The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner, Basedeo Ramassar, is eligible for exemption from disqualification from working in a registered or licensed family day care center under Subsection 402.302(3), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Under Sections 402.301-319, Florida Statutes, the Department of Children and Family Services is the agency responsible for establishing licensing standards for child care facilities and child care personnel. Petitioner, Basedeo Ramassar, is married to Cathy Ramassar; they both reside at 2707 West Airport Boulevard, Sanford, Florida. Cathy Ramassar applied to Respondent to renew her license as a family day care facility at her home at 2707 West Airport Boulevard, Sanford, Florida. As a result of her application, Respondent conducted a Level 2 background screening. As a result of the screening, it was determined that, on March 20, 2000, Basedeo Ramassar had pled nolo contendere to the charge of assignation to commit prostitution, a violation of Section 796.07, Florida Statutes. When Cathy Ramassar was advised that her license would not be renewed because of her husband's violation of Section 796.07, Florida Statutes, she requested an administrative hearing and, shortly thereafter, Mr. Ramassar requested an exemption pursuant to Section 435.07, Florida Statutes. Michael Ingram, District 7 Screening Coordinator, convened a three-person Exemption Review Committee which considered the circumstances surrounding the disqualifying criminal incident, nature of harm to victim, amount of time since the last criminal incident, and the applicant's general history. The Exemption Review Committee relies on the applicant to provide information on rehabilitation. The Exemption Review Committee denied Mr. Ramassar's exemption request based, in part, on the fact that not enough time had elapsed since the 1999 offense and the March 20, 2000, nolo contendere plea and a 1990 domestic battery arrest which occurred prior to his current marriage. This denial was a proper exercise of the authority vested in the Exemption Review Committee. Mr. Ramassar testified that during the afternoon hours of November 26, 1999, he approached an undercover female police officer and "offered her $20 for straight sex." This resulted in his arrest and ultimately, his nolo contendere plea to assignation to commit prostitution. With the help of a supportive wife and members of their church, which he regularly attends, Mr. Ramassar has made a good start on a rehabilitation program. Apparently, he has a good marriage which has withstood the humiliation of public knowledge of his infidelity and criminal involvement; each witness testified to awareness of his criminal involvement. As a part of the exemption process, Subsection 435.07(3), Florida Statutes, requires an assessment of "the nature of the harm caused to the victim"; the only "victim" in this case is Mr. Ramassar's wife, who has not only suffered the public humiliation of her husband's infidelity, but has been denied a license renewal for her day care facility. Mr. Ramassar is regularly employed as a mason and, as a result, except on rare occasions, is away from the day care facility during its normal working hours. Witnesses who had children enrolled in Mr. Ramassar's wife's day care facility expressed little concern with the knowledge that Mr. Ramassar had pled nolo contendere to assignation to commit prostitution.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Family Services enter a final order granting Petitioner, Basedeo Ramassar, an exemption from disqualification from employment as a caretaker for children and granting Cathy Ramassar a renewal of her license. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of September, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JEFF B. CLARK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of September, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Craig A. McCarthy, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 400 West Robinson Street Suite S-1106 Orlando, Florida 32801-1782 George B. Wallace, Esquire George B. Wallace, Esq., PA 700 West First Street Sanford, Florida 32771 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
The Issue The issues in the case are whether the allegations of the Administrative Complaint filed in this case are correct, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a state-licensed child care facility located at 2932 Douglas Avenue in Fort Myers, Florida. Dorothy Robinson owns the facility. In 1999, the State Legislature amended the law related to licensure of care facilities to require that a person with a "director credential" be present in the facility. The law took effect in 2000, and provided that by January 1, 2004, the requirement would be one of the minimum standards for licensure. Since the statute was enacted in 2000, the Petitioner has provided multiple notices regarding the requirement to licensed child care facilities, including the Respondent. Such notices were provided as part of routine facility inspections and re-inspections as well as by separate mailings directed to the licensees, including the Respondent. Additionally, employees of the Petitioner have directly discussed the requirement on repeated occasions with the Respondent. The evidence establishes that the Respondent was aware of the requirement, of the criteria established to obtain the credential, and of the deadline for complying with the requirement. The criteria include an educational component requiring that a person seeking to be credentialed complete a curriculum of approved courses. The Petitioner has provided funding to assist facilities to meet the educational requirements. The Petitioner has provided specific information to the Respondent related to the required courses and the availability of funds. There is no requirement that the person with the director credential be an owner of the facility. A child care facility can meet the requirement by employing a person holding the credential as the director. As the time for compliance with the requirement drew near, the Petitioner required that non-complying facilities provide a written plan that explained the manner in which the facility would meet the requirement by the deadline. By a certified letter to the Respondent dated