Findings Of Fact After respondent Debra T. Acosta and her husband Joe, a noncommissioned Air Force officer, the parents of Joseph M., 16 at the time of hearing, Jason M. (13), Shawn W. (9), and Tisouli (6), applied to HRS for a day care center license, they were required to have their fingerprints taken and to undergo a background check or "screening." The background check turned up a report of an investigation Air Force personnel had conducted on account of information Carla Burrell, formerly known as Carla Knight, had supplied. The first two numbered paragraphs of the report read: On 2 Mar 88, SSgt CARLA K. BURRELL, USAF Clinic, RAF Bentwaters (RAF), UK provided the following information: She arrived at RAFB from Eglin AFB (EAFB), FL on 21 Apr 85. She was stationed at EAFB from Jan 83 until Apr 85. While stationed at EAFB, her daughter, Angela Kristen Knight, female born: 21 Jan 80, VA, Civ, SSAN: 066-70-1577 (hereafter referred to as VICTIM) stayed with a babysitter during the day. The babysitter was identified as DEBRA ACOSTA, dependent wife of SUBJECT who resides at 318 Blackjack Court, EAFB, FL. DEBRA ACOSTA babysat for several families. After arrival at RAFB, VICTIM entered school and seemed to be worried about something but BURRELL wasn't sure of what it was. According to BURRELL, VICTIM received briefings in school about sexual abuse and was told it wasn't nice for adults to touch children in certain places. This led VICTIM to confide in BURRELL that while they had been stationed at EAFB, SUBJECT would make VICTIM and other young females being babysat by SUBJECT's wife take off their clothes and lie on the bed. On numerous occasions, SUBJECT had placed his hands on VICTIM's bottom and had placed his hands between VICTIM's legs. SUBJECT had touched VICTIM's vagina but had never actually penetrated her vagina. SUBJECT has done the same thing to other female children, but VICTIM stated SUBJECT didn't do anything to boys. In addition, VICTIM told BURRELL SUBJECT would drop his pants and underwear and would place his penis between the legs of the females but did not insert his penis into their vaginas. On 6 Mar 88, VICTIM was interviewed by SA STANLEY B. CRISP and SA BETTY J. WILKINS in the presence of her mother. VICTIM provided essentially the same information as was provided by her mother on 2 Mar 88. VICTIM provided the following additional information not previously reported by her mother. SUBJECT had made her and other young females go into the bedroom at the same time, sometimes even with DEBRA ACOSTA being at home. VICTIM stated however that DEBRA didn't know what SUBJECT was doing. At other times DEBRA wouldn't be at home when the incidents took place. VICTIM couldn't recall the names of the other children who were involved, but stated there were others in the bedroom at the same time. VICTIM stated SUBJECT had never hurt her and had never threatened her with harm. SUBJECT had told the children that they shouldn't tell anyone about what he was doing to them. VICTIM said she wasn't afraid of SUBJECT. The bedroom used was described by VICTIM as an upstairs, spare bedroom. SUBJECT had never made the children go into his bedroom. VICTIM had never told anyone about the incidents until she was told in school of the actions of SUBJECT were wrong. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 7. In February of 1988, Mary Vinyard had given respondent and her husband a letter she and her husband had received from Ms. Burrell. Respondent's Exhibit No. 6. This letter reads: Tom and Mary, Remember me? . . . I'm sorry to say the reason I'm writing is because of a concern I have. I've had nothing but problems with Krissy ever since we got to England. She's doing very well in school, however her behavior has gotten to the obnoxious state. Recently she was referred to a child psychiatrist at Lakenheath (Bentwaters doesn't have one). The Dr. there seems to think part of Krissys problem is that there has been some sort of sexual abuse in the past. She makes up stories, so I have no way of being certain of what she says. Last week after talking to the Dr, on the way home, Krissy suddenly said there had been someone in Florida that had done things he shouldn't have done. She said it was Joe, Debra's husband. I at first couldn't believe it, but she went on to talk about things an 8 year old child really should have no knowledge of. I really don't know what to think however I really don't want to screw up anyone's life. We don't see the psychologist again until next week. I called him and told him of this new development, and he said after two years nothing could be done anyway. I don't believe that. The Air Force seems to be taking a rather relaxed view on this. The reason I'm writing you is to inquire if your children are still in Debra's care. Are you having any trouble with either of them, ightmares, bedwetting, whining? Please do write me back. An answer of any sort will help put my mind at ease. If it is just conjecture, no harm is done. If there is something going on, and Debra is still babysitting, it needs to stop. I just don't want any other parents to go through what I'm going through right now. You may or may not want to consider another babysitter. Please don't tell Debra I wrote, I always thought the world of her and I know the kids loved her. I don't wish to upset their family, especially if this turns out to be nothing; but I'm very suspicious. The day after the Vinyards gave this letter to respondent, Mr. Acosta took it to his commanding officer, Captain Gilmore, and protested his innocence. Captain Gilmore made a copy of the letter and launched the investigation that eventuated in the Office of Special Investigations (OSI) report, set out in part above. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 7. No action was taken against Mr. Acosta as a result of the Air Force's investigation. He has consistently denied Krissy's reported allegations, and did so under oath at the formal hearing in this case. After the OSI report came to HRS' attention, an HRS employee decided "that Debra could get licensed, to continue with the paperwork" (T.370) but as to her only. Eventually HRS did license Debra Acosta to operate Kare Free Day Care (KFDC) at 15 Eglin Street in Fort Walton Beach. KFDC opened in July of 1990. Nobody from HRS asked Mr. Acosta to agree to stay off the day care center premises and neither he nor Ms. Acosta agreed that he would. His presence during various HRS inspections elicited no official, contemporaneous response. T.406-7. Another Allegation Reported Michelle G'Sell dropped her four-year-old daughter Amber and her two- year-old son Adam off at the Acosta family home about seven o'clock in the morning on Mother's Day, May 12, 1991, in keeping with the arrangement she had made with Ms. Acosta the afternoon before, when she picked up her children at KFDC, after their first stay there. At quarter past three Sunday afternoon, Ms. G' Sell again picked Amber and Adam up at KFDC. Ms. Acosta had taken them (and her own two youngest children) to KFDC that morning after feeding Shawn and Tisouli breakfast. As Ms. G'Sell walked to her car with her children "around three steps out of the house" (T.113) Amber said, "Mommy, my twat hurts." Id. Asked when, the child "said when she pees." Id. According to her mother, when they had reached the car, Amber said, "He touched me," id., and, asked who had touched her, pointed to Mr. Acosta, who was standing on the roof of the KFDC building, "and said, 'Him.'" Id. But Jason and Mrs. Acosta (T.512) testified that Mr. Acosta was not at KFDC when Amber left, and Jason testified that his father had not been on the roof that day. T.313. The next morning Ms. G'Sell dropped Adam off at KFDC and signed Amber in, having arranged for her to be brought to KFDC later in the day. But, after somebody at work told her, "You must believe her, and you must report it," (T.115) she called her father and asked him not to take Amber to KFDC. She also reported to HRS that Mr. Acosta had sexually abused Amber the day before, and HRS began an investigation eventuating, according to HRS, in FPSS Report No. 91-050519, "alleging sexual abuse on a female child who was enrolled at KFDC . . . [allegedly perpetrated by] Joe A., the husband of D. A." HRS' Proposed Recommended Order, page 3. On May 17, 1991, Mr. Acosta was arrested on criminal charges of sexually abusing Amber, charges which remain pending. Admitted to bail on condition that he stay away from children under 18 years of age, he was rearrested for being in the presence of his own children. (Neither he nor Mrs. Acosta had realized that their children fell within the reach of the condition.) He has since been readmitted to bail and moved out of the family home. HRS also launched a separate, exhaustive investigation into the operations of KFDC which, while apparently not turning up any other allegation of sexual misconduct, gave rise to the allegations on the basis of which HRS seeks to revoke KFDC's day care center license. Husband Occasionally Helped Out While Anna Maria Root worked at KFDC in the winter and spring of 1991, Joe Acosta brought her eight-year old son to the Center