Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent hereto, the Respondents were operating a shelter home in Opa Locka, Florida, pursuant to License 290-12-5 that had been issued by Petitioner. Respondent W.G. is the husband of Respondent G.G. On December 27, 1990, Petitioner received a report in its central abuse center in Tallahassee of alleged child abuse by Respondents at their shelter home in that Respondents were verbally abusing a 17-year-old female that had been placed in their shelter home. Protective services investigator David K. Welch immediately began an investigation of this alleged abuse. He visited the shelter home. Respondent G.G. was present in the shelter home when Mr. Welch made his visit to the home, but she was not in the same room with the children who had been temporarily placed in the custody of the Respondents. At the time of Mr. Welch's visit, Respondent G.G. was present in the home and was providing adequate supervision. Mr. Welch spoke with the Respondents about the allegations of verbal abuse and concluded that the allegations were "indicated". Mr. Welch found insufficient evidence upon which to base a conclusion that the allegation of verbal abuse should be closed as "confirmed". During the course of his investigation, Mr. Welch learned of reports from three other protective services investigators of allegations that Respondents often left the children who had been placed in their temporary custody without adequate supervision. The three reports, upon which Mr. Welch relied, were from Fidelis Ezewike pertaining to an incident on September 24, 1990, from Iris Silien pertaining to an incident on December 28, 1990, and from Michael Blum pertaining to an incident on an unspecified date in late 1990. At no time did Mr. Welch advise Respondents as to allegations of abuse in the form of inadequate supervision or ask them to explain the arrangements they make for the supervision of the children when they are both away from the foster home. The abuse report listed two victims of the alleged neglect, M.L., a female born in February 1974, and L.G., a female born in August 1975. Neither of these alleged victims testified at the formal hearing. Mr. Welch had no first had knowledge of the three incidents upon which he relied to close the report as a proposed confirmed report of child abuse based on neglect from inadequate supervision. Mr. Ezewike did testify as to the incident of September 24, 1990. Although he found children in the foster home temporarily without adult supervision when he arrived there, he later that day discussed the matter with the Respondents. Respondents explained their temporary absence from the foster home to Mr. Ezewike. Mr. Ezewike was satisfied with the explanation given by the Respondents and was of the opinion that the absence of the Respondents did not merit the filing of an abuse report based on the failure to provide adequate supervision.2/ Ms. Silien did not testify at the formal hearing. There was no competent, substantial evidence to establish that Respondents failed to provide adequate supervision to the identified victims on the date Ms. Silien visited the foster home. Mr. Blum did not testify at the formal hearing. There was no competent, substantial evidence to establish that Respondents failed to provide adequate supervision to the identified victims on the date Mr. Blum visited the foster home. Respondents' son-in-law testified that he was present at the foster home on the date of Mr. Blum's visit and that he explained to Mr. Blum that he was supervising the children temporarily at the request of Respondents. The uncontradicted testimony was that when Respondents have to be away from the foster home on a temporary basis, they entrust the supervision of the children in their custody to their daughter and her husband, who live in close proximity to Respondents and who had agreed to be responsible for supervising the children. Petitioner failed to establish that the temporary arrangements Respondents made for the supervision of the children in their absence from the foster home was inadequate.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered which amends FPSS Report No. 90- 1333485 to reflect the findings contained herein, which closes said report as unfounded, and which expunges the names of the Respondents as confirmed perpetrators from the central abuse registry. DONE AND ORDERED this 2 day of June, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 2 day of June, 1992.
