Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change
Find Similar Cases by Filters
You can browse Case Laws by Courts, or by your need.
Find 48 similar cases
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES vs GALLOP'S FAMILY CENTER, INC., 18-006281 (2018)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Tallahassee, Florida Nov. 28, 2018 Number: 18-006281 Latest Update: Mar. 21, 2019
Florida Laws (1) 120.68
# 2
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES vs MS. BOBBIE`S FLUTTERBY CHILD CARE CENTER, 01-001812 (2001)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Marianna, Florida May 09, 2001 Number: 01-001812 Latest Update: Aug. 20, 2001

The Issue Should Petitioner levy an administrative fine in the amount of $500.00 against Respondent, pursuant to an administrative complaint drawn in accordance with Sections 402.305(12) and 402.310(1)(a), Florida Statutes?

Findings Of Fact Bobbie Potter owns and operates Ms. Bobbie's Flutterby Child Care Center (the Center), in Lake City, Florida. The Center is a child care facility licensed by Petitioner in accordance with Chapter 402, Florida Statutes. During late January and early February 2001, S.S. left her child, J.S., to be cared for by Respondent and others in her employ at the Center. At the time J.S. was approximately two years and two months old and weighed approximately 40 lbs. or 15.2 kilograms. He was born on December 21, 1998. J.S. attended day care at the Center on January 29 through 31 and February 5 through 7, 2001. On his first day at the Center J.S. cried and was resistant to the placement but became more acclimated. During that week J.S. did not try to escape the premises. By contrast, during the second week J.S. threw tantrums and tried to leave the Center. To thwart his attempts, a bench was placed to bolster the interior gate designed to control the movement of children within the facility. When confronted with the gate standing alone J.S. had tried to get through the gate. When he was told "No" to stop his progress, J.S. would throw himself on the floor. During tantrums J.S. would bang his head on the floor and the wall. Respondent had to put her hand up to stop him from banging his head. In the second week when J.S. was more vigorously reacting to his placement, he would be carried around by the Center staff to try to calm him down when he had tantrums. The other staff members who were involved with care provided J.S. at times relevant were Sue Misinec and Lilly Beckelheimer. Caregivers at the Center had to constantly remove J.S. away from the door to the outside, as well as away from the gates on the inside to keep him from fleeing the building. They were especially concerned when other parents came into the facility that J.S. might take advantage of that situation and leave. When J.S. would attempt his flight, he had to be picked up bodily and brought back. If J.S. had gotten outside he would have had access to a roadway. One other attempt to control J.S.'s movement within the Center was to use the lower half of a two-piece door to prohibit his movement within the Center but he climbed over the lower half of the door separating rooms. At times J.S. hit or kicked other children at the Center and kicked and hit caregivers. Eventually staff at the Center determined to place J.S. in a highchair when he threw tantrums as a means to try and calm him. This involved one teacher picking him up and placing him in the chair. Once in the chair, one person would hold him secure in the chair while another person snapped the safety strap and placed and locked the tray on the chair. This effectively restricted J.S.'s movement. J.S. did not like being placed in the chair. He would scream, kick, and claw when put in the chair. Ordinarily, J.S. would be left in the chair from two to five minutes until he calmed down, although on one occasion he was left in the chair for 15 minutes. While in the chair J.S. would be upset about his predicament. The use of the highchair as a means to confine J.S. took place on February 6 and 7, 2001. On Wednesday, February 7, 2001, the staff placed J.S. in the highchair against his will more than once but no more than three times. On one occasion on that date when J.S. attempted to follow Respondent out the door and the other employees were busy with other duties, Respondent said, "If he gets out the door you are not going to catch him," in comments offered to the staff members. As a consequence J.S. was placed in the highchair. J.S.'s placement in the highchair as a means to control him did not interfere with his toileting. He was not being "potty" trained at the time. His placement in the highchair did not interfere with his breakfast and lunch. His placement in the highchair for meals was with his cooperation. Sometime on Wednesday, February 7, 2001, when J.S. was being forcibly placed and detained in the highchair, he received bruises on his left side, right side, hip and back as evidenced in photos taken by S.S. on February 7, 2001. See Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 2A through 2G. When seen on February 13, 2001, by the University of Florida Child Protection Team, the bruises were still in evidence. On that date the bruise on the left side of J.S.'s abdomen, about two inches from his umbilicus, was one centimeter to one and one-half centimeters in length. The bruise on the right side of his abdomen just above the hip area was small and faint. It was about one and one-half centimeters in length. The bruises appeared yellow in color indicating that they were at least a couple of days old, according to Linda Cox Ebbeling, A.R.N.P., who examined J.S. on that date. Her opinion on the age of the bruises is credited. Photos taken at the time Ms. Ebbeling examined J.S. are attached as part of Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 1. Notwithstanding the presence of the bruises at the time Ms. Ebbeling examined J.S., the abdomen appeared non-tender, with no hepatosplenomegaly. Ms. Ebbeling did not observe any bruising on J.S.'s back as had been detected by S.S. on February 7, 2001. The confinement of J.S. to the highchair against his will is discipline that was frightening to the child. The discipline was severe and humiliating. It was a form of physical punishment.

Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered imposing a $500.00 administrative fine against Bobbie Potter, owner/operator of Ms. Bobbie's Flutterby Child Care Center. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of August, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 20th day of August, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Lucy Goddard, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services Post Office Box 390, Mail Sort 3 Gainesville, Florida 32602-0390 Stephen M. Witt, Esquire Post Office Box 2064 Lake City, Florida 32056 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

Florida Laws (5) 120.569120.57402.305402.310402.319
# 3
# 4
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES vs WESLEY CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER II, 95-003382 (1995)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Orlando, Florida Jul. 05, 1995 Number: 95-003382 Latest Update: Jun. 04, 1996

The Issue The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) seeks an administrative fine of $100 from the Wesley Child Development Center (Wesley) for violation of rules related to child supervision. The issues are whether the violation occurred and whether the fine is appropriate.

Findings Of Fact Wesley Child Development Center II is a child care facility licensed by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) for operation at 42 East Jackson Street, Orlando, Florida. It is a pre-school facility associated with First United Methodist Church. On January 31, 1995, some time between 3:50 and 4:50 p.m., there were approximately seventeen (17) children and four (4) staff on the playground. The playground is confined with a sturdy, four-foot chain link fence. A.N. was a two-year old toddler on the playground; his teacher was Pat Vetter. A.N. had been playing with buckets and cars by himself near the fence and Ms. Vetter could see him through a play tunnel where two other children were playing. After he played alone for about 10-15 minutes, Ms. Vetter needed to start picking up toys. A.N. gave her his bucket. She turned from him and had taken about five steps when she heard him cry out with an angry cry. She turned back and saw him sitting on the ground with his legs out in front; he had been standing at the fence looking out at the parking lot. Ms. Vetter picked up A.N. and he stopped the angry cry, but continued whimpering. She consoled and held him until his mother arrived. There were no visible signs of any injury: no bruises, blood, scratches or swelling. When his mother picked him up, A.N. did not want to walk. She took him to a restaurant for supper, but later took him to the doctor for an examination. X-rays detected a spiral fracture of the child's femur bone. The cause of the injury remains a mystery to the child care facility staff, who were appropriately dismayed, and to the HRS staff who thoroughly investigated the incident. Dr. Seibel, the child protection team physician, conjectured that A.N. must have attempted to climb the fence, hooked his foot and fell, twisting his leg. No one observed the fall. Ms. Vetter was responsible for A.N.'s supervision and that of three other children on the playground. She was near him and aware of what he was doing. The accident occurred in the brief instant that she turned away to put up some toys; she did not leave the playground. The direct supervision staff to child ratio at the facility and on the playground was better than the 1:6 or 1:11 required by HRS' rules. There is no evidence that the staff were gossiping or engaged in any non-supervisory activity. There has never been a problem with supervision at this facility before, according to the HRS inspectors. No one contests that the child was injured at the facility. Ms. Vetter believes that he could not have had the fracture when he came to school that morning. Although other children have climbed on the fence, she has never observed A.N. trying to climb it. Still, the fence is the only plausible explanation for the injury.

Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter its final order dismissing the administrative complaint. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 27th day of October, 1995. MARY W. CLARK, 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 27th day of October, 1995. COPIES FURNISHED: James A. Sawyer, Jr., Esquire District Legal Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Suite S-827 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Elizabeth Jenkins Director Wesley Child Development Center II 142 East Jackson Street Orlando, Florida 32801

Florida Laws (2) 120.57402.310
# 5
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES vs BEAUTIFUL ANGELS ACADEMY, INC., 19-002344 (2019)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Altamonte Springs, Florida May 06, 2019 Number: 19-002344 Latest Update: Dec. 24, 2024
# 6
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES vs JUST LITTLE PEOPLE, INC., 04-001602 (2004)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Wauchula, Florida Apr. 29, 2004 Number: 04-001602 Latest Update: Oct. 19, 2004

The Issue Whether the administrative fine levied by Petitioner, Department of Children and Family Services, is appropriate.

Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, the following findings of facts are made: Respondent operates a licensed child care facility licensed by Petitioner. On July 11, 2003, Vicki Richmond, child care licensure inspector, conducted a re-licensure inspection of the Respondent's facility. This inspection noted 15 areas of non- compliance, each a violation of a particular section of Florida Administrative Code Chapter 65C, which were specifically noted in the six-page inspection report (Petitioner's Exhibit 3). This inspection took approximately four hours. On July 30, 2003, a re-inspection took place; all areas of non-compliance had been corrected. On August 9, 2003, the license was re-issued. On March 10, 2004, Glynnis Green, a child care licensure inspector, conducted an unannounced, routine inspection. These inspections are conducted approximately every four months. During the March 10, 2004, inspection (Petitioner's Exhibit 2) 14 areas of non-compliance were noted. Six of these areas of non-compliance duplicated areas of non-compliance noted on the July 11, 2003, inspection. In particular, the following areas of repeat non- compliance raised particular concern: (1) a toxic/poisonous cleaning product, Greased Lightning, was accessible to children; (2) medications were not stored in a locked area out of the reach of children; (3) the outdoor play space was not adequately enclosed-fencing was not safely secured; (4) sleeping mats were not cleaned and sanitized daily; (5) garbage cans did not have lids; and (6) dates were not present on enrollment applications. Most of the instances of non-compliance were "cured" upon being noted. For example, the Greased Lightning was immediately removed. The repeat nature of the instances of non-compliance and the fact of the availability of toxic substances and medications to children all suggest that a fine is appropriate. Petitioner, through its child care licensure supervisor, an individual with in excess of 20 years in child care licensing experience, made the decision to levy fines of $50 for the two violations involving serious child safety hazards, the availability of toxic substances and medications to children, and $25 per repeat non-compliance (3 through 6, paragraph 6, supra). The amounts of the fines are appropriate.

Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Facts, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, and the candor and demeanor of the witness, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered confirming the imposition of an administrative fine against Respondent in the amount of $200.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of July, 2004, 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 9th day of July, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack Emory Farley, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 4720 Old Highway 37 Lakeland, Florida 33813-2030 Brenda Braxton Just Little People, Inc. 3950 Aurora Avenue Bowling Green, Florida 33834 Paul 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

Florida Laws (5) 120.57402.301402.305402.310402.319
# 7
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES vs AUGUSTINA'S ACADEMY, INC., 95-003381 (1995)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Orlando, Florida Jul. 05, 1995 Number: 95-003381 Latest Update: Jan. 30, 1996

The Issue The issue for determination in this proceeding is whether Respondent failed to maintain direct supervision of four minor children and, if so, what, if any, penalty should be imposed.

Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for regulating child day care facilities in Florida. Respondent is licensed as a child care facility within the meaning of Section 402.302(4), Florida Statutes. 1/ Respondent is licensed to care for 36 children, ages 0-12, pursuant to license number 994-39. Ms. Augustina Peash is the owner of Augustina Academay within the meaning of Section 402.302(7). Ms. Peash operates Augustina Academy at 1307 Pinehills Road, Orlando, Florida, 32808. On April 7, 1995, Petitioner conducted a quarterly inspection of Respondent. Four children were alone with no direct supervision. Two children were sweeping the kitchen. Another child was alone in a classroom. An infant was alone in a crib in a room adjacent to the director's office. Ms. Augustina Peash was in the director's office. The potential harm to the children was not severe within the meaning of Section 402.310(1)(b)1. All of the children were on the premises of Augustina Academy and within close proximity of supervising personnel. The period in which Respondent failed to maintain direct supervision of the children was not substantial. Respondent's employees corrected the failure immediately. Respondent's failure to maintain direct supervision of the children did not result in any actual harm to the children. Respondent has a history of prior discipline within the meaning of Section 402.310(1)(b)3. On November 7, 1994, Petitioner cited Respondent for a similar violation. Petitioner informed Respondent in writing of the violation

Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of the charges in the Administrative Complaint and imposing an administrative fine of $100. RECOMMENDED this 5th day of January, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL S. MANRY, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of January, 1996.

Florida Laws (2) 402.302402.310
# 8
SMALL FRIES DAY CARE, INC. vs DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, 04-003046 (2004)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Tavares, Florida Aug. 30, 2004 Number: 04-003046 Latest Update: Dec. 14, 2005

The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the application submitted by the Petitioner for a new one-year license for Small Fries Day Care, Inc., should be granted, or denied based upon violations of specified statutes and rules referenced below as alleged by the Respondent. It must also be resolved whether the application to operate a new facility known as the Growing Tree Learning Center and Nursery should be denied because of the same alleged instances of non- compliance with the relevant statutes and rules.