after school, on the same run on which he picked up his own children. T.218. He may have brought another child, too, aside from the Root child and his own children. T.272. On two or three occasions Joe Acosta transported Shawn Holbert to school. T.379. He drove a brown van, "the one we were licensed to transport children in." T.379. After KFDC's initial licensure, Ms. Acosta requested an extension or expansion of the license to authorize KFDC to offer child care in the evening, but HRS denied the request. When KFDC closed for the day, children still there were taken to the Acosta home. A "couple of times," (Hoffman Deposition, p.9) Joe Acosta drove the van to the Acosta home after KFDC closed with as many as four or five children who were to be cared for there, id. 9, 56, "and Debra would stay and close up." Waller Deposition, p.14. Twice Mr. Acosta was alone with the children when Stacy Stowell collected her sons, Matthew and Aaron, at KFDC. T.12. But Lynn Hoffman, an employee, was never aware of his being alone with children. Hoffman Deposition, p.11. Nor was Julie Ann Merrill, who worked at KFDC from September to December 1990. Merrill Deposition, p.5, 20-21. It rarely happened. The morning after a fire at the Acosta home, Ms. Acosta sent Mr. Acosta to open up KFDC, and he was present when at least one child arrived, before either Ms. Acosta or Vicki Waller got there. Sole Supervisors Under Age and/or Uncertified When Vicki Waller, then 19 years old, began working for KFDC, neither she nor the Acostas were aware of the HRS rule forbidding leaving the children in the unsupervised care of anybody under 21 years of age. The three of them learned of the requirement in a 20-hour course they took together in the fall of 1990. Before that time, Ms. Waller had been left in charge mornings "from about 7:00 to 7:30," (Waller Deposition, p.6) and all day on one or two Saturdays. She was not left in charge after they learned of the rule against it. Ms. Waller did not have first aid or CPR certification when she took sole responsibility for children at KFDC. Chris Fitzpatrick worked as the only person caring for children at KFDC one Saturday, although she had not yet taken the first aid course she had signed up for. She also lacked CPR certification. Similarly untrained and uncertified, Denise Carla Yates had charge of the children by herself sometimes on Saturdays. Robin Lynn Bedmar was the only person responsible for the children on two or more Saturdays, even though her CPR certification had expired. Sometimes Sandra Lynn Hoffman, who did not have CPR training, was responsible for children at KFDC by herself, or shared responsibility only with Ms. Waller. Chris Fitzpatrick, Denise Caren Yates, Robin Lynn Bedmars and Sandra Lynn Hoffman were 21 or older, as far as the record shows, when they were left alone with the children. Occasionally Substandard Supervision Until a refrigerator was installed in the infant room, the worker supervising infants left them unattended in order to get milk from the kitchen. Similarly, in order to change an older (but disabled) child's diapers, the person responsible for his age group left his peers unattended to take him to a mat in another room. Sometimes only one KFDC employee supervised more than six infants for a full day. On at least four occasions, and possibly on as many as eight occasions (T.71; Waller Deposition p.9) there were more than six babies in the infant room, which had six cribs and two pallets, even after the playpen was removed at HRS's behest. T.71. Towards the end of the day infants along with older children, sometimes aggregating as many as ten or more, were left in the care of a single KFDC employee. Children played outside, sometimes without adult supervision. Twice, Jason Acosta was outside with children at KFDC "sort of keeping an eye on things while," (Waller Deposition, p.10) his mother was inside with other children. Respondent once asked Jason and Joseph to stay in the baby room with the children there. T.44. Hygiene The parents of two children complained to Ms. Acosta that their children's diapers were dirty when they picked the children up; and the grandmother of a third testified that, at least twice a week, he had "poopy pants" (T.30) when she came for him at KFDC, or at least by the time she had driven him some ten minutes away. Generally, children at KFDC with soiled diapers got fresh ones promptly. Ms. Acosta had extra diapers and clothes for the children on hand. Nutrition For every day a child who ate lunch failed to bring his own, KFDC charged his or her parents a dollar. But some or all of the food supplied these children came from the lunch bags sent with other children. Ms. Acosta or an employee opened the bags and divided the food onto plates without regard to the intended recipients' (or their parents') desires. Mornings and afternoons snacks were almost always provided to the children, but food with which to prepare snacks was occasionally unavailable to staff. The menu sometimes posted at KFDC was not always followed. Once, after two or three children drank from the same glass, respondent refilled it and gave it back to a child, perhaps unaware of its history. Before she obtained the KFDC license, Ms. Acosta registered her home as a family day care center, and the home was inspected by the fire department. T. 497. After her licensure, as before, Ms. Acosta cared for Kyle Dunbar, who has cerebral palsy, at her house, while his mother worked evening shifts. BreAnn's mother, Paige Kelso, also worked nights and left her child in respondent's care when she did. Respondent charged for taking care of these children and sometimes had them both in her home at the same time. Friends of her children spent the night sometimes, and she occasionally took care of a friend's two sons as a favor. Other Matters Ms. Acosta conducted several fire drills at KFDC but sometimes "the month would go by . . . [without one] and then she would write it in" (Waller Deposition, p. 58) anyway, as if one had actually occurred. T.113. Infants were not removed, even when fire drills did take place. Id. Whether falsified records of fire drills were ever submitted to HRS is not clear. Ms. Acosta and others on the KFDC staff relied on "time outs" as their principal disciplinary method. But Ms. Acosta once swatted a little girl's behind. The witness who testified to this incident also testified, "I'm not saying that the child did not like Debra [Acosta, the respondent] or was scared of Debra." Waller Deposition, p. 61.
Recommendation HRS proved several significant violations. But HRS did not prove, or even allege, that respondent's husband sexually abused a child or children. Instead, HRS alleged and proved that such allegations are the basis for pending criminal and (other) administrative proceedings. It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That HRS suspend respondent's day care center license for one year, with credit for the time already elapsed in which HRS has prevented respondent from operating a day care center. That HRS place respondent's license on probation thereafter for a period of at least two years, on condition that respondent comply with all applicable statutes and rules for two years; on condition that respondent not charge for children she cares for at her home; and on condition that Mr. Acosta stay off KFDC premises while children other than his own are there, and have no contact with children who are cared for at KFDC (other than his own), until and unless he is exonerated in both the criminal and administrative proceedings now pending. DONE and ENTERED this 22 day of May, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II 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 this day of May, 1992. APPENDIX Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 17, 20 and 26 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 2, KFDC was licensed earlier than January 1, 1991. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 8, the court order was not in evidence. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 9, the substance is addressed in later proposed findings of fact. With respect to petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 14 and 15, the evidence did not show routine noncompliance. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 16, this occurred only rarely. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 18, it was not clearly and convincingly shown that the screening had not be completed. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 19, it was not clearly and convincingly shown that the children received less than what was nutritionally necessary. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 21, 23 and 24 were not proven. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 22, it was not clear that respondent "extended her day care license to her home without authority" as opposed to acting in good faith under supposed authority antedating issuance of KFDC's license. Vicki Waller did not see all those children at the same time, as far as the record shows. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 25, the credible evidence did not clearly and convincingly establish any improper discipline other than the swat. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 27, the violation consisted only of being in the presence of his own children. Respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18 and 20 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 7, an adult was inside when the boys were asked to watch the infants, but no adult was outside three or more times when one of the Acosta sons supervised. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 8, noncompliance with ratios was sometimes more than momentary. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 10, diapers were changed regularly. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 13, morning snacks were not always given. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 16, children whose parents did not pick them up at KFDC were also brought to the Acosta home. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 19, no improper discipline other than a single swat was proven. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 21, this is properly a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 John Slye, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 S. J. DiConcilio, Esquire Rodney M. Johnson, Esquire P.O. Box 8420 Pensacola, FL 32505-0420 Mary Koch Polson, Esquire P.O. Box 96 Fort Walton Beach, FL 32549
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent should grant Petitioner’s application for an annual license to operate a child day care center in Naples, Florida.
Findings Of Fact With headquarters in Boca Raton, Petitioner is a corporation owning, operating, and franchising child day care centers in 25 states, including Florida, and Canada and Indonesia. Petitioner owns and operates 70 centers and franchises 145 centers. In the eastern United States, Petitioner owns 40 centers and franchises 55 centers from Florida to Massachusetts. This case involves Petitioner’s child care center at 1275 Airport Road South in Naples, Florida (Center). Petitioner has owned and operated the Center since its inception in 1997. The Center occupies 10,000 air-conditioned square feet in a building that was constructed to Petitioner’s specifications. With a licensed capacity of 187 children, the Center has typically operated with an enrollment of 117-119 children. Respondent has licensed the Center as a child day care facility from August 18, 1997, through July 31, 2000. As is customary, Respondent initially issued Petitioner a provisional license, which ran from August 18, 1997, through January 31, 1998. Dissatisfied with aspects of the Center’s operation, Respondent granted Petitioner a second provisional license from February 1, 1998, through July 31, 1998. Prohibited by statute from granting a third consecutive provisional license, Respondent issued Petitioner an annual license from August 1, 1998, through July 31, 1999. At the expiration of that license, still dissatisfied with the Center’s operation, Respondent issued Petitioner provisional licenses for two additional six-month periods, which ended July 31, 2000. When the second provisional license expired on July 31, 2000, Respondent denied Petitioner’s application for an annual license. In its Notice of Denial dated August 16, 2000, Respondent based the denial on repeated violations by the Center in five major areas: staff-to-child ratios, direct supervision, background screening and personnel records, health-related requirements, and incident reporting. The Notice of Denial reports that Respondent’s inspectors have made 49 official visits to the Center during its three-year history and have repeatedly identified numerous deficiencies. In this case, Petitioner challenges Respondent’s denial of Petitioner’s application for an annual license starting August 1, 2000. Petitioner candidly admits to a “rocky” past in operating the Center. However, Petitioner claims that it has progressed significantly toward satisfactory operations from October 1999 through July 31, 2000, which is, by stipulation, the closing date for analysis in this case. Respondent counters this claim by noting repeated violations at the Center, even after Petitioner assigned a corporate general manager to oversee daily operations at the Center. Respondent contends that Petitioner has demonstrated its unsuitability to continue to operate the Center. For two reasons, the most relevant facts in this case arise after January 31, 2000. First, Respondent last issued a license for the Center starting February 1, 2000, which means that the deficiencies before February 1 did not preclude licensing. Prior operations of the Center remain relevant, as they assist in assessing Petitioner’s willingness or ability to operate the day care facility in compliance with the law. However, the deficiencies arising after February 1 are of greater relevance because Respondent has not issued a license in reliance upon, or despite of, these facts. Second, aware that the Center’s recurring problems were jeopardizing its ability to retain a license, in December 1999, Petitioner hired a former consultant as its vice- president of operations for the eastern region. The new vice- president replaced the individual who, previously responsible for Florida operations, had been unable to correct all of the problems at the Center. The new vice-president hired Jamilet Melendez in January 2000 as the new general manager for the Florida region. Ms. Melendez holds an Associate of Arts degree and is working on a bachelor’s degree at Florida International University. Prior to becoming a general manager, Ms. Melendez had been employed by Petitioner for six months as the director of a center in Plantation, Florida. Previously, Ms. Melendez had been employed by Toddler Tech, starting as a teacher’s aide and working her way to a center director. As a general manager, Ms. Melendez is responsible for overseeing finances, quality, and operations of the seven Tutor Time schools in central and south Florida. On the instructions of the vice-president, Ms. Melendez devoted nearly all of her time to the Center from mid-January to mid- March, after which time she spent about half of her time at the Center. From mid-January to mid-March, Ms. Melendez visited the Center daily; after mid-March, she visited the Center three times weekly. Thus, the deficiencies arising after February 1, by which time Petitioner had assigned these additional corporate resources to assist the operation of the Center, are especially relevant in determining whether Petitioner is able to correct the Center’s problems. By letter to Respondent dated February 25, 1998, a parent complained about excessive staff turnover; the failure to conform to posted schedules; unsupervised children going to the restroom or playing on the playground, one staff person shouting at several children; several bites, lacerations, and a swollen lump on the head sustained by her two children at the Center; and the absence of ensuing incident reports. Responding to the complaint, on February 27, 1998, Respondent conducted an inspection. The inspector found that Petitioner lacked documentation that Gloria Badillo, Lisa Colgan, Alma del Rio, Tamara Griffin, Tina Ortegon, and Mirella Roman had completed 30 hours of the required training; Yermi Torres and Brianne Torres had obtained a tuberculosis test; Yermi Torres had completed her local law enforcement screening and affidavit of good moral character; Brianne Torres had completed her local law enforcement screening and her employment history; and Fran Starr had completed her local law enforcement screening. Ms. Starr became the director of the Center by March 2, 1998. Ms. Starr prepared a Plan of Correction dated March 2, 1998. As for personnel files, Ms. Starr sent all employees a memorandum warning that they risked termination if their files were not current by March 7. In response to a note on the inspection form, Ms. Starr also sent a second memorandum requesting all employees to submit copies of their certificates documenting training in First Aid and cardiopulmonary resuscitation. However, in a separate note, Ms. Starr stated that some of the citations for staff training were inaccurate because some employees were recent hires who could still timely obtain the required training, one employee had left the employment of the Center, and the local vocational center that had trained some employees had not yet provided them with certificates. In the Plan of Correction, Ms. Starr also stated that she had advised all staff persons by memorandum that they must be able to see all the children whom they were supervising. She added that the general manager and director would continue to conduct 15-minute counts to monitor staffing ratios and supervision. As stated in the Conclusions of Law, an employee has five days after her date of hire to submit her fingerprints to the employer, which has five days to submit the data for background screening; a new employee has 90 days after her date of hire to commence 40 hours of required training (consisting of variably stated components of 30, 20, or 10 hours) and one year after the date of