The Issue The issue is whether the provisional license issued to Kiddie Kampus Day Care (Respondent), should be renewed.
Findings Of Fact Reatha Simmons is the owner of the Respondent facility and is licensed by Petitioner to operate a Child Care Facility under License No. DC-1320-E. As a consequence of a pattern of problems and violations at the Kiddie Kampus Day Care, Respondent was placed on provisional license status from January 20, 2000 through April 1, 2000. An inspection of the Respondent facility on January 7, 2000, revealed that the facility was "out-of-ratio" with too many children and not enough supervising employees, as well as insufficient square footage. Additional citations were made for Respondent's employee screening violations and lack of tuberculosis (TB) testing of the employees. A supervisory conference was held with Reatha Simmons and Petitioner employees on January 13, 2000, to discuss the pattern of repeat violations and non-compliance by the Respondent facility. Consequently, the facility was placed on a three-month provisional license status and Reatha Simmons was warned that it was her last chance to correct repeated violations. Another inspection on February 16, 2000, by Petitioner's representative revealed continued personnel screening violations and various facility violations. Included within the violations were two children who did not have required physicals on January 27, 2000, and were still out of compliance. An attempted review of documents at the Respondent facility by Petitioner's representative on March 6, 2000, was not possible as the documents were locked in an office in the facility at that time. Problems occurred at the Respondent facility on March 4, 2000. An underage employee was alone for approximately nine hours with children at the facility. There was a ratio violation as to the number and ages of the children at the facility. A family member was called to come and pick up a child early and the facility closed earlier than its posted hours. These matters were reported to Petitioner's personnel on March 7, 2000. At an inspection by Petitioner personnel on March 9, 2000, Respondent acknowledged the veracity of the March 4, 2000 incident. On March 16, 2000, an inspection of the facility showed additional fill dirt or ground cover was needed under the monkey bars, a piece of recreational machinery. While employee fingerprint and background verification were eventually accomplished, along with required TB tests, these actions were tardy and not expediently accomplished. Likewise, physical examinations of two children were not timely accomplished.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a final order be entered by Petitioner confirming the decision not to renew Respondent's license. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of December, 2000, 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 19th day of December, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Reatha Simmons, Qualified Representative Kiddie Kampus Day Care 1216 Portland Street Pensacola, Florida 32534 Eric D. Schurger, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 160 Governmental Center, Suite 601 Pensacola, Florida 32501 Josie Tomayo, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Virginia A. Daire, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204B 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue in this matter is whether the Department of Children and Families should impose an administrative fine on Respondent.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with regulating licensed or registered child care facilities in Florida. Respondent is licensed to operate a child care facility in Lakeland, Florida. The Department seeks to sanction Respondent based on an incident that occurred on November 2, 2015. The Department’s Administrative Complaint specifically alleges that: The facility driver, Antuan Bunkley was looking at his phone while transporting children in the facility’s vehicle. Two witnesses observed Antuan Bunkley texting and/or scrolling while driving. The witnesses observed a phone in Antuan’s hands and him looking down several times while driving with children in the van. Several children on the van told the Department that Antuan text [sic] while he drives, plays games on his phone, and receives calls while driving. The Department asserts that Mr. Bunkley must “be able to respond to the needs of the children” and “be alert and avoid any and all distractions in order to effectively respond to those needs.” The Department categorized Respondent’s (i.e., Mr. Bunkley’s) actions as a Class I violation of a child care licensing standard. The Department desires to fine Respondent in the amount of $250 because Mr. Bunkley’s “inadequate supervision posed an imminent threat to the child, or could or did result in death or serious harm to the health, safety or well-being of a child.” The Department issued the Administrative Complaint following a complaint received from Shana Nicholes, who had observed Mr. Bunkley driving Respondent’s van. At the final hearing, Ms. Nicholes testified that on November 2, 2015, at approximately 3:30 p.m., she was driving her sports utility vehicle on Highway 98 North in Lakeland. Her brother was riding with her in the passenger seat. As she drove, her brother called her attention to Respondent’s van which was driving in front of them. He commented that the van was full of children who were not wearing seat belts. As