Findings Of Fact The Petitioner operates a child care facility known as Small Fries Day Care, Inc. She also has applied for a license to open a new facility known as the Learning Tree. The Department notified the Petitioner, by letter of July 23, 2004, that the application submitted for a new one-year license for Small Fries was denied. The letter of denial was based on violations of statutes and rules enforceable by the Department, which were purportedly discovered during the inspections of the facility in April, May, and July of 2004. Thereafter by letter of August 3, 2004, the Petitioner was notified that her application for a license to operate a second child care facility known as the Growing Tree Learning Center and Nursery was also denied, based upon the history of alleged violations and non-compliance with statutes and rules during the operation of the Small Fries. The Petitioner requested a formal administrative proceeding to contest both decisions and the matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings. The two cases were later consolidated into the instant proceeding. The Department received a complaint regarding transportation of children. It therefore dispatched an investigator, Judy Cooley, to conduct an inspection of the Petitioner's facility on April 6, 2004. The precise nature of the complaint was never substantiated. Ms. Cooley, however, upon conducting her inspection, discovered a violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C-22.001(6)(f). This is a rule which mandates that children transported in a van must be counted and that both the driver of the van and one staff member must both count the children and sign a transportation log verifying that all children had exited the van. This is required to be done each time children leave or board the van. The failure to document an inspection of the van by both the driver and another staff member to ensure that all children are accounted for and out of the van is considered to be a major violation of the Department's rules and policy. The purpose of that requirement is to prevent children from being accidentally left in a van in the hot sun (or left at some location away from their home or the Petitioner's facility when the van departs a location.) If a child is left in a van in the hot sun a serious injury can result, rendering this infraction a serious one. Ms. Cooley also determined that a violation had occurred concerning the "background screening" requirements upon her inspection on April 6, 2004. That is, the Petitioner's records did not show that screening had been done for all personnel employed by the Petitioner's facility. On May 11, 2004, another investigation or inspection of the facility was conducted by the Department. This was because the Department had received an anonymous abuse report concerning the Petitioner's facility. Upon investigation it was determined that the report was unfounded. It had been alleged that a child had sustained an eye injury while in the custody and care of the Petitioner, but that was determined not to be the case; rather, the eye problem was determined to have been "Sty" infectious process and not a result of any injury sustained while a child was in the care of the Petitioner or her staff members. The Petitioner was also charged with a violation regarding this eye injury issue for failing to file an "incident report" concerning it and failing to give a copy of the report to the child's parent the same day of the incident. This violation has not been proven by the Department because, in fact, no injury occurred. The child had to have appeared on the premises of the Petitioner's facility that day already suffering from the eye condition. Therefore, there was no "incident" occurring on the premises of the Petitioner, or while the child was in the Petitioner's care. Therefore, there could be no incident requiring reporting to the Department and the parent under the Department's rules and policies. Apparently, the owner of the facility, Ms. Carter, later provided a copy of an incident report in the belief that the Department required it. In any event, this purported violation was not shown to have legally or factually amounted to an incident or a violation. As to that May 11, 2004, inspection or investigation, however, the Department's evidence derived from that May 11, 2004, inspection which was not refuted establishes that the Child Protective Investigator (CPI) who conducted the investigation observed other violations. The investigator noted that the staff was failing to adequately supervise children and that the staff had not had required training. The CPI found that after observing the day care facility on three different occasions in a two-week period, there were always children "running around," not in their classroom and without staff providing supervision of them. The CPI noted prior reports for inadequate supervision and noted that some of the staff had not been trained in all of the required hours for teachers required by the Department's rules. These findings by the CPI were supported by unrefuted evidence adduced by the Department at hearing, and accepted as credible. Ms. Cooley returned to the facility to conduct a follow-up inspection on July 23, 2004. This inspection was specifically related to the pending application filed by the Petitioner for a renewed one-year license for the facility. Ms. Cooley prepared a list of activities, conditions, or records as to the facility, its operations, the children, and the staff personnel, for purposes of indicating whether those checklist items, based upon Department rules, had been complied with or had not been complied with. There were a total of 63 specific requirements under the Department's statutes and rules for Ms. Cooley to employ in inspecting the facility. Ultimately, she found that the facility was in non-compliance on 11 out of the 63 items. Ms. Cooley thus determined on this visit that the required staff-to-child ratio was improper. The facility was out of compliance on this issue by having only one staff member supervising the "infant room" with one child less than a year old, and five children aged one year. The number of staff needed is controlled by the age of the youngest child in a group. Two staff members were required in this instance instead of one. Ms. Cooley also found, as a minor violation, that the facility had an open door with no screen, with only a curtain covering the opening and that children were sleeping on the floor on only towels instead of the required individual sleeping mats (minimum one inch thick.) The owner of the facility, Ms. Carter, however, testified that indeed the mats were in use but were covered with towels and therefore they were not readily visible. It is thus difficult to determine whether all the children slept on required sleeping mats or some of them, or none of them. The testimony in this regard at least roughly amounts to an equipoise, and it is determined that this violation has not been established. Another violation Ms. Cooley found to have occurred was that there were no records which would establish that the facility had conducted required fire drills for one and one-half months. Child care facilities such as this mandatorily must conduct at least once a month fire drills. They mandatorily must document each fire drill in a record for ready inspection. Ms. Cooley also found that there was no record proof of enrollment by staff members in the required 40-hour training course which all employees must undergo within 90 days after they are hired. The facility