commencement to complete the training; a new employee has 10 days after her date of hire to submit the results of a tuberculosis test; and a child has 30 days after enrollment to submit documentation of a physical examination and immunizations. No statutes or rules provide any grace periods for the other background screening, personnel, enrollment, and health requirements. The record does not establish the dates of hire of the six employees who had not completed 30 hours of the required training or the two employees who had not obtained their tuberculosis tests, so Respondent has not proved these deficiencies. The record does not establish the dates of hire of the three employees missing additional information, so Respondent has not proved the deficiencies concerning background screening. There are no grace periods for the affidavits of good moral character and employment histories, so Respondent has proved these two deficiencies. On March 6, 1998, Respondent conducted an inspection and found no deficiencies in staffing ratios, but found deficiencies in supervision, apparently because three teachers reported to the inspector a different number of children under their supervision than were in their respective classrooms. The inspector also found a deficiency in recording classroom attendance. Respondent has proved these deficiencies in supervision and attendance recordkeeping. It is impossible for a staff person to discharge her supervision duties without knowing the number of children for whom she is responsible. Careful recordkeeping of arrival and departure times for each child is essential to determine from the records whether a facility was on-ratio at various points in time. A note on the March 6 inspection report states that, during nap time, the required minimum staffing ratios may be relaxed, if sufficient staff are onsite to maintain the required ratio. Reportedly, the Center director had allowed staff to leave the site during nap time. The inspector suggested that the Center employ a floater, who would help supervise the children during nap time and outside play. On April 14, 1998, Respondent received an anonymous complaint that the complainant and several other parents of children attending the Center had complained vainly to management of deficiencies in staffing ratios and supervision. The anonymous complainant also cited insufficiently supervised older children hurting younger children in the same classrooms, excessive staff turnover, and an injury to the complainant’s child that required four stitches in his chin. Responding to the complaint, on April 14, 1998, Respondent conducted an inspection and found no deficiencies in staffing ratios or supervision. However, the inspector found deficiencies for failing to follow planned activities in the transitional toddler room, label supplies, clean up “a few cups (plastic) and plastic bag” littering the outdoor play area, and clean up a previously cleaned pink house on the playground that had become muddy and dirty. Respondent has proved the deficiencies for failing to follow planned activities and label supplies. The former deficiency can, and in this room probably did, contribute to a lack of structure and misbehavior among the children. The latter deficiency poses a danger to the safety of the children. Respondent has not proved the deficiencies concerning litter and a muddied playhouse. No statute or rule supports the finding of a deficiency on these facts. On April 29, 1998, Respondent received a complaint from a parent who had spoken to a Center employee on the telephone about enrolling her child at the Center. Reportedly, the Center employee had told her that the staffing ratio for one- to two-year-olds was one staff person for eleven children. Responding to the complaint, Respondent conducted an inspection on May 1, 1998, and found no deficiencies in staffing ratios or supervision. On June 4, 1998, Respondent conducted an inspection and found no deficiencies in staffing ratios or supervision. However, the inspector found deficiencies in failing to follow one of two schedules posted in a classroom, clean up tissue and a plastic wrap on the playground, maintain food trays at a safe distance from the diapering area, replace bean bags with holes, maintain a medical card for several medicine containers kept onsite, and maintain daily attendance records. The inspector found that Petitioner lacked documentation that “Alma”--presumably, Alma del Rio--had completed 20 hours of the required training, “Anne” had completed 30 hours of the required training, and “Brianne”-- presumably, Brianne Torres--had enrolled in 30 hours of the required training. The inspector found that Petitioner lacked documentation that “Emily” and “Christine” had obtained tuberculosis tests. The inspector found that Petitioner lacked documentation that “Brianne”--again, presumably Brianne Torres--had completed her local law enforcement screening and that Respondent needed to resubmit her fingerprints, “if necessary.” The inspector found that Petitioner lacked documentation that more than two of its employees had obtained Child Development Associate (CDA) certificates, despite the fact that 98 children attended the Center. Respondent has proved the deficiencies in following posted schedules, maintaining the required numbers of staff persons with CDA certificates, and maintaining food trays, medical cards, and attendance records, but not in maintaining the playground or equipment. Absent proof of hire dates, Respondent has not proved the deficiencies in tuberculosis testing of “Emily” and “Christine,” who were not named previously in prior inspection reports as employees. Absent proof of hire dates, Respondent has not proved the deficiencies in the 30 hours of required training for Ms. del Rio or “Anne.” However, the deficiency noted for Ms. Brianne Torres was that she had not enrolled-- i.e., begun--her required training. Although the record does not establish her hire date, Ms. Brianne Torres was employed at the Center on February 27, 1998, and it is a reasonable inference that she remained continuously employed through the date of this inspection on June 4, 1998, which is over 90 days from her date of hire. Thus, Respondent proved a deficiency in the training of Ms. Brianne Torres. Respondent also proved a deficiency in the local law enforcement screening for Ms. Brianne Torres, who had been cited in the February 27 report for the same deficiency. On June 22, 1998, Respondent received another complaint from a parent about staffing ratios, staff turnover, and maintenance and supervision in the toddler room. The complaint was that unremoved garbage bags with fecal material had remained all weekend in the room and children were unsupervised while staff cleaned up the room. Responding to the complaint, Respondent conducted an inspection on June 23, 1998, and found no deficiencies in staffing ratios, supervision, or sanitation. The inspector found deficiencies in failing to post a plan of activities in one classroom, repair or replace a couch with tears, and record daily attendance in four classrooms. Respondent has proved all of these deficiencies, except the failure to repair or replace a couch with tears in it. On July 7, 1998, Respondent conducted an inspection and found no deficiency in staffing ratios, but found a deficiency in supervision in the toddler room. Due to the unusual configuration of the room, a single teacher could not see children throughout the room. Taking advantage of the situation, several children were misbehaving, and the classroom had become disorderly. Respondent has proved this deficiency in supervision. The inspector found deficiencies in failing to follow a posted schedule (a substitute teacher was showing a movie when the schedule called for academic work), repair two holes in walls from doors hitting them in one room (they were under repair at the time of the inspection), clear an exit area that was blocked by a sleeping mat that had been left adjacent to a hallway door, maintain napkins at a safe distance from the diapering area, repair or remove bean bags and “a yellow triangle” that had tears, remove food from the counter, label bottles, and record attendance accurately in two classrooms. Respondent has proved the deficiencies that Petitioner failed to follow a posted schedule, maintain napkins safely, remove food from the counter, label bottles, and record classroom attendance, but failed to prove the deficiencies for repairing the door that was under repair, clearing an exit blocked by a sleeping map, and repairing or removing equipment with tears. The inspector also found that Petitioner lacked documentation of physicians’ information and enrollment forms for W. B. and A. E., current immunizations for V. B. and R. B., and a completed immunization card for W. B. Absent evidence of enrollment dates or, as to the last cited deficiency, the omitted information, Respondent has not proved these deficiencies concerning immunizations. However, the physician’s information is required of each child prior to enrollment, so Respondent has proved the deficiency as to physicians’ information and enrollment forms for two