her vehicle drew closer to the van, Ms. Nicholes observed that not only were the children not wearing seat belts, but she believed that she saw the driver (Mr. Bunkley) looking down at his cell phone while driving. Ms. Nicholes explained that Highway 98 North has four lanes through Lakeland. Over a stretch of about three to four miles, Ms. Nicholes drove in the left side lane roughly parallel to Mr. Bunkley. Ms. Nicholes testified that during that drive, she saw Mr. Bunkley holding a phone. She further stated that he looked down at the phone in his lap several times as he drove. Ms. Nicholes guessed that Mr. Bunkley lowered his eyes for approximately 10 to 20 seconds each time he glanced down. She stressed that “he wasn’t paying attention to the road.” Ms. Nicholes expressed that the two vehicles drove as fast as 45 mph. Ms. Nicholes was quite alarmed by Mr. Bunkley’s actions. As she drove next to him, she took several photographs of him with her cell phone. Copies of Ms. Nicholes’ photographs were introduced at the final hearing. The photographs show Mr. Bunkley looking down as he is sitting in the driver’s seat. However, neither Mr. Bunkley’s right hand nor a cell phone are visible in the pictures. (Respondent disputes that the van was moving at the time Ms. Nicholes took the pictures.) Ms. Nicholes was shocked by the incident. She was worried for the safety of the children in the van. She commented that if her child were riding in the van, and the driver was distracted like Mr. Bunkley was, she would be furious. Later that day, Ms. Nicholes posted her photographs of Mr. Bunkley driving Respondent’s van on her Facebook page. She added the caption, “Well, this is safe, we’re doing about 45 down 98 and this guy is texting with a van full of children. Not cool, dude.” The next morning, Ms. Nicholes was still distressed by what she had witnessed. Therefore, she decided to visit Respondent’s place of business to discuss the incident. Ms. Nicholes had no knowledge of Respondent prior to November 2, 2015. She identified Respondent from the name on the side of the van. Ms. Nicholes maintained that her only interest in approaching Respondent was to alert Respondent of the risk to the children in the van because of a distracted driver. When Ms. Nicholes arrived at Respondent’s facility, she spoke to Elizabeth Jackson. Ms. Nicholes advised Ms. Jackson that she had observed her van driver using his cell phone while driving, and she showed Ms. Jackson her photographs. Ms. Jackson informed Ms. Nicholes that the driver was her son, Antuan Bunkley. Ms. Jackson told Ms. Nicholes that she would be taking him off driving until the matter was resolved. After her meeting with Ms. Jackson, Ms. Nicholes drove to Subway for lunch. While standing in line, she was approached by a woman who identified herself as an employee of Respondent. The employee asked Ms. Nicholes if she was the one who had posted the photos of the van driver on Facebook. At that point, Mr. Bunkley entered Subway. Ms. Nicholes took a picture of Mr. Bunkley while he was standing in line behind her. The next day, Ms. Nicholes reported the incident to the Department. Upon receiving Ms. Nicholes’ complaint, the Department initiated an investigation. The case was assigned to Brandy Queen, a Child Protective Investigator. Cheryl Dishong, a Child Care Regulations Counselor, assisted her. Ms. Queen testified that she started her investigation by visiting Respondent’s facility. She was accompanied by Ms. Dishong. There, she met Ms. Jackson. During their conversation, Ms. Jackson acknowledged that her facility owned the van and that the driver was Mr. Bunkley. Ms. Jackson told Ms. Queen that Mr. Bunkley had picked up six children on the afternoon of November 2, 2015. She provided the children’s names to Ms. Queen. Ms. Jackson also allowed Ms. Queen and Ms. Dishong to examine the van. Ms. Queen and Ms. Dishong spent some time climbing through the van. The van has two bucket seats in the front row and three rows of back seats. Ms. Queen and Ms. Dishong sat in different seats to determine the vantage point of the driver by the children riding in the van. They wanted to see if the children could have observed Mr. Bunkley texting while he drove. Ms. Dishong climbed into the back rear seat. Taking into account that she is taller than the children who rode in the van, Ms. Dishong slouched down to simulate a child passenger. Ms. Queen stated that Ms. Dishong believed that a child could adequately see the driver from the back, rear seat. However, Ms. Queen conceded that during their inspection of the van, no one was sitting between the rear back seat and the drivers’ seat. Neither did a driver sit in the front seat to determine whether Mr. Bunkley’s body would prevent a clear view of his hand while he was driving (particularly, a driver as large as Mr. Bunkley as discussed below). Next, Ms. Queen interviewed the six children who had been riding with Mr. Bunkley on the afternoon of November 2, 2015. At the final hearing, Ms. Queen explained that, before she asked the children about Mr. Bunkley’s driving, she presented several preliminary questions to ascertain whether the children understood the difference between telling the truth and telling a lie. Ms. Queen testified that she believed the children were telling her the truth during her interview. However, the children’s statements were not given under oath.3/ Ms. Queen stated that, based on the evidence she gathered, which included the