July 30, 2003, the Petitioner directed the Respondent to provide a "written plan of action" within ten days from the date of the letter indicating the means by which the Respondent would comply with the director credential requirement by the January 1, 2004, deadline. The letter advised that failure to meet the requirement could "jeopardize the continued operation of your program." The Respondent failed to provide a written response to the notice. By a certified letter to the Respondent dated January 2, 2004, the Petitioner advised the Respondent that there was no documentation indicating that the Respondent had complied with the director credential requirement. The letter directed that the Respondent provide, within a ten-day period from the date of the letter, documentation of compliance with the requirement. The letter advised that failure to do so would result in issuance of a "provisional" license valid for a period of six months, and that continuing noncompliance at the expiration of the provisional license period would result in action to revoke the license. The Respondent failed to provide documentation of compliance as directed in the letter. On January 16, 2004, the Petitioner amended the Respondent's license to provisional status based on noncompliance with the director credential requirement. The Respondent was notified of the amended licensing status by certified mail. During the six-month provisional license period, the Petitioner made substantial effort to assist the Respondent to meet the criteria required to obtain the director credential, including providing expedited courses to permit completion of the educational component. The evidence establishes that the Respondent did not utilize the assistance offered by the Petitioner and failed to complete the educational criteria required to obtain the credential. At various times, Dorothy Robinson indicated that either she or her daughter, Theresa, would meet the director credential requirement by the deadline. The assistance offered by the Petitioner was made available to both. Neither of the two completed the education required to obtain the credential. The Petitioner informed the Respondent that there would be no additional extensions of the deadline to comply with the requirement, and that the Petitioner could make no exceptions to the requirement. There is no evidence that the Respondent was not aware of the penalty for non-compliance. The evidence establishes that as of the date of the hearing, the Respondent does not comply with the director credential requirement.
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 revoking the license of Dunbar Christian Pre-K School. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of September, 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 30th day of September, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Eugenie Rehak, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services Post Office Box 60085 Fort Myers, Florida 33906 Dorothy Robinson 2932 Douglas Avenue Fort Myers, Florida 33916 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 The issue in this case is whether Petitioner's application for a license to operate a family day care center should be granted.
Findings Of Fact DCF is the state agency responsible for, inter alia, the approval and monitoring of family day care homes. Petitioner Karen G. Flanders ("Flanders") has been working in the child care field for several years. On or about April 21, 2006, Flanders submitted a Family Day Care Home Registration form, which is an application seeking approval to operate a small day care home. As part of the application process, Flanders agreed to allow DCF to conduct a Central Abuse Hotline Record search to determine the existence of any complaints or actions against her. The consent form Flanders signed allowing the search included a provision that the department would see any investigation resulting in "verified indicators." During its processing of the application, DCF determined the existence of an investigative report concerning Flanders. The incident in the report allegedly occurred on September 1, 2005. Flanders was alleged to have grabbed, slapped, and punched a child, C.S., while working as a day care worker for Kids Together day care facility. Flanders was immediately terminated from employment by her employer. The Central Abuse Hotline was contacted immediately. By her own admission, Flanders was the caller. Pursuant to its duty, DCF conducted an investigation the day after the alleged incident. The investigation found there were "some indicators" of excessive corporal punishment. The term "some indicators" advises DCF that some adverse incident has happened, but it could have been a one-time issue that may never happen again. In this case, the primary concern of DCF was that the alleged incident occurred in a child care facility. Flanders had an excessive history of prior reported incidents, which was taken into consideration by the investigators. Based on those findings, the safety of the child victim became a concern. DCF found, however, that Flanders' termination from employment was sufficient to alleviate further concern for the child. Flanders has been involved in child care for many years and considers it her occupation. Her pending application to operate a small child care facility is consistent with her work history. However, she has had an adverse incident resulting in some indicators of abusive behavior.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Children and Family Services denying the application by Karen Flanders to operate a day care facility. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of September, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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 22nd day of September, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Karen Flanders 14924 Lady Victoria Boulevard Orlando, Florida 32826 Stacy N. Robinson Pierce, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 400 West Robinson Street, Suite S-1114 Orlando, Florida 32801 Gregory 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 issue in this case is whether the Petitioner, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), should revoke or suspend the foster care license of Larry and Kathleen Abbott.