children. Nine days prior to the expiration of the second provisional license on July 31, 1998, Respondent conducted an inspection and found no deficiencies in staffing ratios or supervision. The inspector found a deficiency in failing to repair a new hole caused by another door banging into a wall (again, under repair at the time of the inspection). Respondent has failed to prove this deficiency. The inspector found that Petitioner lacked documentation that Hannah Hogan (who was not present at the time of the inspection and worked only as a substitute), Alixia Mia, Danielle Mains, and Beverly Hall had obtained tuberculosis tests; Tracy Tingley, Lera Sammons, and Paula Jones had filed affidavits of good moral character and statements acknowledging their duty to report child abuse; “Hannah”--presumably, Hannah Hogan--had had her fingerprints submitted; V. B. [same as V. B. mentioned in the July 7 inspection report] and M. V. had current immunizations; and W. B. [same as W. B. mentioned in the July 7 inspection report] and A. E. [same as A. E. mentioned in the July 7 inspection report] had physicians’ information. Absent hire dates, Respondent has not proved deficiencies concerning tuberculosis tests or submittal of fingerprints. However, Respondent has proved the deficiencies that three employees lacked affidavits and abuse-reporting acknowledgements. Respondent has not proved either of the deficiencies concerning immunizations because of the absence of an enrollment date for M. V. and the absence of an intervening 30 days since V. B. had been first mentioned in an inspection report. Respondent has proved the deficiencies concerning the physicians’ information for the two children. On July 29, 1998, Respondent received a complaint from a parent that the one-year-old class was off-ratio. Responding to the complaint, Respondent conducted an inspection the next day and found that the two-year-old class had one staff person for 12 children, which is one over the minimum allowable ratio. The notes state that the second teacher, who was 15 minutes late to work, arrived 15 minutes after the twelfth child. Because the two-year-old classroom is in the room with the unusual configuration, the inspector found a separate supervision deficiency for this 15-minute lapse. The inspector found that the one-year-old class was in-ratio on the day of the inspection, but had been off-ratio the prior day when one of the two teachers had had to leave the one-year classroom “momentarily” to retrieve snacks because the cook had been absent due to illness. The Center director reported that several teachers and children had had the flu. Staffing ratios are more flexible than supervision, as is evidenced by the nap time rule that allows off-ratio staffing during nap time, as long as supervision is maintained and the staff persons required to meet ratio are on the same floor of the building and readily available if summoned. For this reason and the absence of evidence that the tardy employee was chronically late or of managerial status, Respondent has not proved that a 15-minute lapse in staffing, which left a teacher with one two-year-old too many, constitutes a deficiency. Supervision is less flexible. Respondent has proved the requirement that two staff persons must be present in the oddly configured room, when any part of the entire room is accessible to children. Respondent had already cited Petitioner in the July 7 inspection for not keeping at least two staff persons in this room. Although normally even small departures from supervision constitute a deficiency, however, this deficiency would be based on the fact that one staff person could not see every corner of a single room for 15 minutes. Petitioner could not rely on a single staff person supervising this room for a significant period of time, but Respondent has failed to prove that the 15-minute lapse, with a teacher still in the same room, constitutes a deficiency in supervision. Likewise, Respondent has failed to prove that the “momentary” departure of one staff person, required to maintain staffing ratios, to go get snacks constitutes a staffing ratio deficiency, at least where, as here, flu had short-staffed the Center, which was missing its cook, who normally delivered the snacks. On August 13, 1998, Respondent received a complaint from a parent that her one-year-old child had been pushed by another child into a door hinge and had chipped off half of his tooth. The parent also complained that the Center had not completed an incident report. The parent reported that three staff had been in the one-year-old room with 17 children, which met ratio requirements, but that supervision was nonetheless lacking. Responding to the complaint, Respondent conducted an investigation on August 19, 1998, and found no deficiencies. By letter dated August 25, 1998, Respondent informed Petitioner that it intended to impose an administrative fine for the staffing ratio deficiency occurring on July 29, 1998, in the one-year-old room and for the staffing ratio deficiency occurring the next day in the two-year-old room. The letter warns that future deficiencies in staffing ratios may result in fines or the denial or revocation of Petitioner’s license. The letter adds that the configuration of the toddler room precludes direct supervision by one teacher of an entire class. In response to a complaint either unrecorded or recorded illegibly, Respondent conducted an inspection on September 28, 1998. The inspector found staffing ratio deficiencies in the one-year-old classroom where one staff person was supervising eight, rather than the permitted six, children, and the two-year-old classroom where one staff person was supervising 12, rather than the permitted 11, children. However, the inspector reported these deficiencies during nap time, during which, as noted above and discussed in the Conclusions of Law, the staffing ratios are relaxed. The inspector opined that if any children were awake, the nap time exception did not apply; however, the rule refers only to “nap time” and not whether, as happens during nap time, one or more children were awake. The notes are largely illegible, but, absent evidence that the staff persons required to maintain ratio were not in the building, Respondent has not proved this staffing ratio deficiency. On November 12, 1998, Respondent conducted an inspection and found no deficiencies in staffing ratios or supervision. The inspector found deficiencies in failing to label supplies, maintain the playground free of “a few plastic cups,” repair or replace a torn sleeping mat, maintain at least 18 inches between two sleeping mats in the older two- year-old room, and maintain accurate daily attendance records in one classroom. Respondent has proved the deficiencies in failing to label supplies, maintain at least 18 inches between sleeping mats, and keep accurate attendance records, but not the remaining cited deficiencies. On November 25, 1998, Respondent conducted an inspection and found no deficiencies in staffing ratios or supervision. However, the inspector found that Petitioner lacked documentation that Maria Theresa Tvarbe, Danielle Mains, Kelly Walling, Amber Litreal, and Christine Quigg had enrolled in 30 hours of the required training; only one staff person had a CDA certificate, although several staff persons might possess an equivalent; Marsha Studie and Maria Robenalt (whose hire date was January 17, 1998) had obtained tuberculosis tests; and Tracy Constantini, Gladys Perez, Elba Valdes, and Marsha Studie had completed employment histories. Absent evidence of hire dates, Respondent has not proved any deficiencies in the 30 hours of required training. The suggestion that several staff persons might have a CDA equivalent (expressed in the inspection report as an exemption from the CDA requirement) precludes a finding of a deficiency on this issue. The absence of a hire date for Marsha Studie and the hire date within 10 days of the inspection for Maria Robenalt preclude a finding of any deficiencies in their tuberculosis testing. However, Respondent has proved the deficiencies in employment histories for four employees. On December 15, 1998, Respondent filed an administrative complaint against Petitioner for, on February 27, 1998, a supervision deficiency in the two-year-old room; on July 7, 1998, a supervision deficiency in the toddler room when an inspector saw children misbehaving because the teacher could not see all of the children due to the configuration of the room; on July 30, 1998, a staffing deficiency (by one child) in the two-year-old room and inadequate supervision due to the room’s configuration; and on September 28, 1998, a staffing deficiency (by two children per teacher) in the one- year-old room. The administrative complaint proposes an administrative fine of $50, which Petitioner paid. Respondent received a complaint on December 17, 1998, from a parent that her child had contracted a bad diaper rash while attending the Center and that a teacher had “sternly command[ed]" a child at nap time, “You close your eyes right now.” Responding to the complaint, on December 17, 1998, Respondent conducted an