also had been cited for this violation on the April 6, 2004, visit. It remained uncorrected during the interim and on the day of Ms. Cooley's second visit. Another violation was found on this occasion in that, for the number of children present in the facility, there must be at least two staff members who have the necessary child development associate credentials. There was only one staff member who had those necessary credentials. There are also no records to establish that the required in-service training for staff members had been conducted. The additional three violations found by Ms. Cooley involve the failure to maintain required records concerning child immunizations, staff personnel records, and background screening records establishing that background screening had been properly done. If that required information is not appropriately filed and available at the facility, that in itself is a violation. If the file record was required to document compliance with some requirements, such as staff training, the absence of the documentation results in a presumption that there was no compliance. The lack of adequate staff in the infant room necessary to meet the statutorily required staff-to-child ratio, as noted on the July 23, 2004, inspection, is a major violation under Department rules and policies. Direct supervision is mandated for children of that age at all times. The maintenance of this staff-to-child ratio is considered to be so important by the Department that its staff are not allowed to leave a facility if an improper staff-to-child ratio (inadequate) is found to exist until the problem is corrected. The failure to keep records establishing timely compliance with background screening requirements for staff of the facility, provided for in Chapter 435, Florida Statutes, was found on the April 6, 2004, inspection and found to still exist at the time of the July 23, 2004, visit. The same factor was true with regard to the requirement that new staff be enrolled in the mandatory 40 hours training program within 90 days of being hired. The failure to correct these problems concerning background screening and training and the documenting of it, between April 6, and July 23, 2004, becomes even more critical when one considers that Ms. Carter, the owner of the Petitioner, had been provided with technical assistance by Ms. Cooley designed to help her bring her facility into compliance in all respects at the April 6, 2004, inspection visits. These violations concerning the background screening, training requirements and then documentation are considered to be serious infractions by the Department in its interpretation of its rules, and in the carrying out of its policies. In summary, although one or two of the violations were not proven and at least one, such as the failure to have a screen on a door, was not established to be a serious violation, the established violations do show an overall pattern of disregard of statutes and rules adopted for the safety, health, and welfare of children entrusted to the care of such a child care facility owner and operator. That this was so, even the Petitioner was informed of and counseled regarding the violations. Some of them remained in non-compliance or at least again in non-compliance, upon the second inspection visit. It is not enough that the operator or owner of the facility provided the required documentation later after its absence is discovered or that she corrected the training, background screening, and other violations after they were discovered. The statutes and rules which apply require that such operations be done correctly at all times, and that performance be timely documented at all times. The keeping of documentation in the facility's records concerning the violative items referenced above is not required for mere hollow bureaucratic convenience, but rather, because the Department has a very high standard of public trust in ensuring that children in such facilities are maintained in a safe fashion. It must have available, for ready inspection, at all reasonable times, the documents which support that the duties imposed by the various relevant statutes and rules are being properly carried out, so that it can know, before severe harm occurs to a child or children, that they might be at risk. These established violations contribute to the overall pattern, shown by the Department, of an habitual disregard of the statutes and rules adopted and enforced for purposes of the safety of the children entrusted to the care of the Petitioner (or at least timely compliance). Indeed, prior to the denial of a new one-year license for Small Fries and the denial of initial licensure for the proposed Growing Tree Facility, the licensing supervisor, Ms. McKenzie, conducted a review of the licensing file of the Petitioner. Ms. McKenzie thus established in the evidence in this record, that the file reflected repeated past violations involving failing to adequately supervise children and concerning the background screening and training and timely training of employees. Upon completion of each inspection involved in this proceeding Ms. Carter, the operator, was given a copy of the report or checklist prepared by Ms. Cooley. She was given an opportunity at that point to respond to it or to write any comments thereon. On neither occasion, April 6, 2004, nor July 23, 2004, were there any written comments made by Ms. Carter that disputed the fact of the violations found by Ms. Cooley. There were some notes by way of explanation or of justification concerning the hiring of a teacher "for my toddlers" etc., but the notes or explanations provided by Ms. Carter in writing and in her testimony at hearing, do not refute the fact of the occurrence of the violations delineated in the above Findings of Fact. In summary, Ms. Carter's explanations in her testimony to justify or explain the failures or the violations found above are not credible, in terms of showing that the violations did not occur.

Recommendation That having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Children and Family Services granting a provisional license to Small Fries Day Care, Inc., conditioned on the holder of that license undergoing additional training at the direction of the Department, designed to educate the operator under the license regarding the proper, safe care, and protection of children in her custody, operation of a child care facility, including the proper screening and training of staff, record keeping, and the other items of concern shown by the violations found in this case. Such provisional licensure shall be in effect for a period of one year when such training shall be completed, and shall be conditioned on monthly inspections being performed by relevant Department personnel to ensure compliance with the relevant statutes and rules. It is, further, RECOMMENDED that the application for licensure by the Growing Tree Learning Center and Nursery, Inc., be denied. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of September, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S COPIES FURNISHED: P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of September, 2005. Gregory Venz, 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 Robyn A. Hudson, Esquire 3900 Lake Center Drive, Suite A-2 Mount Dora, Florida 32757 T. Shane DeBoard, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 1601 West Gulf Atlantic Highway Wildwood, Florida 34785

Florida Laws (8) 120.569120.57402.301402.305402.308402.310402.318402.319
# 9

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer