The Issue The issue in this matter is whether the Department of Children and Families should grant Petitioner’s application for a license to operate a childcare facility.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with regulating providers who are licensed or registered to provide childcare in the State in Florida. On May 26, 2016, Petitioner applied to the Department for a license to operate a childcare facility. Petitioner submitted her application using the Department’s prescribed form CF-FSP 5017 (“Form 5017”). See Fla. Admin. Code R. 65C-22.001(1)(a). Petitioner named her desired childcare facility “Little Einstein’s Early Education Center” (“Little Einstein’s”). On May 27, 2016, the Department issued a letter to Petitioner notifying her that her application was incomplete. Of relevance to this matter, the Department informed Petitioner that she needed to complete section 3 of Form 5017 (“Section 3”). She also needed to sign and date her application. Section 3 is entitled ATTESTATION and queries, “Has the owner, applicant, or director ever had a license denied, revoked, or suspended in any state or jurisdiction, been the subject of a disciplinary action, or been fined while employed in a child care facility?” Section 3 includes boxes for the applicant to mark either “Yes” or “No.” Section 3 then states, “If yes, please explain: (attach additional sheet(s) if necessary).” Form 5017 further instructs that “Falsification of application information is grounds for denial or revocation of the license to operate a child care facility. Your signature on this application indicates your understanding and compliance with this law.” In her initial Form 5017 Petitioner submitted to the Department on May 26, 2016, she placed an “X” in the “No” box in Section 3. Following the Department’s letter on May 27, 2016, Petitioner ventured to the Department’s Orlando office to request assistance to complete her Form 5017. There, Petitioner spoke with Ida Lewis, a licensing counselor for the Department. Ms. Lewis reviews applications for childcare facilities as part of her job responsibilities for the Department. At the final hearing, Ms. Lewis confirmed that she reviewed the unsigned Form 5017 with Petitioner. Ms. Lewis testified that she specifically pointed out Section 3 to Petitioner because it is common for applicants to incorrectly mark that section. Together, Petitioner and Ms. Lewis completed Section 3. Ms. Lewis testified that Petitioner had initially marked “No” to the Section 3 question regarding prior disciplinary action. Ms. Lewis advised Petitioner that if she had ever been the subject of disciplinary action involving other childcare facilities, then Petitioner must document that history on the application. Ms. Lewis also counseled Petitioner that if her initial response in Section 3 was not correct, then Petitioner needed to mark the “Yes” box and add the name(s) of the prior childcare facility(ies) where the disciplinary action took place. Following their discussion, Petitioner appears to have followed Ms. Lewis’ instructions. On her Form 5017, Petitioner drew a line through the “No” box and initialed her correction. She then placed an “X” in the “Yes” box. Next to the boxes, Petitioner wrote “Wiggles & Giggles Learning Center I, II, III” (“Wiggles & Giggles”). Ms. Lewis accepted Petitioner’s application, then handed a copy back to Petitioner. On June 6, 2016, Petitioner resubmitted her Form 5017 to the Department. However, Petitioner did not file the version of her application that she completed with Ms. Lewis which included a “Yes” answer in Section 3 and the name Wiggles & Giggles. Instead, Petitioner’s second Form 5017 simply had the “No” box marked and did not include Petitioner’s reference to Wiggles & Giggles. Upon receiving Petitioner’s Form 5017, the Department reviewed whether to grant her application. The Department discovered that Petitioner was the subject of several prior Administrative Complaints while she was the owner and operator of Wiggles & Giggles III, another childcare facility licensed in her name. Petitioner’s disciplinary history included the following2/: On August 20, 2014, the Department issued an Administrative Complaint against Petitioner alleging that she did not timely renew her childcare license. The Department fined Petitioner in the amount of $50. On March 9, 2015, the Department issued an Administrative Complaint against Petitioner alleging that she committed a Class I violation by leaving an unscreened individual alone to supervise children in her care. The Department fined Petitioner in the amount of $500. On October 1, 2015, the Department issued an Administrative Complaint against Petitioner alleging that she committed a background screening violation. The Department fined Petitioner in the amount of $60. Consequently, Petitioner’s submission of her revised Form 5017 marking “No” in Section 3 to the question of whether she had been the subject of a disciplinary action was not true.3/ On July 5, 2016, the Department issued a letter to Petitioner denying her application for a license to operate Little Einstein’s. Ms. Lewis prepared the denial letter. She explained that the Department denied Petitioner’s application based on two reasons. First, the Department found that Petitioner falsified her application by failing to disclose prior disciplinary actions from her operation of Wiggles & Giggles III. Second, the Department determined that Petitioner’s prior violations made her unfit to receive a license to operate another childcare facility. At the final hearing, Petitioner did not deny that she was the subject of several disciplinary actions by the Department while operating Wiggles & Giggles III. Petitioner also expressed that she now understands that she incorrectly marked Section 3 of Form 5017. Regarding her submission of the revised Form 5017 marking “No” in Section 3, Petitioner testified that she initially left Section 3 blank. She wanted advice from the Department on the proper manner in which to complete her application. Following her meeting with Ms. Lewis, however, Petitioner stated that she was still confused about which box to mark. Petitioner recalled that she and Ms. Lewis agreed that “No” was the appropriate response. Therefore, after she initially answered “Yes” in Section 3, she changed her response to “No” on the version of her Form 5017 she submitted to the Department on June 6, 2016. Based on the competent substantial evidence presented at the final hearing, the Department presented sufficient factual and legal grounds to deny Petitioner’s application. Further, Petitioner failed to meet her ultimate burden of establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that she is entitled to a license to operate a childcare facility.