children’s statements, Ms. Nicholes’ pictures,4/ and her own observations of the van, she “verified” that Mr. Bunkley’s conduct constituted inadequate supervision. Ms. Queen further stated that Mr. Bunkley’s driving while distracted caused concern since he ran “the risk of getting into a wreck.” She believed that he had placed himself and the children in his care “at risk of harm, of dying.” Of the six children, the Department presented A.O. at the final hearing to tell her story.5/ A.O. was seven years old at the time of the incident. (She was eight years old on the date of the final hearing.) A.O. testified that she had attended Respondent’s child care facility for about a year. A.O. was familiar with Mr. Bunkley and identified him in Ms. Nicholes’ photographs. A.O. relayed that three to four different people had driven her in Respondent’s van, including Mr. Bunkley. A.O. stated that on the afternoon in question, Mr. Bunkley picked her up after school in Respondent’s van. At the final hearing, A.O. demonstrated proficient knowledge of the functions of a cell phone. A.O. described various uses of a cell phone including talking, texting, playing games, and looking at Facebook. A.O. testified that Mr. Bunkley used his cell phone when he drove the van. A.O. stated that Mr. Bunkley texts while driving. By “texting,” A.O. recounted that she observed Mr. Bunkley moving his fingers on the phone at the same time he was driving. A.O. also described seeing Mr. Bunkley looking at Facebook on his cell phone while he was driving the van. A.O. added that sometimes when she was riding with Mr. Bunkley, he swerved off the road while he was using his phone. She also described how the van would sometimes get near other cars on the road. She commented that Mr. Bunkley occasionally drives the van with his knees. She imparted that the way he drove scared her sometimes. A.O. expressed that when she rode in the van, she sat in the very back seat on the right side. A.O. conveyed that, despite sitting in the very back row, she could still see Mr. Bunkley hold and use a cell phone. At the final hearing, Mr. Bunkley acknowledged that he was driving Respondent’s van on November 2, 2015, and was the individual seen in Ms. Nicholes’ photographs. Mr. Bunkley also confirmed that he was transporting children in the van at that time. Mr. Bunkley firmly denied that he was texting while driving Respondent’s van. He denied ever using his phone while driving the van. Mr. Bunkley admitted that he does carry his cell phone when he drives. However, he claimed that he routinely keeps his phone in his pocket. Mr. Bunkley asserted that he would only use his cell phone in the case of an emergency. Mr. Bunkley expressed that Ms. Nicholes must have seen him looking down at his transportation log when she observed him on November 2, 2015. Mr. Bunkley explained that his log sheet registers when and where he is to pick up and drop off children. Mr. Bunkley relayed that he periodically reviews the log sheet as he transports children. However, he only checks the transportation log when the van is stopped. He remarked that Ms. Nicholes must have taken her pictures of him on Highway 98 North when they were stopped at a stoplight. Mr. Bunkley stated that he is 5’11” tall and weighs 330 pounds. Because of his large size, he did not believe that it was possible for A.O. to see anything he held in his lap from her seat in the right rear of the van. Mr. Bunkley offered his cell phone records to support his assertion that he was not texting on the afternoon of November 2, 2015. However, the phone records do not confirm whether Mr. Bunkley was accessing or reading text messages as he was driving. Nor do they provide any information regarding his alleged “scrolling” or using Facebook. Respondent is owned and operated by Ms. Jackson. She is also Mr. Bunkley’s mother. Ms. Jackson did not believe that Mr. Bunkley was texting on his cell phone while he was driving the van. Instead, she posited that the van was stationary when Ms. Nicholes took her pictures, and that Mr. Bunkley was looking down at his transportation log. Based on the competent substantial evidence presented at the final hearing, the clear and convincing evidence in the record does not establish that Mr. Bunkley was scrolling and/or texting on his cell phone while driving Respondent’s van on November 2, 2015. Accordingly, the Department failed to meet its burden of proving that Respondent committed “inadequate supervision” which would support an administrative fine under section 402.310.
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 against Respondent, The Early Years Child Development Center. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of March, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. BRUCE CULPEPPER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of March, 2017.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner is entitled to the renewal of her license as the operator of a child care facility.