Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services was the state agency in Florida responsible for the licensing of family child day care centers in this state. Respondent, Elizabeth Horton, has, since before January 31, 1992, operated the Little Darling Horton-Cotton Family Day Care at 3710 11th Street East in Bradenton, Florida. The location is Mrs. Horton's home, and she resides there with Alfrader L. Cotton, her companion, Craig E. Horton and Sheldon G. Horton, her sons, and Tangela D. Horton, her daughter. In January, 1992, Mrs. Horton submitted an application for a license to operate a family day care center at the stated location and listed the others noted above as residents. Thereafter, on July 9, 1992, June 28, 1993, July 11, 1994, July 18, 1994 and December 21, 1995, Mrs. Horton submitted application forms for renewal of her license. On each of the renewal application forms, those same individuals were listed as residents of the home. Mrs. Horton's brother, L. H., was not listed as a resident or in any capacity on any of the application forms. On or about December 3, 1993, a report of abuse of a minor female, A. M., born on February 12, 1984, was received in the Department. The substance of the allegation was that A. M., along with her little brother, born on March 6, 1985, were placed by their mother at the Respondent's home from about 5:00 PM until early the next morning each week night, while their mother was at work. The report further alleged that Mrs. Horton's brother, L. H., had molested A. M. while she was staying in the Horton home. He was alleged to have awakened her in the middle of the night while she was asleep in the Horton daughter's bedroom on the pretext of taking her to the bathroom, but fondled her breasts and vaginal area. This report was investigated by personnel of the Department and was classified as verified. A report of neglect was entered against Mrs. Horton arising out of her failure to supervise the children and a Hearing Officer from the Division of Administrative Hearings, after a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, entered a Recommended Order recommending that the Department enter a Final Order amending the proposed confirmed report to a classification of unfounded and expunging Mrs. Horton's name from the case record and all Department records. The Hearing Officer found, however, that L. H. had committed the abuse, and this determination was subsequently affirmed by the Secretary of the Department in the Final Order entered in this case. In 1989, L. H. was found guilty in the Circuit Court in Manatee County of lewd and lascivious acts in the presence of a child eleven years of age or younger, in violation of Section 800.04, Florida Statutes, a felony, and was sentenced, among other things, to community control for two years followed by seven years probation. After his arrest for the assault on A. M., on June 28, 1995, his prior sentence was increased to seven years in prison. He was also tried in Circuit Court for Manatee County for sexual battery, and was, on that same date, sentenced for the second offense to life imprisonment, with the provision he serve no less than twenty-five years. Whenever an individual is issued a license to operate a family day care center, that person is provided with a copy of a handbook containing the rules of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services relating to the licensing and operation of those facilities. Included within that pamphlet is a copy of Department rule 10M-10.002, dealing with personnel, which requires that all persons who are members of the operator's family or who reside in the day care home must be screened as must be persons providing substitute care in the absence of the operator. The evidence regarding the status of L. H. is contradictory. A. M. indicates that L. H. would be at the center from about 10:00 PM at night, after Mrs. Horton picked him up at work; would be there when she, A. M., went to bed at some time after 9:00 PM and before 11:00 PM; and, most of the time, would also be there then next morning, having spent the night in the bedroom of Mrs. Horton's son, Craig. A. M. cannot recall if L. H. ate his meals at the Horton home or took his showers there, but she recalls that he did cook there several times. She never saw him change or wash his clothes there and she never saw any of his clothes in the closet. Though she contends she was never left alone with L. H. by Mrs. Horton, she claims she was touched on her private parts by him on several occasions in the early hours of the morning, while the others in the house were sleeping. A. M.'s mother does not know if L. H. lived at the Horton child care center or not. He was there sometimes at night when she dropped the children off, and he was always there when she picked them up the next morning. To the best of her knowledge, the children were never left alone with him. Mrs. Horton, on the other hand, while admitting she knew that her brother had been convicted of a felony regarding a sexual offense against a minor child, categorically denies that L. H. lived at her home. She admits that he visited there from time to time and admitted to Ms. Winfrey, the child care supervisor from the Department, that he spent the night there from time to time as well. According to Mrs. Horton, L. H. lived with their parents in a home in the next block east on 11th Street East. Respondent admitted at hearing to picking him up from work around 9:00 PM at times, but not regularly. She contended at hearing he would come to the house to watch TV and to play games with her son, but rarely did he stay and never did he spend the night. The probation officers who visited L. H. would sometimes come to her house to see him but would never come in. None of the probation officers ever said anything to her about L. H.'s being at her home with children being present. At no time until the report of abuse was filed did she have any idea that L. H. was behaving improperly with any children in her charge. When she found out what he had done, she told him not to come back to that house. Mrs. Horton's daughter, age 17, claims that L. H. did not live at the care center at any time. He did not wash his clothes there or do anything which indicated he lived there. Since she was older, she stayed up later than A. M., going to bed around 10:00 PM or so. As she recalls, L. H. would usually leave the house about 10 or 11:00 PM and she would see him leave often. She did not often go to bed while he was still there. Taken together, the evidence establishes that while L. H. may not have resided at the house on a permanent basis, he was there frequently enough to be considered a member of the family as defined in the Department rules.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a final order denying Elizabeth Horton renewal of her license to operate a family day care center. DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of October, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of October, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Raymond R. Deckert, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative services, Room 500 400 West Dr. M. L. King, Jr. Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33614 Elizabeth Horton 3710 11th Street East Bradenton, Florida 34208 Alfrader Cotton Qualified Representative 3710 11th Street East Bradenton, Florida 34208 Gregory D. Venz Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Building Number Two, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Richard Doran General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Building Number Two, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent properly denied Petitioner's application for renewal of her family child care home license.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, the Department of Children and Family Services (Department), issued a family child care home license to Vernetta Rossi (Petitioner) on January 15, 2001. The license was effective for a year, and automatically expired one year later. The maximum number of children for which Petitioner was licensed was ten. On or about November 11, 2001, Petitioner submitted an application for renewal of her family child care home license. On December 4, 2001, Donna Richey, an inspector with the Department went to Petitioner's home to conduct a re- licensing inspection. The purpose of the inspection was to determine if Petitioner was complying with the licensing rules and to make a recommendation on Petitioner’s application for renewal. Ms. Richey arrived at Petitioner’s house at about 1:30 p.m. Through a pane glass window, Ms. Richey observed a child sleeping on a mat in the dining room hall area. She also heard a child whimpering. Because Ms. Richey knew that there were children in the house and it was naptime, she knocked softly on the door for a few minutes. After getting no answer, Ms. Richey rang the doorbell twice, but still received no answer. After there was no response to Ms. Richey’s knocking on the door and ringing the doorbell, she walked to the back of Petitioner’s house, thinking that Petitioner may have been out in the back of the house. Finding no one there, Ms. Richey then returned to the front of the house and rang the doorbell again. When Ms. Richey returned to the front of the house, she observed that the child on a mat in the dining room hall area was still asleep. Upon returning to the front of the house, Ms. Richey tried the front door handle and discovered that it was unlocked. Ms. Richey then entered the house where she observed Petitioner asleep on the couch in the family room. Ms. Richey then called Petitioner, who woke up and appeared startled. Petitioner had dozed off and advised Ms. Richey that the reason she may not have heard the doorbell ring or the knock on the door was that she had a hearing loss and was lying on her “good” ear. Ms. Richey and Petitioner then toured the areas of Petitioner’s house where the five children, in Petitioner's care that day, were down for their naps. At the time of the tour, all five of the children, who were ages three and four, were in their designated napping areas and on their mats. One child was asleep on a mat in the dining room hall area; two children were on separate mats in one bedroom; one child was on a mat in the hallway; and another child was sleeping in the classroom area. During the time Ms. Richey was at Petitioner’s house for the re-licensure inspection, none of the children were crying, all the children were clean, and Petitioner’s house was neat and clean. There was a fence around the children’s playground in Petitioner's backyard. The fence had been approved by the Department as part of the licensure process. Also, there was a lock on the back door of Petitioner's house that was placed at a height that was not within the children's reach. There was a canal behind Petitioner’s house, which was about 60 yards from the house. In addition there was a five- foot high chain link fence that extended across the back of Petitioner’s property that served as a barrier between Petitioner’s yard and the canal. The fence provided a barrier that made it impossible for the children to easily access the canal. However, the Department determined that the canal was a potential hazard for the children in Petitioner’s care, when she was asleep and the front door of the house was unlocked. There was a main road within the subdivision in which Petitioner's house was located that was about 100 yards from her house. The Department was concerned that because Petitioner’s front door was unlocked and Petitioner had dozed off, the main road could have been a possible hazard to the pre-school children. During the approximately ten minutes that Petitioner was asleep, the children in her care were not being supervised. The Department requires that individuals licensed to provide child care supervise the children in their care. Following the Department’s re-licensing inspection on December 4, 2001, a report of neglect was made and an investigation was conducted. The results of that investigation and the findings and conclusions thereof are summarized in Abuse Report 2001-194692 (abuse report), which was completed on or about December 21, 2001. The abuse report found that on December 4, 2001, Petitioner fell asleep for a few minutes after she had put the five children in her care down for their afternoon nap and that during the time Petitioner was asleep, the children were not supervised. With regard to observations of Petitioner's “day care center,” the investigator noted in the abuse report that Petitioner’s home was “very clean and well kept” and “hazard free” and that there were no hazards observed in the home. Based on the findings of the investigator, relative to Petitioner’s falling asleep, the case was “closed with verified findings of neglect due to inadequate supervision with caretaker present.” The abuse report notes that officials closed Petitioner's facility on or about December 5, 2001. In addition to the incident that occurred on December 4, 2001, the abuse report referred to alleged incidents that took place prior to Petitioner’s being licensed in January 2001. These alleged incidents are not relevant or material to this proceeding in that they were not stated in the January 9, 2001, denial letter to Petitioner as the basis for the Department’s decision to deny Petitioner’s application for renewal of her family child care home license.1 The Department’s January 9, 2002, letter denying Petitioner’s application for renewal of her family child care home license stated in relevant part the following: This letter is to advise you that your application to renew your family day care license, dated November 11, 2001, is denied. In accordance with Section 402.310(10)(a), Florida Statutes, the department may deny a license for the violation of any provision of Sections 402.301-402.319, Florida Statutes, or rules adopted thereunder. The decision is based on the fact that abuse report number 2001-194692 indicates you have a verified report of child neglect for inadequate supervision-caretaker present. On December 4, 2001, during a re-licensing inspection, you were found to be asleep while five children ages, 3 years to 4 years, were in your care. This is in violation of Section 65C-20.009(3)(a), Supervision