inspection and found no deficiencies of staffing ratios or supervision. The inspector found deficiencies involving the availability of the disciplinary policy, labeling of bottles, and sanitary handling of diapers and diapering. A note states that Petitioner would terminate the staff person who had spoken sternly to a child and that this employee had not normally worked in the classroom. Respondent has proved the deficiencies, except concerning discipline. The evidence insufficiently details this deficiency. On January 5, 1999, Respondent received a complaint from an unidentified source that many children did not wear their socks and shoes while at the Center, a child had stood alone at the front entrance to the Center, one staff person had supervised 21 three-year-olds, and the Center director had posted a sign asking parents to “help out” during their lunch time so the teachers could take a break. Responding to the complaint, Respondent conducted an inspection the next day and found no children without socks and shoes on their feet, no children unsupervised, and a sign requesting help from parents during their lunchtime. The inspector found a staffing ratio deficiency ”due to weather conditions and illness[, which] was quickly corrected.” The inspector also found a deficiency in the presence of a mud, rust, or food carpet stain. Respondent has not proved these deficiencies. The inspector also found that Petitioner lacked documentation that “Danielle,” “Kelly,” “Amber,” and “Marsha” had completed the 30 or 40 hours of required training; “Tracy,” “Gladys,” “Amber,” and “Marsha” had completed employment histories; “Maria,” “Marsha,” and “Donna” had obtained tuberculosis tests; and more than one staff person had obtained a CDA certificate. Absent evidence of hire dates, Respondent has not proved deficiencies in the completion of the 30 or 40 hours of required training or, as to “Donna,” the tuberculosis test. However, Respondent has proved deficiencies in the lack of tuberculosis tests for “Maria” and “Marsha”--presumably, Maria Robenalt and Marsha Studie, who were first named in inspection reports dated January 17, 1998, and November 25, 1998, respectively. Respondent has also proved deficiencies in the employment histories of the three staff persons and an insufficient number of staff persons holding CDA certificates. The next day, January 7, Respondent received another complaint from a parent who reported that the Center director was refusing to accept the children of 20 parents because the Center lacked sufficient staff to meet the staffing ratios. Reportedly, 8-10 children with head lice were also in the lobby without supervision. Responding to the complaint, at 10:00 a.m. on January 7, Respondent conducted an inspection. The inspector found no staffing ratio deficiencies, but saw four children with head lice in the hallway awaiting their parents to come pick them up. At the inspector’s request, a staff person found an empty classroom for the lice-infested children to wait in isolation until their parents arrived. The inspector cited this as a deficiency in the isolation and supervision of ill children. The inspector found a supervision deficiency when the teacher on the playground accompanied two children to the bathroom, leaving 12 children unsupervised on the playground. The inspector also found deficiencies because of dusty vents and a bathroom light that had burned out in the bathroom in one classroom, the storage of supplies, diapering and sanitation, and two classrooms with uncompleted attendance records as of 11:00 a.m. The inspector did not find as a deficiency the action of the Center director in declining to accept enrolled children, who would have placed the Center off-ratio. Respondent has proved all of the deficiencies cited by the inspector in the January 7 inspection. However, with the exception of the supervision deficiencies, the other deficiencies were overshadowed by a larger problem, which, although not a deficiency in itself, had been the source of repeated complaints. This larger problem was staff’s inability to control the children. Trained staff and structured classroom settings were in short supply; out-of- control children, frustrated staff, and angry parents were abundant. Although the Center director properly declined to accept more children, knowing that more children would throw the Center off-ratio, the disorderly drama that unfolded in the lobby, as confused parents found themselves unable to drop off their children--accompanied by unsupervised, lice-infested children wandering the hallway--graphically revealed the poor organization afflicting the Center at its inauspicious start to 1999. Seeking to relieve the January 7 situation, the Center director prepared a Plan of Action, which she faxed to Respondent on January 7. Marsha Studie had become the Center director in mid-December 1999, after several persons had served in this position since Ms. Starr. Noting that staff illnesses had contributed to the staff shortage, the Plan of Action describes scheduling changes to bring more teachers into the school at the start of the day. Immediately, Petitioner would pay overtime for this coverage, eventually hiring additional staff for this purpose. The Plan of Action reports that one new teacher would start on the same day as the plan, and one would start on January 25. The Plan of Action also promises that attendance sheets will be promptly and correctly filled out everyday. On January 8, Respondent conducted an inspection and found no deficiencies in staffing ratios or supervision. However, the inspector found that the attendance records for several classrooms were incomplete, as of 8:25 a.m. The inspector also found that Petitioner lacked any documentation, besides an application, for one staff person, Susan Cox, whose hire date was December 17, 1998. Respondent has proved all of the cited deficiencies. By letter dated January 12, 1999, Respondent advised Petitioner of its intent to take administrative action for the deficiencies in staffing ratios and supervision observed on December 15, 1998, and January 6 and 7, 1999, as well as other deficiencies cited on the latter two dates. Acknowledging the receipt of the Plan of Action, the letter requires a corrective action plan to ensure that enrollments do not exceed minimum required staffing levels, to provide a plan for specialized training and support for the director, and to provide inservice training of staff to cover child care, documentation, health care, sanitation, and certifications. The letter recommends that Petitioner assign a corporate representative to the Center until the director obtains child care training. On January 15, 1999, Respondent conducted an inspection and found deficiencies in staffing ratios and supervision, but inspections on January 19 and 22 found no such deficiencies. Respondent has proved the deficiencies found in the January 15 inspection. By letter dated January 20, Petitioner’s Director of Training informed Respondent that it was changing staff schedules to accommodate better the arrival and departure times of children. The letter transmits a 30-day training calendar for the Center director and staff. By administrative complaint dated February 4, 1999, Respondent alleged numerous deficiencies in staffing ratios and supervision during the past six months and proposed a fine of $400, which Petitioner paid. Respondent conducted inspections on February 18 and March 16 and found no deficiencies in staffing ratios or supervision. However, both inspections revealed numerous documentation deficiencies. On February 18, 1999, the inspector found a deficiency in attendance records in one classroom. The inspector also found that Petitioner lacked documentation that Danielle Mains, Gladys Perez, Kelly Walling, Amber Litreal, Marsha Studie, Tracy Constantini, and Darlene Vasquez had enrolled in 30 hours of the required training; more than one staff person had obtained a CDA certificate; Maria Robenalt, Donna Solovey, Pauline Squires, and Allison Arnold had obtained tuberculosis tests; Traci Constantini, Gladys Perez, Elba Valdes, Susan Cox, Pauline Squires, Allison Arnold, and Jennifer Ealy had completed employment histories; Pauline Squires and Allison Arnold had obtained local law enforcement screenings; Allison Arnold had submitted her fingerprints; Florence Steven had filed an affidavit of good moral character; and Pauline Squires, Allison Arnold, and Florence Steven had filed abuse-reporting acknowledgements. The inspector found that the employment records lacked hire dates for Donna Solovey, Susan Cox, Allison Arnold, Lisa Clary, Jennifer Ealy, and Florence Steven. Respondent has proved the deficiencies in failing to keep accurate classroom attendance records; to employ the required number of staff persons with CDA certificates; to complete employment histories for seven staff persons; to obtain an affidavit of good moral character for one staff person and abuse-reporting acknowledgements for three staff persons; to enroll in 30 hours of the required training for Danielle Mains (who was first mentioned in the July 22, 1998, inspection report), but not Gladys Perez, Kelly