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was licensed to operate a child care facility continuously from December 31, 1985, through June 30, 1997. Several licenses issued by Respondent to Petitioner were provisional due to Respondent's concerns about Petitioner's compliance with various statutes and rules governing child care facilities. (References to Respondent include the predecessor agency to the Department of Children and Family Services.) On June 5, 1997, Respondent notified Petitioner that it would not renew her child care facility license when it expired on June 30, 1997. Presumably because Petitioner timely requested a hearing, Respondent allowed her to continue to operate her facility past June 30. However, on July 3, 1997, Respondent issued an order of emergency suspension pending review of the decision not to renew. Petitioner has not since operated her child care facility. The two major issues in this case involve Petitioner's repeated failures to employ sufficient staff to satisfy the staff-to-child ratios and repeated failures to ensure that staff directly supervise all children. Although these standards are related in purpose, the staffing-ratio standard requires that a certain number of staffpersons be responsible for a maximum number of children, with a lower ratio for younger children, and the direct-supervision standard requires in most instances that a staffperson be in the same room as the children. As a result of 31 facility inspections, Respondent identified 40 violations of these two standards. Five of these inspections resulted in Respondent filing administrative complaints, in response to which Petitioner eventually paid relatively small fines. The remaining 26 inspections resulted in nothing more serious than Respondent issuing warning letters. The first Administrative Complaint, which is dated February 8, 1993, alleges that Respondent conducted inspections on August 9 and September 22, 1992, and found each time insufficient staff to satisfy the required ratio of staff to children. The Administrative Complaint alleges that Respondent sent Petitioner a letter on October 2, 1992, warning that further infractions of the staffing ratio could result in a fine, but Respondent's inspectors found on December 16, 1992, another staffing-ratio violation, as well as a direct-supervision violation. The Administrative Complaint seeks a fine of $30. Petitioner did not contest the allegations of the February 8 Administrative Complaint. Instead, she paid the $30 fine on April 19, 1993. Respondent filed another Administrative Complaint dated June 9, 1993. The Administrative Complaint alleges that a 15-year-old staffperson had not undergone the necessary screening. Three months later, Respondent converted the Administrative Complaint to a warning due to Petitioner's confusion concerning the screening requirements applicable to such a young staffperson. Respondent filed a third Administrative Complaint on December 9, 1993. The Administrative Complaint alleges that, on November 17, 1993, three staffpersons were supervising 37 children, in violation of the staffing ratios and Petitioner's licensed capacity. Issuing a warning as to the capacity violation, Respondent sought a $75 fine for the staffing-ratio violation. Petitioner did not contest the December 9 Administrative Complaint. Instead, she paid the $75 fine on February 17, 1994. Respondent filed a fourth Administrative Complaint on February 17, 1995. The Administrative Complaint alleges, among other things, that Petitioner did not have a sink with the required number of compartments to allow the kind of food preparation that she was undertaking at the facility. The parties settled this allegation without the imposition of a fine or other discipline. Respondent filed a fifth Administrative Complaint on May 23, 1996. The Administrative Complaint alleges that Petitioner's employees propped up three feeding bottles for infants. The Administrative Complaint seeks a $50 fine. Petitioner paid the $50 fine on June 27, 1996. Respondent filed the sixth and seventh Administrative Complaints on February 11 and 26, 1997. Petitioner contested these allegations, as well as the allegations contained in an eighth Administrative Complaint dated March 18, 1997. All three complaints were consolidated for a single hearing. The partial final order resulting from the hearing on the three complaints imposed $400 in fines against Petitioner for two violations of the staffing ratios (alleged in the February 11 Administrative Complaint), one violation of the staffing ratios (alleged in the February 26 Administrative Complaint), and one violation of the direct-supervision requirement (alleged in the February 26 Administrative Complaint). The partial final order dismissed the March 18 Administrative Complaint and remanded allegations of inadequate training of staff. (The administrative law judge declined the remand, and the Respondent has appealed the order declining remand.) In addition to the above instances of violations of staffing ratios or direct supervision, Respondent also proved numerous other instances of violations of these two minimum- care standards. Respondent proved that Petitioner violated the following minimum-care standards: May 7, 1986 (staffing ratio); May 13, 1987 (staffing ratio and capacity limit); June 20, 1987 (staffing ratio); November 18, 1987 (staffing ratio); April 14, 1988 (staffing ratio); May 6, 1988 (staffing ratio); June 7, 1988 (staffing ratio); August 16, 1988 (staffing ratio); May 16, 1989 (staffing ratio and direct supervision); March 2, 1990 (staffing ratio); June 22, 1990 (direct supervision); October 2, 1990 (staffing ratio); October 5, 1990 (staffing ratio and direct supervision); November 5, 1990 (staffing ratio and direct supervision); November 8, 1990 (staffing ratio); November 15, 1990 (staffing ratio); May 14, 1991 (direct supervision); December 16, 1992 (staffing ratio and direct supervision); March 26, 1993 (staffing