present in her yard had been vaccinated. Ms. Fail replied that she did not own any of the animals and that they belonged to neighbors. Ms. Cone requested that the dogs be removed from the property and that the gates be secured so that the animals could not return to the property. On June 15, 2004, when Ms. McKenzie and Ms. Cone again made an inspection of the Fail home, Ms. McKenzie observed Ms. Fail taking the three dogs from the front of the yard to the rear yard. When asked about the dogs during that visit Ms. Fail once again stated that the dogs did not belong to her. Ms. McKenzie again reminded her to remove the dogs from the premises.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Children and Family Services imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $500.00 and imposing the requirement of a provisional licensure not to exceed six months duration after which licensure shall be again reviewed by the Department, and during which six month period at least monthly inspections for the safety and proper operation of the facility shall be conducted. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of April, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of April, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Joe Garwood, 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 Clara Fail 5501 Southeast 29th Court Ocala, Florida 34480 T. Shane Deboard, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 1601 West Gulf Atlantic Highway Wildwood, Florida 34785