Walling, Amber Litreal, and Marsha Studie (who were all first mentioned in the November 25, 1998, inspection report, so that 90 days may not have expired since their hire dates); and to obtain a tuberculosis test for Maria Robenalt (who was first mentioned in the January 17, 1998, inspection report). Respondent has failed to prove the remaining deficiencies due to the lack of hire dates. On March 16, 1998, the inspector found deficiencies in children’s health records because Petitioner lacked documentation of a physical examination for A. R. and current immunizations for M. M., B. M., and A. P. However, Respondent has failed to prove these deficiencies because of the lack of enrollment dates. The inspector also found that Petitioner lacked documentation of enrollment in 30 hours of the required training for Danielle Mains, Gladys Perez, Kelly Walling, Mariana Baitrage, Lisa Clary, Marsha Studie, and Tracy Constantini; employment of more than one staff person with a CDA certificate; employment histories for Tracy Constantini, Marla Squinos, and Staci Pernell; an abuse-reporting acknowledgement for Madelyne Guillaume; and an incident report for repeated incidents of sexually inappropriate activity by one child. Respondent proved the deficiencies in enrollment in training for Danielle Mains, Gladys Perez, Kelly Walling, Marsha Studie, and Tracy Constantini; employment of the required number of staff persons with CDA certificates; employment histories for three staff persons; an abuse- reporting acknowledgement for one staff person; and preparing an incident report. Sometime between March 8 and June 2, Amy Harmon replaced Marsha Studie as the Center director. On June 7, 1999, Respondent conducted an inspection and found no deficiencies in staffing ratios or supervision. The inspector found deficiencies in failing to post planned activities, maintain the outdoor play area (due to the presence of an empty plastic soda bottle), maintain a bathroom (which had run out of paper towels), and clean certain toys. Respondent has proved the deficiencies in failing to post planned activities and maintain the bathroom, but not the remainder of the deficiencies described in this paragraph. The inspector also found that Petitioner lacked documentation that Gladys Perez, Mariana Baitrage, Jennifer Ealy, Lillie Guillaume, Staci Pernell, Kelly Walling, and Tracy Constantini had enrolled in 30 hours of the required training; any staff person had obtained a CDA certificate; Amy Harmon and Jill Burke had obtained tuberculosis tests; Amy Harmon and Staci Pernell had completed employment histories; Amy Harmon and Jill Harmon had filed affidavits of good moral character; Amy Harmon had filed an abuse-reporting acknowledgement; and Amy Harmon had completed a local law enforcement screening. Respondent has proved the deficiencies in enrollment in the required training for Gladys Perez, Jennifer Ealy, Kelly Walling, and Tracy Constantini; the required number of staff persons with CDA certificates; the employment histories and affidavits of good moral character for two staff persons; and the abuse-reporting acknowledgement for one staff person. Respondent has failed to prove the remaining deficiencies due to the lack of hire dates. The inspector also found that Petitioner lacked documentation of current immunizations for J. B. and J. H and physicians’ information for J. C., C. C. and C. C. Respondent has proved the deficiencies concerning physicians’ information, but has failed to prove the deficiencies concerning immunizations due to the lack of enrollment dates. On June 25, 1999, Respondent received a complaint from an anonymous source that after 5:00 p.m. on that day one staff person was supervising ten children, including one child estimated to be four years old. Responding to the complaint, Respondent conducted an inspection on July 6, 1999, and found no deficiencies in staffing ratios or supervision. However, the inspector found deficiencies in failing to post activities and storing bleach within the reach of children. Respondent has proved both of these deficiencies. The inspector also found that Petitioner lacked documentation that Gladys Perez, Lillie Guillaume, and Jennifer Ealy had enrolled in 30 hours of the required training; and Amy Harmon and Jill Burke had obtained tuberculosis tests and affidavits of good moral character. Respondent has proved all of these deficiencies. The inspector also found that Petitioner lacked documentation of current immunizations for J. C., H. C., T. P., J. S., R. V., A. W., J. B. and J. H.; a current physical examination for A. S.; and completed enrollment forms for J. C., C. C., C. C., C. N., J. O., N. P., A. R., C. S., F. S., S. S., and A. S. Only 29 days had passed since the previous inspection, which is the only evidence of enrollment dates for any of these children. Respondent has thus failed to prove the deficiencies for current immunizations and the physical examination. Respondent has proved the deficiencies for the failure to maintain completed enrollment forms for 11 children. On July 29, 1999, Respondent received a complaint from an anonymous source reporting that, three days earlier at 10:30 a.m., one staff person had supervised 14 two year olds. Responding to the complaint, Respondent conducted an inspection on July 30, 1999, and found no deficiencies in staffing ratios or supervision. On July 30, 1999, Respondent declined to renew Petitioner’s annual license, but issued a third provisional license. The July 30 letter explains that the issuance of a provisional license is “pending resolution of recent complaints involving staff-to-child ratios.” The letter adds that the Center lacks a sufficient number of credentialed staff. On August 24, 1999, Respondent conducted an inspection and found a deficiency in the staffing ratio in the 0-12 month classroom, where the ratio was one staff person to seven infants, rather than one staff person to four infants. The inspector found no supervision deficiencies, although there were deficiencies in posting or following planned activities, labeling bottles, and maintaining equipment. The inspector also found that Petitioner lacked documentation that Jennifer Pohlmann had completed local law enforcement screening. Respondent has proved these deficiencies, except for the screening deficiency in the absence of a hire date. At some point between August and October 1999, Raquel Revuelta replaced Amy Harmon as the Center Director. On October 4, 1999, Respondent conducted an inspection and found no deficiencies in staffing ratios or supervision. However, Respondent found deficiencies in failing to post and follow planned activities, maintain a garbage pail lid, and repair or replace two pedals on a bicycle. Respondent has proved all of these deficiencies. The inspector also found that Petitioner lacked documentation that more than one staff person had a CDA certificate; Sherry Williams had obtained an updated tuberculosis test; Jamie van de Mortel, Barbara Hernandez, and Jennifer Pohlmann had filed affidavits of good moral character; Barbara Hernandez had filed an abuse-reporting acknowledgement; Jennifer Pohlmann had had her fingerprints submitted; Elba Valdez had completed her 30 hours of required training; and Amanda Banboom and Jamie van de Mortel had started their 30 hours of required training. Respondent has proved the deficiencies concerning the required numbers of staff persons with CDA certificates, three staff persons without affidavits of good moral character, one staff person whose fingerprints had not been submitted, and one staff person without an abuse-reporting acknowledgement. Respondent has not proved the remaining deficiencies due to the lack of hire dates. By letter dated October 13, 1999, Respondent provided Petitioner an administrative warning for various deficiencies in personnel requirements at the Center. The letter states that inspectors had found on eight occasions in the past year deficiencies in training, background screening, and tuberculosis testing. The letter also expresses concern over the lack of a sufficient number of credentialed staff persons at the Center. On October 19, 1999, Respondent received a complaint from an anonymous source that, at the morning drop-off that day, one staff person was supervising 30 children, including some less than two years old. Responding to the complaint, on October 20, 1999, Respondent conducted an inspection and found a deficiency in the staffing ratio, based on the records for the preceding day, when only one staff person supervised 28 children, ages 1 to 4 years, in the toddler room from 7:30 a.m. to 7:50 a.m. The Center director, Raquel Revuelta, explained that two infants had arrived earlier than scheduled, and she had been 20 minutes late that morning. Ms. Revuelta agreed to schedule another employee to arrive at work at 7:30 a.m., starting the next day. The unexplained tardiness of a director is attributable to Petitioner, so Respondent has proved a staffing ratio deficiency. The inspector found no supervision deficiencies, but found deficiencies in failing to post planned activities for the toddler classroom, to ensure the presence