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether the Department of Children and Family Services should revoke the foster care license of Joe and Fatima Landon.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, the home of Joe and Fatima Landon was licensed by the Department of Children and Family Services as a foster home, having been issued License No. 0900-17 by the Department. On January 31, 2001, the Department received a report alleging that a child in the Landons' care, K.N.F., had two scrapes on her left hand that might constitute abuse. As a result of these allegations, Harvey Clark and Kevin Daniels, Child Protective Investigators employed by the Department, went to the Landons' home on the day of the alleged incident to investigate. Deputy Steven Parker of the Clay County Sheriff's Office also went to the Landons' to investigate. At the time of the hearing, K.N.F. was seven years old. She recalled that on the day of the incident, Mrs. Landon was driving her and another foster child to school. K.N.F. was reading in the back seat of the van. K.N.F. was trying to sound out the words and was unable to sound them out properly. Mrs. Landon turned around and Mrs. Landon's hand hit K.N.F.'s hand. K.N.F. described the incident as follows, "She turned around. And I was holding my hand on the book. She was going to point to the word, but my hand was there." She perceived Mrs. Landon to be angry, but also thought that Mrs. Landon was pointing to the word and hit her hand by accident.2 K.N.F. was referred to the Child Protection Team for an examination of her injury. She was examined by Dr. Bruce J. McIntosh. Dr. McIntosh found two abrasions, or scrapes, on the back of her left hand near the thumb. It was Dr. McIntosh's opinion that the abrasions were inconsistent with the injury being an accident in that one would not be pointing at something with "such force and velocity" to produce two abrasions to the hand. Notwithstanding Dr. McIntosh's testimony, the abrasions are best described in the photographs taken the day of the incident which reveal two small reddish abrasions on K.N.F.'s left hand. The evidence is sufficient to support a finding that Mrs. Landon reaching around to K.N.F. caused the abrasions on K.N.F.'s hand. Dr. McIntosh determined that the abrasions did not require specific treatment. However, he recommended that K.N.F. and the other foster child in the car be removed from the Landons because it was his impression that the children were afraid of Mrs. Landon. This impression was based primarily on statements made to him by K.N.F. and the other foster child during his examination, which are hearsay. K.N.F. and the other foster children were then removed from the Landons' home by the Department. At the time of the incident, Tanya Lee was employed by the Jacksonville Youth Sanctuary, a private organization contracted by the Department to provide foster care services, as a foster care case worker. She was the case worker for the two other foster children in the Landons' home. She visited the home frequently and found a happy, stable environment. She found the Landons to be very supportive and nurturing of the foster children including what she witnessed with K.N.F. during her home visits. Ms. Lee conducted exit interviews of the children for whom she was the case worker when they were removed from the home after the incident. It was her impression that the children felt safe in the Landons' home and wanted to be placed back with the Landons. This impression was based on the statements made by the children during the exit interviews and are hearsay.
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 rescinding its revocation of the Landons' foster care license. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of January, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. BARBARA J. STAROS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of January, 2002.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent should deny Petitioner's application for a license to operate a family day care home for the reasons stated in Respondent's letter of denial.
Findings Of Fact On January 21, 2004, Petitioner, M.G., applied for a license to operate a family day care home at 2430 Kiwanis Avenue in Lakeland, Florida. Respondent, the Department of Children and Family Services, is the agency responsible for licensing family day care homes in the state. By letter dated March 5, 2004, Respondent notified Petitioner of Respondent's intent to deny Petitioner's application for a license (the denial letter). The denial letter relies solely on a report from the Florida Abuse Hotline Information System, Report No. 2003352176 (the abuse report). The denial letter states, in relevant part, that Respondent is unable to determine from information in the abuse report whether Petitioner will adequately ensure the safety of children. The preponderance of competent and substantial evidence at the administrative hearing shows that Petitioner will adequately ensure the safety of children in a family day care home. Petitioner left her two biological children in her vehicle on September 15, 2003, in front of a strip center of stores while Petitioner retrieved a paycheck from a consignment store that employed Petitioner and then went to an automatic teller (ATM) machine at an adjacent store. Petitioner left her children in the back seat of the vehicle with the doors locked, the engine running for air conditioning, the transmission in park, and the parking break engaged. The abuse report bases its findings on hearsay statements obtained by an investigator for Respondent during his investigation on September 17, 2003. The abuse report concluded that Petitioner neglected her children because she was inside a store retrieving her paycheck for more than five minutes and that the children were out of sight of Petitioner while Petitioner was inside the store. The trier of fact cannot base findings of fact solely on hearsay testimony of the investigator. The preponderance of competent and substantial evidence at the administrative hearing shows that Petitioner did not leave sight of her children. Petitioner