Findings Of Fact Larry and Kathleen Abbott have been licensed foster parents for a number of years. They were licensed in 1983 in HRS District 6 (Hillsborough County and Manatee County) and in 1986 in HRS District 5 (Pinellas County). Despite some criticism by HRS staff, their license was renewed annually since 1986. Their last license expired and was required to be renewed on October 25, 1991, after the commencement of this proceeding. By their Agreement to Provide Foster Care for Dependent Children, the Abbotts agreed to "hold confidential all information about the child and his family" and to "discuss such information only with representatives of the Department or with appropriate specialists at the request of the Department." On or about January 28, 1990, HRS initiated proceedings to place a female baby named Andrea, who was born on June 28, 1989, in shelter care due to her failure to thrive and her mother's lack of parenting skills. On or about February 23, 1990, the child was placed in foster care in accordance with a Performance Agreement. The goal under the Performance Agreement was to return the child to the care of her mother by August 31, 1990. (This goal was later extended to February 23, 1991.) However, meanwhile, due to the mother's lack of parenting skills and multiple allegations of abuse, the foster parents agreed not only to provide the child with adequate food, clothing, shelter, supervision and affection, but also to report to HRS any concerns regarding visitation with the mother. Since the Abbotts were not Andrea's initial foster parents, they did not sign the Performance Agreement. However, although they never signed the agreement, when they became Andrea's foster parents on or about April 30, 1990, they also agreed to the terms of the Performance Agreement. When the Abbotts got Andrea, she had a medical problem called "G.U. Reflux." HRS wanted the Abbotts to have this condition appropriately followed by a physician and wanted it documented by a physician that the problem had cleared. An appointment scheduled for this purpose had to be cancelled for some reason and, while discussing rescheduling the appointment with the physician's medical staff, Mrs. Abbott reported her observation that the problem already had cleared. Based on the report from Mrs. Abbott, the appointment was not rescheduled, and the physician closed the case based on Mrs. Abbott's report. HRS apparently feels that the Abbotts were less than impartial in their evaluation of Andrea's medical condition. HRS witnesses asserted that the Abbotts decided early on that the child's symptoms that resulted in the G.U. Reflux diagnosis actually were caused by the natural mother's physical abuse and neglect of the child. The HRS witnesses contended that the Abbotts' beliefs warped their judgment and impelled them, inappropriately, to cancel the doctor appointment based on their beliefs, and in order to prove their beliefs to be correct. But the evidence in this case did not prove HRS' contentions. From the outset of the Abbotts' foster care for Andrea, the Abbotts were very interested in knowing all of the background about Andrea, including the allegations against her natural mother. The natural mother was allowed to keep her two other children. The Abbotts were interested to know how the mother was caring for the other two children, in part as it might be relevant to the ultimate disposition of Andrea's case but also in part for the sake of the other children as well. Mrs. Abbott seemed to question whether the HRS investigations on the other children, which were closed as "unfounded," were properly conducted. But there is no evidence that the Abbotts did or said anything in these earlier time periods in their foster care for Andrea that HRS viewed to be improper. At some point relatively early in the Abbotts' foster care of Andrea, Mrs. Abbott pointed out to her HRS foster care counselor that Andrea's name was similar to that of another child living in the home, and Mrs. Abbott wanted to know if it would be permissible to call Andrea by a nickname. The HRS counselor said that would be fine. Later, near the holidays in late 1990, Andrea's natural mother expressed concern to the HRS counselor that the Abbotts had been calling Andrea by the name Nicole and that she was not responding to Andrea any more. The HRS counselor spoke to the Abbotts and asked them to stop calling the child Nicole. She explained that, when she authorized the Abbotts to call Andrea by a nickname, she did not mean they could call her by a different proper name. The Abbotts, who now see the error of judgment that they made, immediately stopped calling the child Nicole. As the goal of reunification by February 23, 1991, approached, Mrs. Abbott began to question the propriety of going ahead according to schedule. HRS protective services had raised questions regarding the natural mother's readiness to take care of Andrea. The HRS counselor also had made statements to Mrs. Abbott which made her suspicious that the counselor's supervisor would not make the decision to reunify the family on the basis of the best interests of the child. (It was intimated that the supervisor might be more concerned with her unit's statistics.) At bottom, the Abbotts thought reunification should be postponed; HRS, especially through the counselor's supervisor, took the position that reunification should go forward as scheduled. The Abbotts also disapproved of the natural mother's male friend, who was cohabiting with her in her apartment. The HRS counselor told Mrs. Abbott that it was not permitted for the natural mother to have a male friend living with her in her apartment while she was receiving certain welfare benefits. She told Mrs. Abbott that the natural mother would be in trouble if the landlord knew. HRS asserted that Mrs. Abbott took it upon herself to tell the landlord, but there was no evidence upon which such a finding could be made.2/ One day, on or about January 11, 1991, the natural mother did not make a scheduled appointment for purposes of visitation with Andrea. Mrs. Abbott understood that the natural mother sometimes worked at the day care facility located at the apartment complex where the natural mother lived. This was the day care facility utilized by the natural mother for her other children. It was also proposed for Andrea after reunification. Mrs. Abbott identified herself to the day care director in terms of Andrea, the natural mother and the children at the day care. The natural mother was not there. No finding can be made as to the subject matter of the remainder of the conversation.3/ The day care director reported some of the conversation with Mrs. Abbott to the HRS protective services staff responsible for the children, who brought the matter of Mrs. Abbott's alleged "meddling" and "breach of confidentiality" to the attention of the HRS