by Staff, Florida Administrative Code. This states[,] “At all times which includes when children are sleeping, the operator shall remain responsible for the supervision of children in care and capable of responding to the emergencies and needs of children. During the daytime hours of operation, children shall have adult supervision which means watching and directing children’s activities, both indoors and outdoors, and responding to each child’s needs.” Additionally, your actions were in violation of Section 402.301, Florida Statutes, which express [sic] the intent of the Florida Legislature to protect the health, safety, and well being of the children of the state and to promote their emotional and intellectual development and care. Petitioner does not dispute that she dozed off a few minutes on December 4, 2001, but testified credibily that this was an isolated incident. This is substantiated in a letter of support from Cynthia Ray, a former employee of Petitioner who worked at the center. Ms. Ray also served as a substitute for Petitioner and was listed on Petitioner's family child care home license as such. The letter from Ms. Cheryl Ray states that Petitioner has a high energy level, seldom sits down for any length of time, and is always "preparing, cleaning, organizing and doing book work." According to Ms. Ray's letter, it "was out of character for [Petitioner] to fall asleep" while the children were napping or at the center. With regard to the front door being unlocked, Petitioner explained that over the years, the policy or practice of the Department has changed. Petitioner was aware that at one time, the Department required that the door of a child care facility be unlocked so that parents could come in unannounced. Apparently, the Department’s current policy or procedures require that the doors of a child care facility be locked. In light of the policy, Petitioner stated that she would ensure that the doors of her family child care home would be locked. Petitioner has a combined 30 years of experience as a teacher and a principal in Montessori schools. At the time she was licensed by the Department, Petitioner used the Montessori method of instruction and had her home set up consistent with this approach. Parents of children who have been cared for by Petitioner expressed satisfaction, trust, and confidence in Petitioner’s ability to care for their children. They also believe that she has had a positive influence on the children's intellectual and emotional well-being. Many of the parents who testified had several years of experience working with Petitioner as the child care provider for their children. The parents believe that the educational program provided to their children while they were in Petitioner’s care is exceptional. Those parents whose children have left Petitioner’s program to attend kindergarten believe that the educational program provided by Petitioner prepared the children for kindergarten and made the transition to school easier for them. Parents who have had children in Petitioner’s care over the years and up until December 2001, have “dropped in” Petitioner’s home during the day when children were in her care and have never seen anything “amiss” or of concern to them. Parents who have had children in Petitioner's care testified credibly that Petitioner never neglected their children and that they felt their children were safe at Petitioner’s home and not in any danger. Despite the incident that occurred on December 4, 2001, the parents who testified at hearing continue to trust Petitioner to care for their children. The four-year-old daughter of Kevin and Rachel Walsh attended Petitioner's center from the time she was four weeks old, until the center closed in December 2001. The Walshes also have an older son who attended Petitioner's center for four years. During the time Petitioner has been caregiver for their children, the Walshes have been very pleased and satisfied with the care and the education that Petitioner provided to the children. For the past six years, Mrs. Walsh has dropped in unannounced at Petitioner's center and has been satisfied with what she has observed. According the to the Walshes, when in Petitioner's care, their children were in a "clean, safe, happy and learning environment" and learned "not only reading, writing, and math, but also manners and respect." The Walshes indicated that "those qualities make it comfortable for us to relax at our jobs knowing our kids are comfortable and happy." The Walshes live in the same neighborhood as Petitioner and, like Petitioner, they also have a canal behind their house. Because there is a fence which serves as a barrier between Petitioner's yard and the canal, the Walshes do not believe the canal was a hazard for children at Petitioner's center on December 4, 2001, or at any other time. On the day of the re-licensure inspection, the Walsh's daughter was not at the center. Nonetheless, the Walshes expressed utmost confidence in Petitioner to care for their daughter. Since Petitioner's center has been closed, the Walshes have not placed their daughter in another center. It is their desire to return their daughter to the care of Petitioner. Keith and Sharon Delafield's daughter was in the care of Petitioner on the day of the re-licensure inspection and had been in Petitioner's care for about three years. Mr. Delafield testified that during the time that his daughter attended the center, he visited the center, was satisfied with the care his daughter received, and always found the home to be neat and clean. Mr. Delafield believes that his daughter was the child who was whimpering on the day of the re-licensure inspection because she does not like to take naps. However, Mr. Delafield does not believe that she would have gone out of the house without permission of Petitioner. Moreover, despite the events of December 4, 2001, the Delafields trust Petitioner "whole heartedly" with the care of their daughter. According to the Delafields, during the time that their daughter was in the care of Petitioner, there was not a day that she "came home unfed, unclean, untaught, or unloved." Mr. and Mrs. Delafield, are planning to have another child and when they do, it is their desire to place the child with Petitioner. Valerie Senden has had two children attend Petitioner's center even though it is a 30 to 40 minute drive from her house. Ms. Senden's decision to place her children with Petitioner was made after she visited six other centers, all of which she found unsatisfactory. The basis of her dissatisfaction was her observation of the way that children were treated at those centers. During the time that Ms. Senden's children attended Petitioner's center, Ms. Senden made unannounced visits to the center and also spent the day and various parts of the day at the center helping Petitioner. During these visits, Ms. Senden never saw anything that caused her to be concerned about Petitioner's care of the children. Had Ms. Senden seen anything she didn't like or that she believed to be improper, she would have "pulled her children out of the center." Since Petitioner's center was closed, Ms. Senden has not placed her children