parked her car in front of the consignment store. The width of the sidewalk, or approximately ten feet, separated the car from the entrance to the consignment store. Petitioner never entered the consignment store but remained in the doorway within sight of her children. Petitioner had telephoned ahead to the owner of the consignment store. The owner had the paycheck prepared when Petitioner arrived and handed it to Petitioner in the doorway of the store. Petitioner then used an ATM at an adjacent store. The ATM was approximately 20 feet from Petitioner's vehicle. The retrieval of the paycheck and the ATM transaction lasted approximately five minutes. During the five minutes that Petitioner was outside of her car, Petitioner's youngest child escaped from his car seat in the back seat of the vehicle and crossed into the front seat. Petitioner, subsequently, entered the vehicle, put her child in the car seat, and drove away. The facts on which the abuse report concluded that Petitioner had neglected her children on September 15, 2003, were based on hearsay. Competent and substantial evidence at the hearing did not support some of those facts. If it were determined that the facts shown at the hearing constituted neglect, the abuse report correctly determined that the neglect resulted in a low risk of harm to the children. The abuse report recommended no intervention, placement services, or judicial intervention. The incident on September 15, 2003, was a single isolated event that does not represent a pattern and practice of endangering children. The incident was an exception to Petitioner's normal practice, rather than evidence of her normal practice. Petitioner demonstrated that she can adequately ensure the safety of children in her care.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order granting Petitioner's application for a license to operate a family day care home. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of June, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY 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 17th day of June, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack Emory Farley, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 4720 Old Highway 37 Lakeland, Florida 33813-2030 M. G. (Address of record) Paul F. Flounlacker, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204B Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Josie Tomayo, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Whether Petitioner's application for licensure as a family foster home should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Around September 4, 2001, Petitioner applied for licensure as a family foster home. Petitioner successfully completed all the requirements for licensure mandated by the Department. In fact, the Department’s family services counselor supervisor recommended Petitioner for licensure. However, prior to finalization of her recommendation, she was asked to review the application again based on information in the central abuse hotline. From 1997 until June 2000, Petitioner operated a registered day care. During the time the day care was operated, Petitioner cared for approximately 25 children ranging in ages from infant and up. Prior to May 14, 2000, A.N. was enrolled at Petitioner’s day care. His mother visited the facility at least twice and was introduced to Petitioner's pet boxer, a medium size dog who lived in the house with Petitioner. The mother registered no objections to the presence of the dog and knew the dog would be around the children at the daycare. In fact, the dog was very friendly and was very gentle with the children at the daycare. Additionally, the children at the daycare liked to play with the dog. The dog was not mean or vicious and had never been so. On May 11, 2000, A.N. was dropped off at the day care by his mother. He stayed for approximately four hours. He was picked up by his mother. During his stay at the day care, he was fed as instructed and was supervised appropriately by Petitioner. He did have a difficult time being separated from his mother. At no time was he left alone with Petitioner’s dog. On May 12, 2000, A.N. was again dropped off by his mother. He stayed approximately seven hours. He was fed appropriately and adequately supervised during his stay. He was crying due to separation from his mother. Petitioner saw A.N.’s grandmother pull into the driveway and met her when she entered the daycare. Petitioner’s dog licked A.N. in the face. The dog’s tongue did not go into the child’s mouth. The dog never snapped at the child and was never left alone with the child. Petitioner gave the grandmother A.N.’s bottles and his teddy bear. There was no dog feces on any of A.N.’s things when he left with his grandmother. A.N. did not return to the daycare. On May 14, 2000, the Department received a report on the central abuse hotline, Abuse Report No. 2000-076224. The report alleged that Petitioner was inadequately supervising A.N. because a large dog was alone with A.N., snapping at him and licking the inside of his mouth, A.N.’s teddy bear had dog feces on it, A.N.’s bottles were not refrigerated, A.N. was not fed his food, and had physical injuries. On May 15, 2000, the Department’s child protective investigator along with a Sheriff’s deputy visited Petitioner’s home unannounced. She found the home to be neat and clean. The dog was friendly and did not show any signs of viciousness. In fact, the visit did not yield any information which would support the allegations of the abuse report. Later, the Department’s investigator interviewed A.N.’s mother and grandmother. The bear had been washed. Based on interviews with the mother and grandmother, the Department closed the report finding some indications of neglect in the areas of inadequate supervision, inadequate food, and exposing a child to dangerous conditions (the dog). However, neither the grandmother nor the mother testified at the hearing and no independent evidence was offered at the hearing to support the allegations of the abuse report. Therefore, for purposes of this licensure hearing there is no credible, non-hearsay evidence to support the allegations made in the abuse report and the report offers no basis to deny Petitioner’s application for licensure as a family foster home. Moreover, the presence of a dog in a home does not preclude licensure as a family foster home. The Department’s own licensing standards checklist reflects that a dog in a foster home must be currently vaccinated and access to potentially dangerous animals must be restricted. Petitioner met these criteria.