counselor and her supervisor. They reprimanded Mrs. Abbott, who became even more suspicious of HRS and its protective services staff. On or about April 5, 1991, Andrea was returned to the Abbotts after a scheduled weekend visitation with the natural mother.4/ Mrs. Abbott observed marked and unusual redness and swelling in the child's genital area and became concerned that the natural mother's male friend might be sexually abusing the child. Although she thought it was diaper rash, the HRS foster care counselor authorized Mrs. Abbott to have the child examined by a physician at the Bayfront Medical Center. The doctor's nurse agreed with Mrs. Abbott that the redness was too concentrated to be diaper rash, reinforcing Mrs. Abbott's beliefs. The doctor prescribed Desitin and sitzbaths, and had Mrs. Abbott call back for test results. The eventual diagnosis was that the child had a bacterial staph infection.5/ Despite the diagnosis, Mrs. Abbott continued to maintain strong feelings that the child was being physically abused. These suspicions were instigated in part by comments from the doctor that the symptoms could come from being touched by dirty hands, from Mrs. Abbott's understanding that the natural mother's male friend worked as manager of an auto service station, and from her having seen him with dirty hands as a result of his work.6/ Mrs. Abbott had several discussions with the HRS foster care counselor about her suspicions. The HRS counselor was unable to convince Mrs. Abbott to drop her suspicions in light of the absence of solid evidence of sexual abuse. Mrs. Abbott felt there were indications that Andrea was "severely traumatized" by visits with her natural mother. But HRS personnel perceived no evidence of this. At this point, HRS and the Abbotts essentially disagreed as to how Andrea's case should proceed. HRS thought that there was no basis on which to change the goal of reunification. Mrs. Abbott felt that reunification should be postponed and also suggested that it was HRS' responsibility to secure a guardian ad litem. HRS decided that a meeting should be held among all concerned to resolve the disagreement. The meeting was held on or about April 9, 1991.7/ From opening remarks made by the counselor's supervisor, Mrs. Abbott felt that the purpose of the meeting was not to discuss the issues to reach a solution but to present a united HRS front to press forward for reunification. Mrs. Abbott felt that, in that atmosphere, there was no point in her speaking against reunification, but she continued to maintain her negative feelings about it and resolved in her mind to continue to oppose reunification on other fronts. She asked the HRS counselor if it was permissible to contact the chairperson of the reunification committee directly and was told that there was nothing to prevent her from doing so. On or about April 11, 1991, the HRS counselor authorized Mrs. Abbott to have the child seen by a child protective team (CPT) physician. The CPT physician affirmed the previous diagnosis and prescribed an antibiotic. The Abbotts did not immediately fill the prescription. They told the HRS counselor that they did not have Medicaid authorization to have the prescription filled through Medicaid. The counselor thought the authorizations had been sent to the Abbots but promised to send or deliver to them another one. On one occasion, when the counselor was at the Abbott house, the counselor went to her car to get the necessary form, but discovered she did not have any with her. On another occasion, the counselor was to give Mrs. Abbott the authorization form at a meeting they were at, but they both forgot to take care of that item of business. Meanwhile, the Abbotts continued to use Desitin.8/ On or about April 19, 1991, after the redness and swelling seemed to the Abbotts to be going away, the natural mother had Andrea for another overnight visit. Still suspicious, Mrs. Abbott had asked the HRS counselor to check the child's genital area as soon as possible after the visit. When the Abbotts got the child back from the HRS counselor, Mrs. Abbott checked the child herself and was surprised and upset to see more redness and swelling. She immediately telephoned HRS and spoke with the counselor's supervisor. She was instructed to bring the child to the child protection center immediately. When the CPT physician learned that the Abbotts had not yet started the prescription from over a week earlier, she became upset and threatened to telephone the Florida abuse registry to report the Abbotts for medical neglect for failure to obtain and administer the prescription. The HRS supervisor intervened and dissuaded the physician from making the call by assuring her that the prescription would be obtained and administered immediately. The CPT physician's diagnosis was that, although sexual abuse could not be ruled out, the problem was more likely secondary to less than adequate diaper changing and persistence of the previous staph vaginitis. Mrs. Abbott did not accept the diagnosis but continued to suspect sexual abuse. She opposed further visitation with the natural mother so long as the male friend resided in the same apartment. Eventually, a reunification meeting was held. The Abbotts did not attend. It was decided to reunify the family. The Abbotts cooperated in making all necessary final arrangements to get Andrea ready. Reunification went forward on or about May 20, 1991. After reunification, Mrs. Abbott continued to show interest in Andrea. After taking a two-week vacation, Mrs. Abbott got permission from the HRS counselor to telephone once a week to see how Andrea was doing. Mrs. Abbott also asked to know the name and address of Andrea's private day care, but the counselor said she could not have that information. After five weeks, the counselor's supervisor had the counselor cut off any further contact with the Abbotts concerning Andrea. Mrs. Abbott said to let her know if HRS had to take Andrea back. She said that she and her husband had much invested in caring for Andrea and that they felt as if she were their own child. If HRS had to take Andrea back, the Abbotts wanted her back and would be interested in adoption. Later, the Abbotts asked for another assignment essentially to help take their minds off of Andrea. On two occasions, Mrs. Abbott criticized the care being provided by other foster parents and suggested that the foster children be transferred to the Abbotts. HRS viewed this as evidence that the Abbotts had become so attached to Andrea that they had lost their good judgment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Petitioner, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), enter a final order suspending the foster care license of Larry and Kathleen Abbott for 90 days. 9/ RECOMMENDED this 5th day of March, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 March, 1992.