in another center. Diann Myrick has a son who attended Petitioner's center from about August 2001 until it was closed in December 2001. Ms. Myrick does not believe that her child was ever neglected by Petitioner and is completely satisfied with the care that he has received from her. Moreover, Ms. Myrick testified that every time that she has come to the center to pick up her son, the door is always locked. According to Ms. Myrick, with Petitioner's guidance, her son is learning discipline as well as receiving an education. Ms. Myrick believes that these are things that she has been unable to find in private day care centers. With regard to Petitioner, Ms. Myrick testified that Petitioner is a good caregiver, and that both the children and the parents love Petitioner. Ms. Myrick testified that she wants to put her son in Petitioner's center when and if it is re-opened. Eight letters of support for Petitioner substantiate the testimony at hearing. In these letters, parents whose children have been in the care of Petitioner describe her as "a wonderful teacher and caregiver," an individual who is "honest, competent, and genuine," and a "teacher with compassion, care, and respect for others." Petitioner's center is described as being "not just clean, but immaculate." The parents expressed satisfaction with the education and care that Petitioner provided to their children; indicated that they trust Petitioner to care for their children; and believe it would be a disservice to the children, the parents, and the community to refuse to allow Petitioner to re-open her center.
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 that denies Petitioner's application for renewal of her family child care home license without prejudice to her right to re-apply for such license in the future. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of July, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 11th day of July, 2002.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner is entitled to have her home licensed and registered as a family day care home under the provision of Chapters 402 and 435, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact On October 17, 2001, Petitioner, Betty Baumstark, submitted an application for a license to operate a family day care home at her residence. On November 29, 2001, the Department conducted an institutional staffing meeting to consider Petitioner's application. During the institutional staffing, the staff recommended that Petitioner's application for a license to operate a family day care home at her residence be denied. Although the institutional staffing committee made a recommendation regarding Petitioner's application, the Department's licensing specialist and supervisor made the final decision regarding the family day care home license. More than two months after the Department's institutional staffing, on February 8, 2002, the Department notified Petitioner by letter that her application to operate a family day care home was denied. The denial letter advised Petitioner that the family day care home license was denied based on the following grounds: (a) Abuse Report 2000-045218 indicated that Petitioner gave temporary custody of her son to friends on or about August 8, 1999, and that Petitioner's friends stated that they asked for the child because Petitioner "could not and would not care" for him; (b) Abuse Report 1999-095828 was closed with some indicators of inadequate supervision with caretaker present; (c) a domestic violence injunction was issued in 1997 against Petitioner's fiancé, Michael Canty; and (d) Petitioner had stated that she had experimented with drugs. The Department does not allege any other basis for denial of the license. Accordingly, it is found that, except for any requirements and minimum standards covered by those allegations, Petitioner met all the requirements and minimum standards necessary for licensure as a family day care home. With regard to the allegations in the 2000 Abuse Report, Petitioner did, in fact, give temporary custody of her son to Greg Davis in August 1999, while she was pregnant with her second child. The reason Petitioner gave Mr. Davis temporary custody was because her son acted out his hostility and became unmanageable. Concerned about her son, Petitioner actively sought assistance from various community resources to help her son, but was unsuccessful in doing so. After becoming aware of the situation with Petitioner's son, Mr. Davis, a friend of Petitioner and Michael Canty, offered to allow Petitioner’s son to live with him in an effort to improve the boy’s behavior and performance is school. Because Petitioner had been unsuccessful in obtaining any assistance to address her son's problems, she agreed to allow him to stay with Mr. Davis because she believed it was in her son’s best interests. In fact, during the time Petitioner’s son has lived with Mr. Davis, there has been a significant and positive improvement in the boy’s behavior and his grades in school. Petitioner's son is still living with Mr. Davis and has continued to do well in that setting. Given her son's progress and improvement, Petitioner has allowed him to remain with Mr. Davis. However, Petitioner has not abandoned her son and is still very involved in his life. Petitioner has a good relationship with her son and has maintained contact with him through regular visits and telephone conversations. Petitioner never stated that she could not and would not care for her son. The 1999 Abuse Report of inadequate supervision is based on a limited portion of the investigation which reported that Petitioner was called to pick up her son from a treatment facility and that she failed to pick up her child. This report makes no claim that anyone from the Department or the treatment facility ever spoke to Petitioner and told her to pick up her son from the treatment facility. Moreover, the credible testimony of Petitioner is that she was never contacted and told her that her son was being discharged from the facility and needed to be picked up. During the time period covered in the 1999 Abuse Report, as noted in that report, Petitioner’s son was in the custody of his father and stepmother and not in the custody of Petitioner. The domestic violence injunction referenced in the denial letter names Michael Canty as a party in that proceeding. Mr. Canty was Petitioner’s fiancé at the time of the hearing and, in the event the license was issued, Mr. Canty, who lived with Petitioner, was listed as the person who would be present at the family day care home to assist in Petitioner’s absence. As alleged in the denial letter, a domestic injunction was issued against Mr. Canty in 1997. However, there is no indication of the underlying factual basis for issuance of that injunction. Nothing in the domestic violence injunction, dated November 6, 1997, mentions that any violence had occurred or that the interests of the children in question had been harmed. Moreover, in a subsequently issued order in that case, it is noted that Mr. Canty's ex-fiancée, the person who initiated the injunction proceedings, withdrew her supporting affidavit. According to the credible testimony of Mr. Canty, his ex-fiancée obtained an injunction so that she could take the couple’s children to another city and not because he had committed an act of violence against her. During the years Mr. Canty and his ex-fiancée lived together, there were never any complaints filed with the police that indicate that Mr. Canty engaged in conduct that constitutes domestic violence nor were the police ever called to their home. The Department presented no evidence to the contrary. At some point during one of the investigations, there was an accusation that Petitioner used drugs. In response to a question from someone from "HRS" who talked to her, Petitioner told the person that she had experimented with drugs. Petitioner's experimentation with drugs was limited to smoking marijuana when she was fourteen years old, twelve or thirteen years prior to the hearing in this proceeding. Since that time, Petitioner has not experimented with or used illegal drugs. In 1999, Petitioner submitted to drug testing as a condition of employment with the YMCA and both of the tests were negative. The Department’s notification of denial of Petitioner’s application was more than ninety (90) days from the date the Department received Petitioner's application. The Department made no written request to Petitioner for any additional information concerning her application, but claims that the request for additional information was made by a Department employee during a conversation that employee had with Petitioner. However, the Department employee who allegedly requested that Petitioner provide additional information on the domestic violence injunction involving Mr. Canty did not testify at hearing. Moreover, the Department employees who testified at hearing had not requested any additional information from Petitioner and did not know whether any other Department employee had requested such information from Petitioner. Contrary to the Department's claim, the credible testimony of Petitioner was that the Department never requested or asked her to provide additional information to supplement her application. The Department failed to act on Petitioner’s application within ninety days of receiving it. This statutory time period was not extended because the Department did not request that Petitioner provide additional information regarding her application. Having failed to timely act on Petitioner’s application, the Department is required to grant a family day care home license to Petitioner. Even if the Department had timely acted on Petitioner's application, the substantive bases upon which it seeks to deny the family day care home have not been established in this record.
Recommendation Base on 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 a license to operate a family day care home. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of August, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 August, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: David P. Rankin, Esquire 14502 North Dale Mabry Boulevard Suite 300 Tampa, Florida 33618 Ralph J. McMurphy, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 1601 West Gulf Atlantic Highway Wildwood, Florida 34785-8158 Paul F. Flounlacker, Jr., Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204B Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Josie Tomayo, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Conclusions Bruce Culpepper, Esquire Akerman, Senterfitt & EBidson, P.A. 301 South Bronough Street, Suite 200 Post Office Box 10555 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-2555 Diane E. Leeds, Esquire Department of Banking and Finance Office of the Comptroller 111 South Sapodilla Avenue Suite 211 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401-5293 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES © The issues are whether Petitioners collectively mee definition of a prevailing small business party, and, if BO,” whether Respondent's actions were substantially justifies ‘or whether special circumstances exist which would make an award of. attorney's fees and costs unjust.
The Issue The issues in this case are: whether the Griffin Family Day Care Home violated provisions of chapter 402, Florida Statutes (2012),1/ and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 65C-20,2/ and, if so, what penalty should be imposed; and whether the Griffin Family Day Care Home's renewal application for a license to operate a regular family day care center should be approved or denied.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for inspecting, licensing, and monitoring child care facilities such as the one operated by the Griffin Day Care. It is the Department's responsibility to ensure that all such facilities are safe and secure for the protection of the children utilizing those facilities. The Department inspects each licensed day care center three times a year: two unannounced routine inspections (to ensure compliance with the applicable laws and rules) and one renewal application inspection. In the event of a complaint, additional inspections or investigations are conducted. Wanda Griffin owns and operates the Griffin Day Care, a family day care facility licensed by the Department. The facility is located at 1408 Unitah Avenue, Lakeland, Florida, and was in continuous operation at all times material to the issues herein. The facility has not been the subject of any prior disciplinary actions. Lydia Murphy is a child care licensing specialist for the Department. Ms. Murphy is trained to inspect family day care centers for initial applications, renewal applications, and routine inspections. Ms. Murphy is familiar with the facility, having inspected it between 15 to 18 times over the past five to six years. As a result of a complaint being made, DCF conducted an investigation of the facility. On Friday morning, March 23, 2012, a four-year-old child, S.B., was brought to the facility. Following some outside play time, S.B. and the other children came into the facility and were seated at a table for lunch. While Ms. Griffin was retrieving the pizza from the garage, S.B. got up from the table and left the facility via the front door. Ms. Griffin's granddaughter4/ told Ms. Griffin that S.B. was gone. Ms. Griffin immediately began a search for the child. Ms. Griffin contacted 911 and the child's mother. S.B. was located approximately one-half mile from the facility and was returned. There was no testimony about whether or not S.B. was ever in jeopardy while she was unsupervised. Although S.B.'s mother later told Ms. Griffin that S.B. was known to wander off, Ms. Griffin advised S.B.'s mother that she (Ms. Griffin) would no longer take care of S.B. Ms. Griffin admitted this incident occurred. On Tuesday, March 27, 2012, Ms. Murphy (and another DCF employee) interviewed Ms. Griffin about the Friday incident. During that interview, Ms. Griffin told Ms. Murphy that the lock on the front door was not engaged, as she (Ms. Griffin) had disengaged it to allow her daughter to enter the facility following medical treatment. At hearing, Ms. Griffin testified that the front door lock had been engaged when S.B. left the facility. When confronted that