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Family Services enter a final order granting Petitioner’s application for licensure as a family foster home. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of August, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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: Ralph J. McMurphy, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 1601 West Gulf Atlantic Highway Wildwood, Florida 34785-8158 Gregory Paules, Esquire 12421 North Florida Avenue Tampa Law Center, Suite B-122 Tampa, Florida 33612 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
Findings Of Fact On or about December 5, 1977, the Respondents, Mr. and Mrs. Vincent A. Morris, filed an application for licensure to operate a foster home in District V of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. Carol Parks, a Social Worker employed by the Petitioner and who is in charge of licensing in the Foster Care Section of District V, testified as to the procedures utilized in considering applications for foster home licensure. Ms. Parks testified that once an applicant files, she visits the applicant and goes through the orientation session, familiarizing the applicant with the forms, procedures and in a general manner outlining the standards necessary to obtain a foster home license. Ms. Parks ascertained that the Morrises were married and she additionally checked with the Sheriff's Department and other local law enforcement agencies to determine whether or not the Respondents had been convicted of a felony as an adult. 1/ Based on this search with the various local law enforcement agencies, Ms. Parks found no evidence of a conviction of the Respondents. As stated, the Respondents filed the application on or about December 5, 1977, and a license was granted them during April, 1978. On cross-examination, Ms. Parks failed to recall whether or not she asked the Respondents whether or not there were any outstanding felony convictions against them. She testified that she was satisfied with the manner in which the Respondents operated their facility and confirmed the fact that the Respondents were permitted to adopt a sixth foster child during January of 1979. Esther Morris testified that during the orientation session, Ms. Parks never inquired of her if she had been convicted of a crime. Mrs. Morris inquired of Ms. Parks and other agency personnel of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services whether or not she could begin to remodel her home when she initially filed her application. She was advised by Ms. Parks and others that she should defer any remodeling until they advised her to proceed. The Morrises later obtained approval from that Department to commence the remodeling of her home, which she did, and expended funds totaling approximately $22,000.00 for preparation of this facility as a foster home facility. Presently, she has six foster children, the last of which was adopted during January, 1979. She testified that Ms. Parks asked her whether or not she or her husband had been to jail and she replied that she had not. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 is a certified copy of a judgment and sentence indicating that on or about August 11, 1975, Respondent, Esther V. Morris, was convicted of welfare fraud, for which she was fined $500.00. Chapter 10C-10.29(7), Florida Administrative Cede, provides in pertinent part that: "No applicant can be considered who, as an adult, has been convicted of a crime." It is based on this rule that the Petitioner is here seeking to revoke the foster hose license of the Respondents. Inasmuch as the above-mentioned rule makes no mention of or provides any procedure for revocation of a license which has been granted, the undersigned is of the considered opinion that such rule provides no basis upon which the Petitioner can revoke the Respondents' license. Particular note was made of the fact that the Respondents credibly testified that they, at no time, misrepresented to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services that they were convicted of a crime as an adult. While it is true that the cited rule indicates that no person can be considered who, as an adult, has been convicted of a crime, a different issue is here posed inasmuch as the Respondents are now possessed with a license, a right to which certain due process procedures must be complied with prior to revocation. With these facts in mind, the undersigned is not prepared to read into the above- quoted rule authority which is not contained in said rule. Accordingly, I shall recommend that the Administrative Complaint filed herein be dismissed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby recommended that the complaint filed herein be DISMISSED. ENTERED this 15th day of March, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building MAILING ADDRESS: 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner, M.Z., violated Section 402.305(12)(a)3., Florida Statutes (2003), by hitting A.P., an almost two-year-old male, and, if so, whether her family day care home license should be revoked.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner has been licensed to operate a family day care home since October 24, 1996. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Petitioner, M.Z., had a valid family day care home license, which was effective from October 24, 2002, through October 23, 2003. On August 5, 2003, Petitioner was caring for ten children in her home, even though she should have been caring for only six children, in order to comply with the rules on proper staff-to-child ratios. Moreover, Petitioner did not have enrollment forms for all the children in her care, as required by law. One of the children Petitioner was caring for on August 5, 2003, was A.P., an almost two-year-old male. During or around lunch time, A.P. was sitting in a booster seat that was strapped onto an adult-size chair. Rather than eat his food, A.P. was having a temper tantrum and began pushing his plate of food around and knocked over his glass of milk, resulting in spillage of both. While A.P. was having the temper tantrum, Petitioner hit the child on his upper back as he sat in the booster chair, leaving the print of her hand on the child's upper back. This action by Petitioner had the potential to cause serious harm to A.P. Petitioner self-reported the incident to the Department and to A.P.'s father. The incident was also reported to the Florida Abuse Hotline. Petitioner testified that she intended to hit the back of the chair to focus A.P., but instead hit his upper back. Petitioner acknowledged that at the time of the incident, she felt angry and let the child get the best of her. She also indicted that she "lost it" and that she had "screwed up." Twenty-four hours after Petitioner struck A.P., her handprint mark was clearly visible on the child's back, indicating that significant force was used on the child. Petitioner's testimony that she intended to hit the chair in which the booster chair was strapped in order to "refocus" A.P., while he was having a temper tantrum is not credible. The incident was also investigated by the Pasco County Sheriff's Child Abuse Unit (Child Abuse Unit). As part of that investigation, the day after the incident, A.P. was examined and a reddish colored mark was on his upper back. The mark on the child’s back was "very consistent with that of a handprint." Based on the findings of the Child Abuse Unit, the case was closed with a "verified" findings of "bruises/welts, other physical injury."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Family Services enter a final order revoking Petitioner's license to operate a family day care home. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of February, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S 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 16th day of February, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Raymond R. Deckert, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services Regional Headquarters, Suite 902 9393 North Florida Avenue Tampa, Florida 33612 Peter Wansboro, Esquire Wansboro Law Firm, P.A. 5943 Florida Avenue New Port Richey, Florida 34652 Paul F. Flounlacker, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204B Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Josie Tomayo, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner's request for exemption for disqualification should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Upon completion of high school, J.D. was employed at Walt Disney World in the theme park. It was during her employment at Disney World that J.D. was arrested on April 13, 1990 and charged with possession of a baggie containing 1.5 grams of crack cocaine with intent to sell. J.D. pled nolo contendere to the charges and was placed on two-years probation during which she had to attend a drug treatment program. Having already completed high school, J.D. started going to school while on probation and while she was employed with Red Lobster as a cook and coordinator at night. J.D. held the job with Red Lobster from 1990 to 1993, when she relocated to Jacksonville, Florida. J.D. attended classes at the Orlando Vocational-Technical Center and was awarded a certificate for 56 hours of home health aide in March 1991 and an AIDS four-hour seminar. On March 13, 1992, J.D. was awarded a certificate for completion of care of the Alzheimers client; and on March 17, 1992, J.D. was awarded a certificate of completion of care for the stroke patient. J.D. also successfully completed the basic rescue course in CPR from the American Heart Association issued on March 21, 1992 and March 24, 1992; First Aid, Level 1 from the National Safety Council Orlando Vocational Tech on March 12, 1992; and satisfactorily completed on March 27, 1991 a 72-hour course for the home health aide with competency performance testing. By letter of February 1, 1992, J.D. was informed that she had successfully completed her substance abuse counseling with a discharge diagnosis of cocaine abuse in remission, prognosis fair, provided she follows recommendations; and the recommendations were (1) abstain from all mood-altering substances and (2) attend AA/NA meetings. On May 16, 1994, J.D. was arrested by the Orlando Police Department for possession of cannabis. On June 6, 1994, J.D. appeared before the court, waived her right to counsel, pled nolo contendere to the charge of possession, and was adjudged guilty. As stated above, J.D. relocated to Jacksonville, and a year later was hired on June 1, 1995, as a home health care aide by Living Centers Devcon Point West Cluster, a developmental services facility. J.D. worked with clients who were in need of assistance in their daily living activities, ranging in age from minors to adults. J.D.'s cared for eight clients who were physically disabled and unable to care for themselves. J.D. worked a shift from 2 p.m. to 10 p.m.; and her specific job duties included bathing, feeding, lifting clients from their beds and chairs, and assisting with toiletries, such as combing hair. J.D. received letters of support from her supervisors and co-workers. Mercedes Joyner, Program Supervisor, found J.D. to be a superb worker who demonstrated herself to be a loving, caring, sincere, and motivated individual, who has carried out all of her duties as a responsible person and conducted herself in a professional and respectful manner toward her co-workers and superiors. Sue Fleischmann, Facility Coordinator, found J.D. to be punctual, responsible, considerate and caring with the Developmentally Disabled Clients, and who worked well with her co-workers. Patricia Welch, a co-worker, found J.D. to be a reliable and compassionate person with whom it was outstanding to work. On October 17, 1995, the Petitioner completed a substance abuse course sponsored by Northeast Florida Safety Council, Inc.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Petitioner be granted the exemption. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of February, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, 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 February, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: J.D. (address of record) Roger L. D. Williams, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Post Office Box 2417 Jacksonville, Florida 32231-0083 Sandy Coulter, Acting Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Kim Tucker, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Should Petitioner's license as a foster parent be revoked, suspended, or otherwise disciplined?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: The Department is the agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility of issuing and disciplining foster parent licenses. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Petitioner was licensed as a foster parent, having been issued license Number 1298-06 by the Department. On September 25, 1999, the Department received a report on the abuse hotline (Abuse Report numbered 1999-122259) alleging, among other things, that: (a) Petitioner was not providing sanitary living condition for the foster children under her care; (b) the house smelled of urine; (c) there were dirty dishes in the sink, and in the living room, den, and bedrooms; (d) the house was infested with termites and roaches; (e) the bathroom had dirty clothes all over the floor and on top of the shower; (f) the bedrooms were cluttered with clothing, toys and other articles; (g) the kitchen floor was black with dirt; (h) M.B.McC., who was approximately 7 years of age, had a terrible odor, was unclean, and his clothes were dirty; and (i) Petitioner made M.B.McC. wear wet clothes to teach him not to wet his clothes. Abuse Report numbered 1999-122259 is not a confirmed report. There are 6 children, ranging in age from 8 months to 14 years, 8 months, living with Petitioner in her home. There is no father living in the home. On September 26, 1999, Noberta Tijerina, Child Protective Investigator (CPI), visited Petitioner's home and found the home to be relatively clean, although she detected a faint odor of urine. The CPI also observed some clothes scattered on the floor of the bedroom but Petitioner explained that she was in the process of cleaning and preparing to buy a bedroom suite which she did. The CPI only observed 2 of the foster children that day and both were clean. The CPI spoke with Petitioner again on November 18, 1999, to get information as to where the children were attending school or daycare. Subsequently, the CPI interviewed M.B.McC. at the daycare. The child stated that he took a bath at night, sometimes wet his pants at school but did not have change of clothes, and sometimes got a "whooping" by Petitioner or her father with a belt but never had bruises. Both Petitioner and Petitioner's father denied ever whipping the child. The child also told the CPI that he went to bed at the same time as the other children, took medication, and got sleepy at school. Neither M.B.McC nor any of the other children testified at the hearing. In observing the child, the CPI did not detect any body odor and did not find the child to be dirty. In visiting with the staff at both the daycare and school, the CPI was informed that the child wet his clothes at school but did not have clean changing of clothes even though the staff had requested Petitioner to send a clean changing of clothes with the child. None of the daycare or school staff were identified and did not testify at the hearing. Subsequent to the her visit with the daycare and school staff, the CPI made another home visit to Petitioner's home. The CPI found the home to be clean and the remodeling completed. The CPI was advised that the child's medication had been reduced in an attempt to prevent him from falling asleep in school. Although M.B.McC. wet his clothes occasionally, there is insufficient evidence to show that the child had a "wetting" problem which required Petitioner to send a clean change of clothes daily with the child to the daycare or to the school. Likewise, there is insufficient evidence to show that either the daycare staff or school staff had made a "standing request" of Petitioner to send a clean change of clothes for the child daily. Petitioner testified that when requested of the staff to send a clean change of clothes for the child she did so without hesitation. I find Petitioner's testimony to be credible, notwithstanding the hearsay testimony of the CPI which is unsupported by any other evidence. Likewise, there is insufficient evidence to show that Petitioner required the child to remain in wet clothing to teach him not to wet his clothes, notwithstanding the hearsay testimony of the CPI to the contrary which I find is unsupported by the evidence. There is insufficient evidence to show that either Petitioner or Petitioner's father ever subjected M.B.McC., or any of the children residing in Petitioner's home, to corporal punishment, notwithstanding the hearsay testimony by the CPI concerning M.B.McC's statement to the contrary which I find is also unsupported by the evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department enter a final order dismissing the allegations against Petitioner set out in the Department's letter of revocation dated March 6, 2000, and reinstate Petitioner's foster home license. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th of November, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of November, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: James Aaron Aaron's Paralegal Center 819 North Highlands Avenue Post Office Box 3351 Sebring, Florida 33871 Jack Emory Farley, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 4720 Old Highway 37 Lakeland, Florida 33813-2030 Virginia A. Daire, 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
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent should approve Petitioner’s application for a family day care home license.
Findings Of Fact In 1996, Petitioner lived with her husband, their newborn child, three of her husband's children from a former marriage, and two of her children from a former marriage. Petitioner's stepchildren were: (a) I.M.B., a 15-year-old male; (b) S.J.B., a 14-year-old male; and (c) S.Y.B., a 13-year-old female. Petitioner's children by her former marriage were: (a) R.D.F., a six-year-old male; and (b) D.F., a five-year-old female. At the end of the school year in 1996, Petitioner spanked her stepdaughter for reasons related to her school work. She also spanked her stepsons for school-related reasons. However, the physical punishment of the stepchildren by Petitioner was not excessive. There is no competent evidence that Petitioner beat the stepchildren leaving bruises, scars, or other disfigurement. Petitioner's husband spanked his children at times, using a switch or an extension cord. After one such occasion, Petitioner's stepdaughter asked for some rubbing alcohol to treat a bruise. Petitioner has no first-hand knowledge about the bruise. There is no persuasive evidence that Petitioner's husband ever disciplined his children so severely as to scar or disfigure them. Since 1996, Petitioner completed her training as a licensed practical nurse. She continues to work part-time in that capacity. Petitioner has also earned money babysitting for other parents. Petitioner has never used corporal punishment of any kind to discipline other people's children. Petitioner has completed all necessary training to operate a family day care home. She knows that corporal punishment is not an acceptable way to discipline children in a day care facility. She understands that when children do not behave appropriately, she may do one of the following: (a) talk to the child; (b) place the child in time-out for one minute per year of age; or (c) call the child's parent. Petitioner currently lives with her husband, their son, and Petitioner's children from her former marriage. Petitioner's stepdaughter also lives with Petitioner. Petitioner's stepdaughter is 18 years of age and will be available to serve as a substitute caretaker if Petitioner is licensed to operate a family day care home facility. One of Petitioner's stepsons, I.M.B., is deceased. The other stepson, S.J.B., is in jail. S.J.B.'s son lives with Petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent enter a final order granting Petitioner a license to operate a family day care home. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of July, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of July, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Ralph J. McMurphy, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 1601 West Gulf Atlantic Highway Wildwood, Florida 34785 Kimberly Strange-Bennett Post Office Box 58 Orange Lake, Florida 32681 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
The Issue Should Respondents' application for annual renewal of their foster care license be denied?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: The Department is the Agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility of licensing family foster homes. Respondents were first licensed as a foster home by the Department in February 1999. At the time of the initial licensure in February 1999, the Department was aware that Respondents owned a large Rottweiler dog. However, the issue of the dog was resolved, and the Department issued Respondents their initial license and renewed their license in February 2000. At the time of the initial licensure in February 1999, and the renewal in February 2000, Respondents had an in-ground swimming pool located in their backyard. Apparently, the lack of a proper barrier around the pool, as required by the Department rule, was not an issue since the Department issued the initial license in February 1999, and renewed that license in February 2000. On November 6, 2000, Respondents filed an application with the Department for renewal of their foster home license. On November 6, 2000, Cheryl Dishong, the Department's foster care licensing worker, visited Respondents' home and determined that Respondents were caring for nine children in their home which included: (a) four foster children placed in Respondents' home by the Department; (b) Respondents' two natural children; (c) Respondents' two adopted children; and (d) one child, no relation to Respondents, which they were caring for due to the child's mother having been incarcerated. However, this child is no longer in the home except for visiting. Respondents never attempted to a seek waiver to exceed the "rule of five" set out in Rule 65C-13.001(a), Florida Administrative Code, for good cause as provided for in Rule 65C-13.011(1)(b), Florida Administrative Code. On December 8, 2000, Mazen Omari, sanitation inspector with the Polk County Heath Department, inspected Respondents' home and found the following: (a) the carpet in the living room and the bedrooms needed cleaning and the kitchen needed cleaning (there were dirty dishes in kitchen sink); (b) the children's bedrooms needed cleaning and their clothes needed to be put in a proper place; and (c) the fire extinguisher needed an up-to-date inspection tag. Respondents did not advise the Polk County Heath Department that the violations noted by Omari on December 8, 2000, had been corrected. Therefore, the Polk County Health Department did not provide the Department with an approved Sanitation Report. On January 3, 2001, Cheryl Dishong visited Respondents' home. During this visit, Dishong determined that Respondents had not corrected the sanitary violations cited by Omari on December 8, 2000. Dishong found that Respondents' fire extinguisher had been used but had not been recharged. Dishong observed: (a) dirt, dirty handprints, and crayon markings on the walls throughout the house; (b) dirty carpet throughout the house; and (c) general clutter, with piles of clothes on the floor in the laundry room. Cheryl Dishong visited Respondents' home again on January 12, 2001, and observed that not all of the sanitary violations cited by Omari on December 8, 2000, had been corrected. Dishong also observed: (a) the house being in "general disarray;" (b) a bed frame in one of the rooms which needed to be stored where it would not constitute a danger to the children's safety; (c) zippy cups and clothing strewn about; and (d) debris, including chair cushions and "other things" scattered all over the yard, which could be considered as constituting a danger to the children's safety. Dishong visited Respondents' home again on January 22, 2001, and observed that not all of the sanitary violations cited by Omari on December 8, 2000, had been corrected. Dishong also observed some hazardous household cleaning chemicals that were not locked up to prevent access by the children. However, Respondents had purchased a lock, and it appeared that they were in the process of installing the lock on the cabinet door to prevent access to the chemicals by the children. In the front yard, Dishong observed: (a) a garden hose lying across the walkway in two places; (b) a metal rectangular bar lying across the walkway which two of the boys were throwing back and forth; (c) a toy lawnmower under the family van; and (d) garbage items such as open bean cans and pieces of cement scattered "all about.” In the backyard, Dishong observed: (a) a trampoline beside the swimming pool; (b) items scattered throughout the backyard, including chair cushions; (c) that there was no barrier around the swimming pool as required by Department rule; (d) and that the pool was covered by green algae. All of the things observed by Dishong at Respondents' home on January 22, 2001, could be considered as constituting a danger to the children's safety. Respondent Troy Allen testified that there was a fence installed on three sides of the swimming pool and that the house served as a barrier on the fourth side. However, there were no safety features, such as those listed in Rule 65C-13.01(12)(c), Florida Administrative Code, installed on the exits from the house to the swimming pool to prevent the children from having access to the swimming pool only when supervised. Therefore the swimming pool was readily accessible to the children from the house when unsupervised. Respondents own a Rottweiler dog, and had owned such a dog from the beginning of their licensure in February 1999. The dog was present at Respondents home on each occasion that Dishong visited Respondents' home. An earlier safety plan, agreed to by Respondents, required that the dog be kept outside, or restricted from the children, unless supervised while in the presence of the children. There was no evidence that this agreement had been violated by Respondents. This dog might be what Dishong considers to be a "large pet." However, other than Dishong's description of the dog as being a "large dog" and estimating its weight to be 125 pounds, there was no evidence that the dog met the definition of "large" as anticipated by the Department's rule. Likewise, there was no evidence to show that this particular dog was potentially dangerous. Shortly before the hearing, Respondents had new carpet installed through out the house where appropriate, the walls stripped and painted, tile installed in areas where carpet was not appropriate, and some new furniture installed, which included a replacement for the bed frame that was noted as a violation. By letter dated February 20, 2001, the Department notified Respondents that their application for renewal of their foster home licensure had been denied.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department enter a final order denying Respondents application for the annual renewal of their foster care license. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of September, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 24th day of September, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Troy Allen Rebecca Allen 4514 Scottswood Drive Lakeland, Florida 33813 Jack Emory Farley, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 4720 Old Highway 37 Lakeland, Florida 33813-2030 Virginia A. Daire, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204B 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Josie Tomayo, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