The Issue Whether Amanda’s Childcare and Preschool is subject to a civil penalty and licensure action for failing to comply with staff-to-student ratios and for having tools on the daycare playground, in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rules 65C-22.001(4) and 65C-22.002(1)(a), and chapter 402, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is licensed by the Department to operate a facility known as Amanda’s Childcare & Preschool located at 123 West Rhode Island Avenue, Orange City, Florida 32763. Respondent is owned by Joseph Corneck. During the morning of January 28, 2013, Mr. Corneck was working on the construction of a climbing apparatus in a playground at Respondent’s daycare facility. There were no children playing on the playground at the time of Mr. Corneck’s construction activities. Rather, there were 20 kindergarten-aged children inside an adjacent classroom while Mr. Corneck was outside working. Near lunchtime, Ms. Carolyn, a staff member who was supervising the classroom, lined the children up so that they could use the two available bathrooms and wash up for lunch. Because of crowding by the number of children lining up for only two bathrooms, Ms. Carolyn asked seven boys in the group to line up outside the classroom along the exterior wall near the door adjacent to the playground. Ms. Carolyn asked Mr. Corneck to assist in watching the boys while they were in line. Mr. Corneck left the apparatus that he was working on, which was approximately 30 feet away, and came over to the boys to watch over them while they were in the line. Mr. Corneck left the tools that he was working with, consisting of a hammer and a cordless drill gun, back on a platform of the apparatus. The platform where he left the tools was approximately four to six feet high. He also left the materials he was working with and a ladder near the apparatus. While Mr. Corneck was watching the boys, Department family services counselor Kalyn Yeager stopped by for a routine inspection. She noticed the boys outside the classroom and apparently concluded that they had access to the tools and materials. Mr. Corneck, however, did not allow the boys to play on the playground that day. There is no evidence that the children were allowed access to the tools or playground apparatus, and there is insufficient evidence to suggest that the children otherwise had access to those tools or materials, or that they were ever in danger or potential danger because of his construction activities. After the inspection, Ms. Yeager had a conversation with Mr. Corneck in which he advised that he had shown some of the day care students how to use tools. Mr. Corneck, however, never told Ms. Yeager that he had given a demonstration to the kindergarten-aged children who were present on the day of the inspection. Rather, his reference to a tool demonstration was about another occasion or occasions when he had demonstrated the use of tools to some of the older boys in Respondent’s after- school care. At the final hearing, Ms. Yeager could not recall the number of children who were there the day of her inspection. The evidence is otherwise inadequate to show that Respondent violated any applicable staff-to-child ratio standards. In sum, the Department failed to prove the alleged violations set forth in the Administrative Complaint.
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 15th day of October, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III 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 15th day of October, 2013.
The Issue Whether Respondent should continue to allow the Bambi Day Care I child care facility to remain open for business.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Bambi Day Care I (Facility) is a child care facility located in Miami-Dade County. At all times material to the instant case, Mercedes Arabi has been the director of the Facility. Ms. Arabi does not now have, nor has she ever possessed, a director credential issued by Respondent. Although she has attempted to obtain such a credential, she has not been able to meet the credentialing requirements. On or about August 13, 2003, Respondent sent to the Facility (by certified mail, return receipt requested) a form letter advising of the following: The deadline for the Director's Credential is January 1, 2004. This is mandated by Chapter 65C-22, Florida Administrative Code. Each child care facility must have a director that meets this requirement by January 1, 2004. Failure to comply will affect your licensure status seriously. If you have already completed the Director Credential requirement, please disregard this letter and mail or fax immediately a copy of your certificate for your licensing record. (Include the name of your facility.) The same letter was sent to all other licensed child care facilities having an uncredentialed director. The letter was delivered to the Facility on August 21, 2003. Not having received any indication that Ms. Arabi had obtained the required director credential, Respondent, on or about January 16, 2004, changed the Facility's licensure status by issuing a provisional license, effective from January 2, 2004, through July 2, 2004, authorizing the Facility's operation. As of July 2, 2004, Ms. Arabi still had not become credentialed. Accordingly, on that date, Respondent advised her that it "intended to revoke [her] license to operate [the Facility]." Ms. Arabi requested an administrative hearing on the matter. Notwithstanding that the expiration date on the Facility's provisional license was July 2, 2004, Respondent has affirmatively allowed the Facility to continue to operate pending the outcome of Ms. Arabi's challenge to the revocation action announced in Respondent's July 2, 2004, letter. In doing so, it has effectively extended the life of the Facility's provisional license (which, for all intents and purposes, remains in existence).
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Respondent issue a Final Order revoking its permission allowing the Facility to operate as a child care facility. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of December, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER 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 27th day of December, 2005.
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether Petitioner Ryan Flint, the minor son of his personal representative and mother, Madeline Flint, should immediately receive developmental services or remain on a waiting list for such services until funding is available.
Findings Of Fact At the time of the hearing, Ryan Flint was three years old and has been identified as being on the "autism spectrum." Autism spectrum puts Ryan at risk of having a developmental disability, but is not itself a developmental disability. Testing at a later date will ascertain whether he actually has a developmental disability. Until such testing can be accomplished, however, pursuant to federal law and long-standing policy, the Department regards Ryan Flint as a client because of his risk status. The parties stipulated that Ryan is eligible for services of the Developmental Services Program. Ryan became a client of Developmental Services on June 20, 2000. Despite the rejection language of the notice of denial letter, Ryan was placed on a waiting list and may ultimately be provided the requested services from Respondent. Currently, there are approximately eight thousand persons who became clients of the Developmental Services Program after July 1, 1999. Ryan was receiving services through Children's Home Society. However, because he turned three years old he no longer qualifies for services under that program. Children's Home Society referred him to Developmental Services for evaluation. Mrs. Flint recalls that the "intake" for services was done May 11, 2000. It was Mrs. Flint's impression from the intake interview that Ryan would receive the requested services. This continued to be her impression when Ryan's service plan was written in June of 2000. Ryan currently receives some occupational therapy services through the local school board. However, these occupational services are limited to those which are only educationally necessary such as writing skills and do not extend to other non-educational skills such as running. A long and complex chain of events and circumstances led to the situation faced by Ryan Flint. Prior to the 1999 legislative session, the Department identified 23,361 Developmental Services clients who were either not getting services from the developmental services program or who were not receiving adequate services. The Department's Legislative Budget Request for fiscal year 1999-2000, included a plan to address the underserved clients over a two-year period. Under this plan, 15,984 of the identified 23,361 clients would be served during fiscal year 1999-2000, with the remaining 7377 clients to be added to the group in fiscal year 2000-2001. The Legislature elected to route the new moneys into the Medicaid Waiver program. That program provided for a 45/55 State/Federal match, under which fifty-five cents of federal moneys would be provided for every forty-five cents contributed by the Florida Legislature. Since most of these clients resided in the community and not in institutions, the program utilized under this plan was not the Institutional Medicaid program, but the Home Community Based Waiver program. The Home Community Based Waiver program, also called the Medicaid Waiver program, differs from the Institutional Medicaid program. The Institutional Medicaid program is an entitlement program. The Medicaid Waiver program is not. Consequently, the moneys which fund the Medicaid Waiver program are limited and claims on such programs must be prioritized. The Legislature directed the Department to prioritize these limited funds in proviso language of the 1999-2000 Appropriations Act: . . . Priorities for this funding, in order, are as follows: 1) Transitions for those requesting transfers from Intermediate Care Facilities for the Developmentally Disabled (ICF/DD) institutional placements into Home and Community Based Waiver residential placements, and 2) Meeting the needs of identified under-served participants in the Home and Community Based Waiver Services after accurately assessing the actual costs of each person's support plan. The 2000 Appropriations Act contained proviso language identical to that found in the 1999 Appropriations Act referenced in paragraph 9. The Department implemented this legislative mandate by implementing policy that, except for crisis situations, only persons who were clients on July 1, 1999, would receive services. All others would be put on a waiting list. Ryan Flint is not eligible for the Medicaid Waiver Program. The funds Mrs. Flint seeks come from another source, the Individual and Family Support appropriation. However, as a matter of policy, the Department has applied the prioritization described in paragraph 11, not only to the appropriations made through the Medicaid Waiver program, but also to those relating to the Individual and Family Support appropriation. This policy was communicated to the Department's District Administrators and Developmental Services Program Administrators in a memorandum dated May 22, 2000. Utilizing this policy, the result in this case is the same as if Ryan had been on the Medicaid waiver. Jo Ann Braun, a Human Services Counselor with the Department, was not aware of the new policy until August of 2000. Thus, she could not have been aware of the new policy at the time she wrote Ryan's service plan which was in June 2000. According to Ms. Braun, as this policy was in the process of being disseminated through the Department, there may have been some clients who did not meet the crisis criteria and who entered the system after July 1, 1999, who received services. However, once the Department staff received and began implementing the policy, new clients were put on the waiting list and did not begin to receive services. In the past two years, the Legislature has not appropriated any new funds under the Individual and Family Support Program. Thus, since the existing client base in Developmental Services remained static, the new client base has increased by approximately 8,000 clients since July 1, 1999. Since the client base increased by 8,000 but the funding did not increase, the Department was faced with a decision as to how to fairly and consistently use the funding that was available. The Department determined that the only way it could provide funds to new clients would be by withholding services from existing clients who already received these services. However, it is not the policy of the Department to take money from someone who already is receiving services and give it to someone new. Faced with two choices, neither of which was desirable, the Department implemented a policy which requires that the allocation of Developmental Services moneys be made on a consistent basis. That is, the Department elected to apply these moneys in a manner consistent with the Medicaid Waiver appropriation. Moreover, many of the clients who receive Medicaid Waiver funds also receive Individual and Family Support funds. Additionally, the Department's prioritization puts at the top of the list those clients who are in crisis. Under these circumstances, the Department's decision to allocate the Individual and Family Support moneys in the same manner as the Medicaid Waiver moneys is not unreasonable or arbitrary. Applying the Department's policy, Ryan can only receive services if he is in crisis because he became a client after July 1, 1999. The Department has identified six conditions which, if present, constitute a crisis which would permit it to provide services to persons who became clients after July 1, 1999. These are: A court order from a criminal proceeding requires the Department to provide services. The client is highly dangerous to himself or others, and danger will continue if services are not provided immediately. The client is living in a high risk situation in which abuse and/or neglect is occurring or likely to occur. The client is homeless, living either in a homeless shelter or on the street. The caregiver is unable to provide care for the client, no alternative arrangements are possible, and without the provision of services, the client cannot safely remain with the caregiver. Other circumstances exist which will present a danger to the client's safety and/or security if services are not provided. The parties stipulated that Ryan Flint met none of the foregoing criteria. Consequently, the Department did not provide him the services his mother sought on his behalf.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Children and Family Services enter a Final Order leaving Ryan Flint on the waiting list of clients to be served by the Department's Developmental Services Program, and providing those services to him as soon as funds become available to do so. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of January, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. BARBARA J. STAROS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of January, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Madeline Flint 1327 Conservancy Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32312 John R. Perry, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 2639 North Monroe Street, Suite 100A Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2949 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 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Whether petitioner should take disciplinary action against respondent for the reasons (other than the alleged existence of a substantiated indicated abuse report) alleged in the amended administrative complaint?
Findings Of Fact Anderson's Child Care Center at 507 Texas Avenue in Crestview was one of the day care centers Mr. Brown of the Okaloosa County Health Department routinely inspected. Respondent testified without contradiction that she has operated a child care center at her Texas Avenue home since September of 1973, with the exception of the time petitioner closed her down. See Anderson v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 482 So. 2d 491 as clarified on reh. 485 So. 2d 849 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). From this evidence it is inferred that she holds a license for a child care center. No evidence suggested otherwise. In the summer and fall of 1985, Lucy's husband Charles lived with her and worked at the child care center. J. S. On July 18, 1985, J.S., who was born January 5, 1982, spent his first day at the Anderson Child Care Center. J.S. was "right about the age [for] learning but c[ould]n't void on command." (T.48). He lacked "the voluntary control" (T.48) to "void on command," but he had learned to restrain himself before attending the Anderson Child Care Center. Although he was toilet trained before he began attending Anderson Child Care Center, he "started having lots of accidents and messing in his pants" (T. 73) after July 18, 1985. When left at the center, J.S. "got where he would throw a fit. He would not want to stay. And when . . . [Mrs. S.] would go pick him up, he would still be crying." (T. 77 ) September 11, 1985, was his thirteenth and final day at the Anderson Child Care Center. On September 12, 1985, A.S.'s mother took her to Eglin Regional Hospital in order to be examined, on account of the redness of her 23-month-old vaginal area. (T.74) J.S. accompanied his mother and sister. Leslie Price Kurtz, an Air Force Officer and pediatrician who saw A.S., diagnosed a rash on her nates as impetigo. In the course of inquiring about A.S., Dr. Kurtz was told by Mrs. S (who relayed information she had received from M.S., 8-year-old brother of J.S. and A.S.) that J.S. did not like to go to the bathroom at Anderson's Child Care Center, which all three S. children attended, because of immodest conditions there. The story Dr. Kurtz got was that the children were directed to use the bathroom at specific times and had no privacy when they did. (T.50) Based on this information, and on Mrs. S's report that J.S. had once been potty trained but had recently regressed, Dr. Kurtz suggested to Mrs. S. that she remove her children from Anderson's Child Care Center. Dr. Kurtz contacted the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services which, as far as she knew, took no action at that time. In Dr. Kurtz's opinion, "a disturbance . . . had occurred with [J.S.] . . . secondary to the child's behavior as described . . . by the mother." (T.50) J. N. On September 25, 1985, Dr. Kurtz saw J.N. who was brought to her with complaints of an ear infection. There was no mention of any problem with his hands but Dr. Kurtz noticed that J.N., who was 20 months old at the time, had red and macerated fingers. J.N., who was born January 4, 1984, began at the Anderson Child Care Center on July 15, 1985, and attended regularly through September 27, 1985, although he missed a total of nine days, for sickness and other reasons. His parents drove him to the Center on their way to work, dropping him off about seven in the morning, and returned to pick him up about quarter past four in the afternoon. The first day he was there, three or four fingers were swollen a little when his parents picked him up. But in general things seemed to go well, at first. There were no more swollen fingers for two to four weeks and his parents saw him try to sing along with songs and do exercises at home they assumed he had learned at Anderson Child Care Center. There came a point when J.N. began to cry and cling to his mother when he was dropped off at respondent's. From then on, he cried nine times out of ten when he was left at the Anderson Child Care Center and he also frequently chewed on his fingers. One day when his father came for him, J.N. was sitting on the ground looking as if he had been crying. He refused to get up even though his father called him twice. Only after Charles Anderson told J.N. to go to his father did the child go to him. His parents never noticed J.N. chew his fingers before he began at the Anderson Child Care Center and this behavior has all but disappeared since he began attending another child care center. Only during the time he attended Anderson's did his fingers become red, swollen and infected. "[I]t was almost like he had bit right through his fingernails he had been chewing on them so much." Deposition of J.N., p.ll. They have healed completely since he left Anderson's Child Care Center. J.N. was not toilet trained when he started at Anderson's Child Care Center. He was still in diapers. After he had been at the Center two weeks, Mrs. Anderson told his mother that he seemed to have "a bowel movement after naptime when he would be outside playing,"(T.115) and suggested that he "be put on the potty at that time of the day." (T.115) Mrs. N. did not object to this proposal. Thereafter J.N. was placed on the toilet "after naptime" and regularly defecated, without crying or complaining. Child care center personnel did not punish him for accidents. Only after J.N. began at Anderson's Child Care Center, however, did his parents notice J.N. at home "go behind the furniture to go potty. It seemed like he was afraid . . ." (Deposition of J.N., P. 11) J.N. also seems to fear toilets. Id., P. 2. After J.N.'s parents related his circumstances to Dr. Kurtz, Dr. Kurtz concluded that the changes in his behavior were "most likely . . . [attributable to] conditions at Anderson Day Care Center," (T. 52) and contacted HRS. She also advised J.N.'s parents to remove him from Anderson Child Care Center immediately. J.N.'s parents sent him to Anderson Child Care Center the next day nevertheless. [T]hen we talked some more; we decided we would take him out because in -- when you're in the air force, you have your family. But in matter of speaking, the air force can run that family for you -- because if we wouldn't have taken him out of there and the doctor would have found out about it, she could have forced us to take him out of there. Deposition of J.N., P. 19. Respondent learned of dissatisfaction with the care J.N. received at the Center only after the present proceedings began. Toileting Generally In response to petitioner's interrogatories, Mrs. Anderson described toileting procedures at the Anderson Child Care Center. Petitioner offered her description in evidence: Under two years of age, after the parents agree the time for pottie training is to start, The children are exposed to the pottie usually during diaper change time. After pottie training depending on liquid ingestion, weather, child, time of day, and other variables, the children are given an opportunity periodically to use the pottie. If the children are inside they are given the opportunity every hour. If the children are outside they are given an opportunity every 1-1/2 to 2 hours. If the children need to go in the interim they are allowed to do so. If the children are going on a field trip or leave the center they are encouraged to use the bathroom before leaving. The children are also encouraged to use the bathroom right after lunch. The same procedure is employed for the children 2 through 5 and older as is the case with the children under 2 years of age after those children under 2 are pottie trained as above outlined. Usually the children are selected randomly while listening to a story for the purpose of an opportunity to use the bathroom. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. Mrs. Anderson's testimony at hearing was consistent with this account, as regards events after July 1, 1985. Staffing On October 9, 1985, Lucy Anderson was at Anderson's Child Care Center all day. At eight that morning Debbie Underwood and Pat Todd arrived and began work. At noon Charles Anderson came home. Thirty minutes later Debbie Underwood left the premises for lunch and at one o'clock Pat Todd left for the day. At 1:30 p.m., Debbie Underwood returned from lunch and Ann Parker reported for work. At half past two, Mr. Anderson left, but Kelley Anderson came home ten minutes later. Both Mrs. Parker and Mrs. Todd left for the day at five, but Kelley helped her mother till six. Between two and three o'clock on the afternoon of October 9, 1985, Arthur Alvin Brown, an inspector with the Okaloosa County Health Department, called at Anderson's Child, Care Center. Mrs. Anderson and three other women supervised the children while Mr. Brown was there. He stayed "probably somewhere in the neighborhood of fifteen, twenty, thirty minutes." (T.89) He counted four children inside sleeping on mats, and approximately 65 outside playing. Because he "knew the licensed capacity was fifty-five [he counted] a number of times." (T.89) Children were coming and going while he was there and he tried to take that into account. No more than five children left during his stay, however. Of the children who respondent's own records reflect were at the Center from two or earlier till three or later on the afternoon of October 9, 1985, four were ten years old, three were nine years old, eight were eight years old, two were seven years old, five were six years old, five were five years old, six were four years old, three were three years old, four were two years old and Matthew Newell was the only one-year-old. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. According to respondent's records, 29 other children were at the Center for some part of the time between two and three o'clock that afternoon. The age of one of the children in this group is not clear from the record. Of the others, two were two years old, only Candace Cox was three years old, two were five years old, four were six years old, eight were seven years old, three were eight years old, four were nine years old, three were ten years old and Kevin Barrow was the only eleven- year old. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2.