the incident occurred on a Friday and that she had told Ms. Murphy just four days after the incident (on Tuesday) that the door lock was disengaged for her daughter, Ms. Griffin claimed that her daughter did not go for the medical treatment on that Friday. Ms. Griffin's testimony is not credible. Leviticus Griffin is Ms. Griffin's husband. They lived together in Plant City for a time and, in 2001, moved to Lakeland. Ms. Griffin testified that, when she applied for (the child care) licensure, they were not living together, as she was living "on housing," and Mr. Griffin was living elsewhere. On four or five inspection visits when Ms. Murphy saw a white truck in the drive-way, there was a man present on the facility property. Ms. Murphy did not see him inside the facility. Ms. Murphy was told he was the yardman. Ms. Griffin maintained that Mr. Griffin was not the yardman. Ms. Griffin testified that the yardman was "one of my grandbaby's uncles" and that she had forgotten his name. Ms. Griffin maintained that this yardman had been her yardman "since she had moved in." Ms. Griffin's testimony is not credible. At the hearing, Ms. Griffin claimed that, when Ms. Murphy saw Mr. Griffin at the facility, he was there to talk about health issues. On the 2012 renewal application, submitted on May 8, Ms. Griffin did not report that Mr. Griffin was residing in the facility. As she was reviewing the 2012 renewal application, Ms. Murphy saw a copy of Mr. Griffin's driver's license and identified him as the yardman she had seen at the facility. In performing the required renewal application investigation in May 2012, Ms. Murphy "put two and two together" and decided that Mr. Griffin was living in the facility. Ms. Murphy investigated Mr. Griffin. Ms. Murphy determined Mr. Griffin had two disqualifying offenses that would preclude his living at the facility unless or until he received an exemption from those disqualifying offenses. Ms. Murphy called and told Ms. Griffin that she was adding Mr. Griffin's name to the 2012 renewal application as a person living in the facility. Ms. Griffin did not object to Mr. Griffin's name being added to this application and indicated she "was going to add him to the license." Although Ms. Murphy testified she spoke with the landlord, Fred Leslie, about who was living in the facility, that testimony is hearsay and was uncorroborated through other competent evidence or testimony. At some undetermined time, a copy of Ms. Griffin's 2008 rental application5/ (Exhibit 2) was provided to DCF. That rental application, which Ms. Griffin executed on June 2, 2008, does not contain an address on the "Rental Property Address" line, nor is it a rental agreement. The name, "Leviticus Griffin," is on the rental application as an additional occupant of the property; however, there is no evidence that this application was for the facility property. Ms. Griffin maintained that Mr. Griffin was not living at the facility at that time, but that he lived elsewhere. DCF presented a certified copy (Exhibit 5) of the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, Intranet Records Information System (IRIS). IRIS documented multiple vehicle transactions and driver license transactions involving Mr. Griffin. IRIS reflects that Mr. Griffin's address, as of the "Issue Date" for this record, March 4, 2008, was that of the facility. Mr. Griffin did not testify in this proceeding. Five of the six DCF applications or renewal applications (Exhibit 3)6/ for licensure submitted by the facility identify no one other than Ms. Griffin as living in the facility. The sixth application, the 2012 renewal application form, reflects Ms. Griffin's name on one line and Mr. Griffin's name on the second line where Ms. Murphy inserted and dated the addition. It is noted that the 2007 DCF "renewal" application is for an address different than the address at issue. Beatriz Blanco is a DCF exemption screening specialist with over six years of experience. Mr. Griffin first came to Ms. Blanco's attention in May 2012. Mr. Griffin submitted a request for an exemption. Ms. Blanco wrote Mr. Griffin asking him to provide information about two disqualifying offenses. In July 2012, Ms. Blanco received a partially-completed application from Mr. Griffin. In late July 2012, a letter seeking additional information was sent to Mr. Griffin at his address of record, 1408 Unitah Avenue, the same as the facility. As of February 6, 2013, Mr. Griffin had not submitted any additional information for further consideration of his exemption request.
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 finding the Griffin Family Day Care Home committed the Class I violations, imposing an administrative fine of $1,000.00, and denying its renewal application. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of February, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK 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 28th day of February, 2013.
Findings Of Fact Audrey Jones (Respondent) was granted a foster care license by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (Petitioner) in August 1994. Respondent sought to renew her foster care license. By letter dated June 14, 1995, Petitioner notified Respondent that her foster care license would not be renewed because of a proposed confirmed abuse report. On July 6, 1994, Respondent signed an agreement, entitled "Discipline Policy Agreement", agreeing to comply with Petitioner's discipline policy. The Discipline Policy Agreement provides in pertinent part: The following disciplinary practices are FORBIDDEN in the caring for your foster child. Failure to comply may result in an investiga- tion and possible closure of your home. * * * Hitting a child with an object. Slapping or spanking a child, or ANY OTHER physical discipline. On August 23, 1994, as a condition of licensure, Respondent signed an agreement, entitled "Agreement To Provide Substitute Care For Dependent Children", with Petitioner. This agreement provides in pertinent part: As substitute care parent(s) for the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, we agree to the following conditions considered essential for the welfare of this dependent child placed in our home: * * * 2. We are fully and directly responsible to the department for the care of the child. * * * We will comply with all requirements for a licensed substitute care home as prescribed by the department. We will immediately report any injuries or illness of a child in our care to the department. * * * 19. We will abide by the department's discipline policy which we received during the MAPP training. In May, 1995, Respondent was the foster parent of B. W., a female child. At that time, B. W. was nine years old and had been in Respondent's care for less than one year. On May 22, 1995, B. W. was examined by a physician of Petitioner's Child Protective Team as a result of an abuse report made against Respondent that same day. The examination revealed multiple linear abrasions, scabbed linear lesions, and bruises on B. W.'s upper thighs and buttocks, with the injured areas being tender. The injuries had been inflicted with a brush-type instrument and had been inflicted within three days prior to the examination. The lesions and bruises could not have been, and were not, self- inflicted. Respondent inflicted the lesions and bruises upon B. W. with a brush. B. W. has been in several foster homes over the years. She admitted that she has told several truths and "stories" about former foster homes. However, in this situation, B. W. is found to have spoken the truth. On May 22, 1995, B. W. informed Petitioner's abuse investigator, the examining physician, and a supervisor at the Mental Health program that she attended that Respondent had punished her with a brush and that the lesions and bruises were a result of that punishment. All of these individuals observed the injuries on May 22, 1995. During the three-day period prior to the report and discovery of the lesions and bruises, B. W. was in the custody and control of Respondent. At no time did Respondent seek medical treatment for B. W.'s injuries. Nor did Respondent notify Petitioner of the injuries. Respondent violated both the Agreement to Provide Substitute Care for Dependent Children and the Discipline Policy Agreement that she had with Petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services deny the renewal of Audrey Jones' foster care license. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of March, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL, 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 29th day of March, 1996. APPENDIX The following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1. Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. 2. Partially accepted in finding of fact 4. 3. Partially accepted in finding of fact 3. 4. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. 5. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. 6. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5. 7. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5. 8. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. 9. Rejected as being unnecessary. 10. Partially accepted in finding of fact 10. 11. Partially accepted in finding of fact 10. 12. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. 13. Partially accepted in finding of fact 9. 14. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. 15. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5. 16. Partially accepted in findings of fact 1 and 9. NOTE - Where a proposed finding has been partially accepted, the remainder has been rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, cumulative, not supported by the more credible evidence, argument, or a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Colleen Farnsworth, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 401 Northeast Second Avenue Suite N-1014 Miami, Florida 33128 Harry G. Robbins, Esquire Presidential Circle Building 4000 Hollywood boulevard Suite 630 North Hollywood, Florida 33130 Richard Doran General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Sandy Coulter Acting Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a healthy, alert 27-year-old female individual, who was born with Downs Syndrome and is visually impaired. Petitioner is an adult and is a Medicaid waiver client of Developmental Services and is receiving supported living services. Petitioner, by her choice, is presently residing in the home of her mother, Sandra Kuhn. She desires to continue to live independently outside of a group home or institutional setting. Petitioner desires to have an active social life, outside of work. At present, she participates in the Special Olympics, bowling, attends dances and dates. However, Petitioner's participation is restricted because she must rely on her mother or friends to provide transportation to these functions. She is capable of using a taxi; however, she has limited funds for such purpose. Petitioner is employed on a regular basis at Brevard Achievement Center (BAC), the local sheltered workshop. She receives transportation services from Space Coast Area Transit (SCAT) five days a week to transport her to and from work. Payment for this service comes from Medicaid waiver funds. Funds are also provided for Respite Care services for family members on a regular basis. Petitioner takes the position that the goal of the statute and rules relating to supported living services is to allow clients to live as independently as possible in their own houses and to achieve productive lives as close to normal as possible. Section 393.066(1) and (4), Florida Statutes. Petitioner states that an important part of living a normal and productive life is the ability to partake of recreational and leisure activities and to develop interpersonal relations outside of work or the client's immediate family. This can be accomplished by authorizing waiver funds to provide transportation services to special events or regularly-scheduled activities. Petitioner argues that such services may be authorized under the current rules, as provided in Rule 10F-11.006(1),(3),(h),(l),(m),(p), Florida Administrative Code. The Department is considering a change in its policy regarding the use of waiver funds to provide transportation services for leisure and/or recreational uses by drafting proposed Chapter 10F-13, Florida Administrative Code. Such services have been requested by Petitioner in her support plan for more than two years. Petitioner's Support Coordinator has supported this request. However, such request has been denied by the District Seven Developmental Services Office. Respondent takes the position that waiver funds can only be used to provide transportation services for such purposes that will prevent the institutionalization of a client. The District's position is that regardless of whether funding is available, waiver funds cannot be used to provide for recreational or leisure activities.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a Final Order granting Petitioner's request for waiver funds to be used for transportation services, subject to the restrictions contained in paragraph 19 and availability of funds for such purpose. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of April, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE, 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 24th day of April, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: James A. Sawyer, Jr. District 7 Legal Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 400 West Robinson Street, Suite S-827 Orlando, Florida 32801 Ms. Mary Sandra Kuhn 250 South Sykes Creek Parkway Apartment 201B Merritt Island, Florida 32952 Gregory D. Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Building 7, Suite 728 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Richard Doran, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Building 7, Suite 728 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue for disposition in this proceeding is whether Petitioner is entitled to licensure as a family day care home.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Marie Carline St. Fort, resides in Orlando, Orange County, Florida; in November 1999, she applied for a license to operate a family day care home at her residence. In the course of discharging its statutory responsibility of investigating applicants seeking licensure for family day care homes, DCFS discovered three incidents of child abuse/neglect, involving Petitioner's children or children in Petitioner's care, as reported to the Florida Abuse Hotline Information System. Petitioner acknowledged each incident indicating that the alleged abuse/neglect was the result of the actions of either her husband or her mother. One incident involved her husband's imposition of excessive corporal punishment to her daughter/his step-daughter which Petitioner witnessed but in which she failed to intervene. A second incident involved alleged sexual fondling of a male child by the maternal grandmother, which apparently occurred; however, upon investigation by a child protection investigator, this activity was excused and was attributed to "cultural differences" in the Haitian culture. Petitioner is of Haitian heritage. Petitioner testified that after the incident referred to in paragraph 5, supra, an Orange County Juvenile Court Judge allowed her children to return to Petitioner's home after nine days in protective custody conditioned on the grandmother not residing in the home. The grandmother presently resides in the home. In response to each of the alleged incidents of abuse/neglect, Petitioner indicated that the alleged perpetrator was someone other than herself and that she, therefore, should not be disqualified. Based on the three acknowledged incidents of abuse/neglect, DCFS determined that Petitioner's home did not meet the minimum standards required for licensure as a family day care home. DCFS advised Petitioner of her licensure denial by certified mail on January 21, 2000. In this letter Petitioner was advised: "Any party whose substantial interests are affected by this determination has a right to request an administrative proceeding pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, and rules promulgated pursuant thereto, [within] 30 days of receipt of this notice. The request must be in writing, . . .". By an undated letter received by DCFS on December 19, 2001, in which Petitioner acknowledged receipt of DCFS's letter, Petitioner asked the "department to reconsider my request and approve my requested license to operate a Family Day Care Home." DCFS interpreted this as a request for an administrative hearing. In the same letter Petitioner indicated, "I had written you a letter before within 30 days as stated in your letter dated January 21, 2000. I have never received any response from your office concerning this matter." Petitioner testified, contradicting her letter received by DCFS on December 19, 2001, that her first letter, which apparently had never been received by DCFS, had not been mailed until approximately 60-90 days after the expiration of the 30- day deadline stated in DCFS's January 21, 2000, letter denying licensure. No relevant excuse was offered for her tardiness.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Family Services enter its final order granting the motion to dismiss Petitioner's request for administrative hearing or, in the alternative, enter its final order denying Petitioner's licensure application for a family day care home license for her failure to present any meritorious evidence of entitlement. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of May, 2002, 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 2nd day of May, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard Cato, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 400 West Robinson Street Suite S-1106 Orlando, Florida 32801-1782 Marie Carline St. Fort 2800 Rose Boulevard Orlando, Florida 32839 Peggy Sanford, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204B Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Josie Tomayo, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact Petitioners are licensed by Respondent to provide foster care to children in Petitioners' home. Substantially prior to the incidents in question, Petitioners received written materials from Respondent confirming that the foster children at all times remain under the supervision and control of Respondent and that Respondent's discipline policy "[p]rohibits any form of corporal punishment ...." On at least two occasions during the latter half of 1992, a representative of Respondent reminded Petitioners of the policy against corporal punishment. Despite numerous reminders of Respondent's policy against corporal punishment in a foster care setting, on January 29, 1993, Vivian Griffin spanked a 2 and 1/2 year old boy who was in their foster care. He had soiled his diapers during a visit by Mr. and Mrs. Griffin to a commercial lender. As Mrs. Griffin removed him from the office, she threatened, "I'm going to take you outside and I'm going to take your pants down." She took the toddler to her van where she struck the boy at least five to ten times with her bare hand in the area of his buttocks. The incident drew the attention of two office workers, one of whom went out to the van and intervened. When asked by the office worker if she could help, Mrs. Griffin responded, "He shit in his pants." Petitioners' parenting skills are deficient. Mrs. Griffin in particular has a high frustration level with the young children who have been placed in their home. During one home visit by a representative of Respondent, Mrs. Griffin followed around a two year old who was exhibiting normally inquisitive behavior in her home. Rather than remove objects that the toddler should not have touched, Mrs. Griffin hovered over the child, inappropriately threatening at one point a two-minute timeout if the behavior persisted. Both Petitioners have displayed a strong lack of affection, considerable nervousness, and much agitation with the foster children who have been placed with Petitioners. At the same time, Mrs. Griffin constantly resisted help offered by Respondent's representatives and instead complained about these and other persons available to help her. Respondent has offered Petitioners free day care, parenting classes, and individual counselling. But Mrs. Griffin refused to go to the parenting classes or take the children to day care. She reluctantly attended one or two sessions of individual counseling, but soon quit going.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a final order denying the renewal of a foster care license to Petitioners. ENTERED on April 20, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings on April 20, 1994. APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings rejected as not finding of fact. rejected as recitation of evidence and unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 3-5. rejected as recitation of evidence. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings 1-6. adopted or adopted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert L. Powell Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Attorney Kelly A. Lee P.O. Box 7946 Naples, FL 33941-7946 Elmer and Vivian Griffin P.O. Box 2544 Immokalee, FL 33934 Attorney Anthony N. DeLuccia, Jr. District 8 Legal Office Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services P.O. Box 06085 Ft. Myers, FL 33906