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 denying Petitioner’s application for a license to operate a childcare facility. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of January, 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 12th day of January, 2017.
The Issue The issue is whether to deny Respondent's application to renew its child care facility license and impose an administrative fine for the reasons stated in the Department's letter dated September 16, 2016.
Findings Of Fact Ms. Garcia operated a child care facility at 5600 Old Cheney Highway, Orlando, for almost two years. A probationary license expired on September 21, 2016. This proceeding concerns Ms. Garcia's application for renewal of her license. The Department has regulatory authority over the licensing of child care facilities. To ensure compliance with regulations, the Department conducts periodic inspections of licensed facilities. Unless violations are observed during an inspection, the Department's Orlando office annually conducts two routine and one license renewal inspection of each of the 395 licensed facilities in Orange and Seminole Counties. If a license is placed on probation because of violations, inspections are made at least once a month during the probationary period to ensure the deficiencies are corrected. Violations by a licensee of Department rules or a statute are treated as Class 1, 2, or 3 violations. A Class 1 violation is the most serious, as it "pose[s] an imminent threat to a child including abuse or neglect and which could or does result in death or serious harm to the health, safety or well- being of a child." Fla. Admin. Code R. 65C-22.010(1)(d). For example, it is a Class 1 violation for a facility operator to allow unsupervised individuals who have no current background screening to be with children. This is because all child care personnel must have a current Level 2 background screening performed before they begin work in the facility. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 65C-22.006(4)(d)1. In 2015, Respondent's facility was inspected on at least four occasions: January 13, March 20, May 18, and August 11. On each occasion, violations of Department rules and relevant statutes were observed. Because the first three inspections were performed by a non-Spanish speaking counselor, Ms. Garcia requested that her facility be inspected by a counselor who spoke Spanish. In June 2015, the Department assigned Roy Garcia (no relation to Ms. Garcia) to perform future inspections, as he is bi-lingual. Later, Ms. Garcia expressed her dissatisfaction with Roy Garcia as well. On January 15, 2016, Roy Garcia conducted an inspection of Respondent's facility. Based on violations observed during the inspection, on February 19, 2016, the Department issued an Administrative Complaint seeking to impose a $270.00 fine. See Dep't Ex. 2. The Administrative Complaint cited the following violations observed during the inspection: Two violations of sections 402.302(3) and (15) and 402.305(2) and Florida Administrative Code Rule 62C-22.006(4)(d) by failing to perform required background screening for two employees. Two violations of rule 65C-22.006(d) and (e) by failing to have background screening documents in the staff files. Three violations of the staff/ratio rule, as required by section 402.305(3) and (4) and rule 65C-22.001(4). Two violations of section 402.302(3) and rule 65C-22.001(5) by allowing a volunteer to supervise children without a qualified employee being present. Four violations of rule 65C-22.006(2) by failing to have student health examinations on file. Four violations of rule 65C-22.006(2) by failing to have required student immunization records on file. At hearing, Ms. Garcia took the position that the charges were not warranted. However, in April 2016, she paid the $270.00 fine. Even though the Department informed her that she could request a hearing, a request was not filed. Therefore, the agency action became final. On April 29, 2016, Roy Garcia conducted another inspection of the facility. Based on violations observed during the inspection, on June 30, 2016, the Department issued an Administrative Complaint seeking to impose a $125.00 fine and to convert her annual license to probationary status, given the number of recurring violations during the preceding year. See Dep't Ex. 3. The Administrative Complaint cited the following violations observed during the inspection: Three violations of section 402.305(3) and (4) and rule 65C-22.001(4) by failing to maintain a ratio of two staff personnel for each five infants under one year of age. One violation of rules 65C-22.006 and 65C-22.010 for failing to have background screening documents and employment history checks in the facility files. At hearing, Ms. Garcia disagreed with the merits of these charges. However, in August 2016, she paid a $125.00 fine. Even though the Department informed her she could request a hearing to contest the charges, a request was not filed. Therefore, the agency action became final. A probation-status license was issued on July 31, 2016, with an expiration date of September 21, 2016, which coincided with the date on which her original annual license expired. See Dep't Ex. 4. A probation-status license is issued for a short period of time during which the licensee must come back into compliance. See § 402.310(1)(a)2., Fla. Stat. On August 4, 2016, Ms. Garcia filed an application for renewal of her license. Because the license was on probation, follow-up inspections of the facility were conducted by Roy Garcia on August 26, 29, 30, and 31, 2016. Multiple inspections were conducted because he believed the safety of the children was at risk. Although Ms. Garcia contends these inspections constituted an "abuse of authority," the Department routinely performs follow-up inspections if a facility's license is on probation. Multiple violations were observed during these inspections. See Dep't Ex. 1. They included the following: Four Class I violations of section 402.305(2)(a) by allowing unscreened individuals to be left alone to supervise children in the facility's care. These violations call for a fine of $400.00, or $100.00 per violation. Three Class 2 violations of rule 65C- 22.002(3)(a) by failing to maintain 20 or 35 square feet per child in areas occupied by children. These violations call for a fine of $180.00, or $60.00 per violation. Three Class 2 violations of section 402.305(4) and rule 65C-22.001(4)(a) and (b) by failing to maintain a sufficient staff to children ratio. These violations call for a fine of $300.00, or $100.00 per violation. Two Class 2 violations of rule 65C- 22.006(4)(d)1. by failing to have Level 2 background screening documentation on file. These violations call for a fine of $150.00, or $75.00 per violation. Two Class 2 violations of rule 65C- 22.006(4)(d) by failing to have employee CF- FSP Form 5131 on file. These violations call for a fine of $150.00, or $75.00 per violation. Two Class 2 violations of rule 65C- 22.006(4)(d)2. by failing to have employment history checks on file. These violations call for a fine of $150.00, or $75.00 per violation. One Class 2 violation of rule 65C- 22.003(2)(a) for a facility employee having not completed the 40-clock-hour Introductory Child Care Training. This violation calls for a fine of $75.00. One Class 3 violation of rule 65C- 22.006(2)(a) and (d) by failing to have on file student health examinations for all children enrolled in the facility for at least 30 days. This violation calls for a fine of $40.00. One Class 3 violation of rule 65C- 22.006(2)(c) and (d) by failing to have on file immunization records for all children enrolled in the facility for at least 30 days. This violation calls for a fine of $40.00. The Department's letter of September 16, 2016, proposes to impose an administrative fine in the amount of $1,565.00. See § 402.310(1)(a)1., Fla. Stat. Ms. Garcia did not challenge the amount or manner in which the fine was calculated. Rather, she contends the charges were not justified and therefore no fine should be imposed. However, by clear and convincing evidence, the Department has proven the allegations described in its letter. After each inspection, Roy Garcia explained the nature of each violation and how it must be corrected in order to comply with Department rules. Despite his efforts to help Ms. Garcia, repeat violations were observed. Unscreened individuals were supervising the children on two of the four days. Therefore, it was necessary for Roy Garcia to call the parents and ask that they come to the facility and pick up their children. After observing staff ratio violations on August 29, Roy Garcia returned the next day and observed the same violation. He also observed unsupervised volunteers alone with children three times (August 29, 30, and 31) during the same week.2/ When Roy Garcia asked Ms. Garcia why she was not following his instructions, she would argue with him, deny that any violation occurred, and contend he was out to shut her down and discriminate against her because she was an "entrepreneurial woman." While conceding that she made "mistakes," Ms. Garcia contended Roy Garcia was harassing her and simply trying to find violations when he inspected the facility. She also contends the violations were not serious, were technical in nature, and did not threaten the safety or welfare of the children. However, Class 1 violations were repeatedly observed. Ms. Garcia stressed the fact that her family is dependent on the income she derives from operating the facility, and she will not be able to support her family if the license is not renewed. She added that she is now in limbo on whether to prepay the rent on the building where her current facility is located. Had the facility been operated in compliance with Department rules, these concerns would not be present. Ms. Garcia also contended that Roy Garcia would not allow her husband, Elmer, to substitute for a missing teacher. However, Elmer works in the kitchen, drives a facility vehicle, and at that time did not have the minimum training necessary to qualify as a facility employee who supervises children. Ms. Garcia further contended she was never given appropriate training on how to determine if a prospective employee has current background screening, especially since she has very few computer skills. This assertion is contrary to the accepted evidence, as she could have simply called the Department's Orlando office to verify the eligibility of prospective employees or volunteers before they were hired. Notably, even after a series of administrative complaints were issued concerning unscreened employees/volunteers, as of January 5, 2017, four persons who had worked or volunteered at the facility still had no Level 2 background screening. Ms. Garcia presented the testimony of four mothers whose children used the facility when the license was active. All were pleased with the care of their children. They especially appreciate the fact that the facility is open until midnight, is located in an area convenient to where they live or work, and charges less than other child care facilities in the area.
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 denying the application to renew Respondent's license and imposing an administrative fine of $1,565.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of February, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER 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 February, 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 Whether Respondent’s application for renewal of its child care facility license was untimely submitted; and, if so, what is the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact DCF is the state agency that licenses and regulates child care facilities in Florida. Small World is a licensed child care facility in Miami, Florida, that has been doing business at this location for at least several years. As a licensed child care facility, Small World undergoes at least three routine inspection visits a year by DCF. During its second routine evaluation in the summer of 2020, Small World was reminded by Alexis Stevens, former DCF Family Services Counselor, that its renewal application was due to be submitted to DCF at least 45 days prior to its license expiration on November 23, 2020. Ms. Stevens provided this courtesy reminder to prevent Small World from incurring a penalty for a late filing. Ms. Stevens, who had been Small World’s point of contact at DCF for several years, had no concern that Small World would be late because, in the past, Small World was never late, and it consistently filed all materials needed for renewal of its license. At the beginning of October 2020, Ms. Stevens advised Small World that DCF’s Miami office was closed to the public due to COVID-19 and directed Small World to mail its renewal application rather than hand- delivering it as it had done in the past. The owners of Small World were aware the renewal application needed to be submitted to DCF on or before October 9, 2020. Small World’s owner, Marcia Martorell, completed the renewal application packet on October 1, 2020. On the next day, her daughter mailed the application packet from the Miami post office to DCF’s Miami office by certified, return receipt requested, mail. They reasonably anticipated that, at most, delivery would occur within a few days and in plenty of time to avoid the October 9, 2020, deadline. According to the United States Postal Service (“USPS”) tracking record, the application package was signed for by an individual at the DCF Miami office on October 13, 2020. However, the actual “green card” receipt bears no signature, and instead is marked “CO19” (presumably for COVID-19) on October 15, 2020. DCF Secretary Assistant, Susan Freeman, received the package on October 13, 2020, from the DCF mailroom and date-stamped each page. Ms. Freeman does not know on what date the package arrived in the mailroom. Ms. Freeman testified that although the office was closed to the public, most days the staff came to the office to complete their assigned duties, including receiving checks and other mail, including license renewal packages. However, she also recalled that the office was completely closed to personnel for several days due to riots in Miami.
Conclusions For Petitioner: Aaron Feuer, Esquire Department of Children and Families 401 Northwest 2nd Avenue, Suite N1014 Miami, Florida 33128-1740 For Respondent: Marcia Esther Martorell, pro se It's A Small World Academy, Inc. 2990 Northwest 81st Terrace Miami, Florida 33147
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 17th day of August, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: S MARY LI CREASY Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of August, 2021. Marcia Esther Martorell It's A Small World Academy 2990 Northwest 81st Terrace Miami, Florida 33147 Aaron Feuer, Esquire Department of Children and Families 401 Northwest 2nd Avenue, Suite N1014 Miami, Florida 33128-1740 Danielle Thompson, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Families Office of the General Counsel 2415 North Monroe Street, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Javier Enriquez, General Counsel Department of Children and Families Office of the General Counsel 2415 North Monroe Street, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32303
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether the Department of Children and Family Services should renew the daycare license of Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Tara Grizzell owned and operated Koala Kuties (the Center) which was located in Brooksville, Florida. At the time of the notice of denial, Petitioner's annual license was scheduled to expire on July 9, 2006. Glenda McDonald is a daycare licensing agent with the Department. She conducted an inspection of the Center on October 30, 2003. During the course of the inspection, Ms. McDonald completed a 63-item checklist of the facility. On this checklist, Ms. McDonald noted that the Center was not in compliance with applicable statutes and rules in some areas. The areas of non-compliance noted were that the Center was not in compliance in posting a log of monthly fire drills, medication was not locked or properly stored, and the required record keeping for the children's health and immunization records was disorganized. The checklist shows a required compliance date of the close of business on the date of inspection for the violations regarding records of fire drills and improperly stored medications. Regarding record keeping of health and immunization records, Ms. McDonald noted that there would be a re-check in four months. Approximately four months later, Ms. McDonald conducted another inspection of the Center on February 23, 2004. Again, Ms. McDonald noted on the inspection checklist that the Center was not in compliance with the requirements regarding record keeping of the children's health and immunization records. In addition, Ms. McDonald found that the Center was not in compliance regarding proper storage of toxic and hazardous materials because bleach, cleaner, and fingernail polish were accessible to children; the Center had failed to complete a required form regarding mandatory training for its employees; and required personnel and screening documents for the Center's employees were not complete. Ms. McDonald next inspected the Center on June 7, 2004. During that inspection, she again found that the monthly fire drill log had not been posted and employees' screening documents were still not completed. Ms. McDonald returned to the Center on October 28, 2004, to conduct another inspection. Ms. McDonald found the Center very disorganized with toys, dishes, and other items in places where people could trip over them. She noted on her inspection checklist that the Center was in violation for failure to keep the Center in clean and good repair. Additionally, Ms. McDonald again found the facility to be in non-compliance in the area of record keeping for the children's health and immunization records, personnel records, and personnel screening records. She also found the Center to be out of compliance regarding crib requirements because an infant was asleep on its tummy, and found the Center to be out of compliance for failure to maintain safe and adequate fencing because the playground fence was unlocked. On November 18, 2004, Ms. McDonald conducted a reinspection of the facility to determine whether Ms. Grizzell brought the facility into compliance. She again found it to be in non-compliance for failure to maintain the children's health and immunization records and failure to maintain the required employee screening documents. Ms. McDonald next made an inspection of the Center on February 7, 2005. She again found the Center to be in non- compliance in the areas of failure to post fire drill logs, failure to maintain required personnel documents, and the Center's lack of required documentation on two of the children. Additionally, Ms. McDonald found the Center to be cluttered and out of compliance with the requirement that the facility be clean and in good repair, and that substitutions to the planned menu were not recorded on the posted menu as required. Ms. McDonald made a reinspection of the facility on April 21, 2005, during which she again found the Center to be in non-compliance in the areas of the children's health and immunization records and required personnel and background screening records. On June 2, 2005, Ms. McDonald made another inspection of the Center and found everything to be in compliance except the children's immunization records, as they needed to be updated to reflect current immunizations. On October 6, 2005, Ms. McDonald made another inspection of the Center and again found it to be in non- compliance for failure to update the children's immunization and medical records, and failure to have complete personnel and background screening records on file. On January 24, 2006, Ms. McDonald inspected the Center and again found it to be in non-compliance, in that there was no report posted to show that a fire drill had been conducted in December 2005; there was evidence of smoking near the entrance of the facility and in the outdoor play area, and, therefore, not in compliance with requirements that all areas be free of toxic substances and hazardous materials; the immunization records of two of the children were not up-to-date; and the facility still did not have a complete record on file for all of the child care personnel nor required background screening documents. Additionally, Ms. McDonald found the Center to be in non-compliance for not posting their plan of scheduled activities as required and failing to store medicine properly. On May 25, 2006, Ms. McDonald again made an inspection of the facility and found it to be in non-compliance for incomplete files documenting required training of personnel, failure to have sufficient credentialed staff on the premises, failure to post a menu, and failure to maintain employee records and employee background screening requirements. Petitioner previously paid a civil penalty in the amount of $500 when a child wandered away from the Center and was found walking down a busy road in 2005.1/ Ms. Grizzell acknowledged at hearing that she had trouble with record keeping because there was a lot of turnover of employees. Further, she noted that on the January 24, 2006, inspection checklist, she was later found to be in compliance regarding the alleged violation of toxic and hazardous materials being present. Regarding the child who wandered away, Ms. Grizzell noted that the incident happened on the second day of care for the child.
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 denying Petitioner's application for relicensure. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of December, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ____ BARBARA J. STAROS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of December, 2006
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