ratio); April 7, 1994 (staffing ratio and direct supervision); June 29, 1994 (direct supervision); July 28, 1995 (staffing ratio and direct supervision); December 6, 1995 (staffing ratio); January 28, 1997 (staffing ratio and direct supervision); February 17, 1997 (staffing ratio and direct supervision); June 25, 1997 (staffing ratio); and June 30, 1997 (staffing ratio). Respondent issued inspection reports for all of the violations listed in the preceding paragraph and provided Petitioner with copies of this documentation. Respondent periodically wrote letters to Petitioner advising her of the legal requirements as to staff ratios and direct supervision. Respondent repeatedly offered Petitioner technical advice regarding these crucial minimum standards for the provision of child care. There is no possibility that Petitioner did not understand the staffing-ratio and direct-supervision requirements. Petitioner's noncompliance constituted nothing less than defiance of these two minimum-care requirements over a period of 11 years. From 1986 through 1990, Petitioner violated these two standards 16 times. In 1991, she violated them only once. However, she violated them three times in 1992--resulting in the first administrative fine for the violation of these standards. Petitioner violated these standards twice in 1993--the second violation resulting in the second administrative fine for the violation of these standards. Petitioner violated the staffing-ratio and direct- supervision standards twice in 1994 and twice in 1995, but not at all in 1996. However, she violated these standards six times in 1997, including twice after the issuance of a third administrative complaint concerning the violation of these standards. These last two, particularly ill-timed violations, led directly to the decision not to renew her license and the later decision not to allow her to operate pending review of the nonrenewal decision. Although Petitioner has greatly reduced the number of her violations of the staffing-ratio and direct-supervision standards, she has nonetheless refused to comply with these important requirements designed to ensure the safety of the children for whom she is caring. Her violation of these standards while cases were still pending over earlier violations betrays a hardened resolve not to comply with these two standards. Respondent also proved that Petitioner repeatedly violated other requirements, such as for timely screening of employees and recordkeeping. However, Petitioner's repeated failures to comply with the staffing-ratio and direct- supervision requirements are sufficient to warrant the denial of her application for renewal of her license or, in the alternative, the revocation of her license.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Family Services enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for renewal of her child care facility license. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of April, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of April, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce A. Tischler Greene & Tischler, P.A. 10175 Six Mile Cypress Parkway Suite 4 Fort Myers, Florida 33912 Eugenie G. Rehak District Legal Counsel Department of Children and Family Services Post Office Box 60085 Fort Myers, Florida 33906 Gregory D. Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Richard A. Doran, General Counsel Office of the General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue for determination in this proceeding is whether Respondent failed to maintain direct supervision of four minor children and, if so, what, if any, penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for regulating child day care facilities in Florida. Respondent is licensed as a child care facility within the meaning of Section 402.302(4), Florida Statutes. 1/ Respondent is licensed to care for 36 children, ages 0-12, pursuant to license number 994-39. Ms. Augustina Peash is the owner of Augustina Academay within the meaning of Section 402.302(7). Ms. Peash operates Augustina Academy at 1307 Pinehills Road, Orlando, Florida, 32808. On April 7, 1995, Petitioner conducted a quarterly inspection of Respondent. Four children were alone with no direct supervision. Two children were sweeping the kitchen. Another child was alone in a classroom. An infant was alone in a crib in a room adjacent to the director's office. Ms. Augustina Peash was in the director's office. The potential harm to the children was not severe within the meaning of Section 402.310(1)(b)1. All of the children were on the premises of Augustina Academy and within close proximity of supervising personnel. The period in which Respondent failed to maintain direct supervision of the children was not substantial. Respondent's employees corrected the failure immediately. Respondent's failure to maintain direct supervision of the children did not result in any actual harm to the children. Respondent has a history of prior discipline within the meaning of Section 402.310(1)(b)3. On November 7, 1994, Petitioner cited Respondent for a similar violation. Petitioner informed Respondent in writing of the violation
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of the charges in the Administrative Complaint and imposing an administrative fine of $100. RECOMMENDED this 5th day of January, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL S. MANRY, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of January, 1996.