of a staff person certified in cardiopulmonary resuscitation until 7:50 a.m. on October 19 (only two staff persons had such certification), and to repair or replace the damaged garbage can lid and bicycle pedals, which had both been cited in the October 4 inspection report. Respondent has proved these deficiencies. The inspector found that Petitioner lacked documentation for the completion of tuberculosis tests by Sherry Williams, Barbara Hernandez, and Rebecca Esquivel; local law enforcement screenings for Rebecca Esquivel and Jennifer Pohlmann; employment histories for Rebecca Esquivel and Barbara Hernandez; fingerprinting for Rebecca Esquivel; an affidavit of good moral character and abuse-reporting acknowledgement for Rebecca Esquivel; and 30 hours of the required training for Rebecca Esquivel. Additionally, the inspector found that Petitioner had not completed, until October 19, 1999, a local law enforcement screening or submitted to Respondent the fingerprints of Jennifer Pohlmann, who had been hired on August 16, 1999. Respondent has proved the deficiencies concerning tuberculosis tests for Sherry Williams and Barbara Hernandez, local law enforcement screening for Jennifer Pohlmann, employment histories for Rebecca Esquivel and Barbara Hernandez, and the affidavit and acknowledgement for Rebecca Esquivel. Respondent has not proved the remaining deficiencies due to a lack of hire dates. By letter dated November 16, 1999, Respondent informed Petitioner that it was considering administrative action for the staffing deficiency of October 19, as well as Petitioner’s use of one employee to supervise 28 children in the room whose configuration precludes effective supervision and whose size permits only 22 children. The letter also notes Petitioner’s ongoing failure to correct deficiencies in personnel files. On November 23, 1999, Respondent conducted an inspection and found no deficiencies in staffing ratios or supervision, equipment, isolation practices, planning and posting activities, classroom attendance records, sanitation, or documentation of the completion of tuberculosis tests or required training. However, the inspector found that Petitioner lacked documentation of immunizations for T. B., J. B., A. B., and A. C.; a physical examination for A. B.; and physician’s information for C. C. The only one of these children previously mentioned is C. C., who had also lacked physician’s information in the June 7, 1999, inspection report. Absent enrollment dates or previous citations in inspection reports not made in the past 30 days, Respondent has not proved any of these deficiencies, except the failure to maintain physician’s information for C. C. On January 4, 2000, Respondent conducted an inspection and found no staffing ratio deficiency, but found a supervision deficiency. While the inspector was observing the poorly configured two-year-old toddler classroom, she saw primarily English-speaking children who were misbehaving and a teacher who, primarily a Spanish speaker, had trouble redirecting them. One child had a finger accidentally caught in a door that was closing. Although the quality of the supervision was questionable, the record does not support a determination that the teacher was not physically within sight and sound of the children at all times. Respondent has thus failed to prove this supervision deficiency. The inspector also found deficiencies in posting and following planned activities, discipline (because a staff person yelled at a child), an unrepaired hole in a classroom wall, broken plastic blinds in a classroom, bleach stored within reach of children, unsanitary diapering practices, and the consumption of cookies outside without napkins or plates. Respondent has not proved the deficiencies for posting and following planned activities, as the record does not explain the inadequacy of the block scheduling after the normal school day; discipline, as the record does not establish the contents or context of the yelling or that the yelling violated Respondent’s disciplinary policy or was in violation of Respondent’s rules as “severe, humiliating, or frightening”; or the consumption of cookies outside without napkins or plates, as the record does not reveal, among other things, whether each child had more cookies than he or she had hands. Respondent has proved the remaining deficiencies. The inspector also found a deficiency in isolation. The inspector found a child in the four-year-old classroom with a fever. When asked why she did not isolate the child, the teacher responded that she had nowhere to send the child. When the inspector brought this situation to the attention of the Center director, who was Ms. Revuelta, Ms. Revuelta isolated the child in her office, at one time leaving the child alone in the office with only the inspector to watch her. These facts constitute a deficiency in maintaining and using isolation areas and raise doubts as to Ms. Revuelta’s judgment. The next day, Respondent conducted another inspection and found no supervision deficiency, but found a staffing ratio deficiency. During nap time, the inspector found one one-year-old child awoke screaming, and the screaming awoke half of the 19 napping children in this one- to two-year-old classroom. Five children got up and took seats at a table where, during nap time, they were eating crackers. The inspection report notes that two staff persons had “just returned from an hour break,” but neither the report, nor the testimony of the inspector, describes how long the two staff persons had been gone after the children had awoken or where they had been during nap time. Respondent does not contend that the staffing ratio was insufficient while the children napped, but only after one of them waked up the others. As noted in the Conclusions of Law, the relaxation of the staffing ratio rule applies during “nap time” and does not necessarily end with the first child waking or the waking of several children, as long as nap time remains in effect for a significant number of children. Thus, absent evidence that nap time ended before the return of the additional staff persons and that the classroom was off-ratio even at the end of nap time, Respondent has not proved this staffing ratio deficiency. The inspector also found deficiencies in failing to maintain 18 inches between mats and an unobstructed exit, as one mat blocked a door. Respondent has proved the former deficiency, but not the latter. The inspector found that Petitioner lacked documentation that “Barbara” and “Maria” had started 30 hours of the required training, “Jamie” had completed the 20-hour component, more than one staff person had obtained a CDA certificate, and “Crystal” and unnamed volunteers had obtained tuberculosis tests. Absent evidence of hire dates, Respondent has not proved these deficiencies, except for the failure to maintain the required number of staff persons with CDA certificates. The inspector found that Petitioner lacked documentation that A. B. had current immunizations and a current physical examination. The inspector had cited A. B.’s files on November 16, 1999, so Respondent has proved these deficiencies. By letter dated January 11, 2000, to Ms. Revuelta, the inspector, who had conducted nearly all of the inspections of the Center, informed Ms. Revuelta that the next CDA course would start January 24 and another course would not begin locally until August. Although not required to have done so, the inspector not only obtained this information, but asked a person affiliated with the group sponsoring the course to send application and scholarship materials to the Center. The inspector noted that Ms. Revuelta, who had finished half of the CDA course, could still enroll in the January session and obtain her certificate. By administrative complaint dated January 24, 2000, Respondent alleged the October 19 staffing ratio deficiency, the January 4 supervision deficiency, and the October 4 deficiencies in employment history and tuberculosis testing. Respondent sought to impose a $250 administrative fine, which Petitioner paid. By letter dated January 31, 2000, Respondent issued a second consecutive (fourth overall) provisional license. The letter explains that the license is provisional due to the deficiencies in staffing ratios, supervision, credentials, training, and personnel documentation. The letter warns that Respondent could not legally issue a third consecutive (fifth overall) provisional license and requires that Respondent submit by February 15, 2000, a written plan of action to bring the Center into compliance. On February 4, 2000, Respondent received a complaint from an identified source that a staff person had left 15 children locked in a van, unattended, the previous November while she went into a store to buy them treats. Responding to the complaint, Respondent conducted an inspection on February 8. The inspector interviewed the Center director and staff person, who had driven the van on the day in question three months earlier. The driver stated that she had left the children in the van momentarily while she picked up a previously paid-for bag of ice from the outside of a convenience store and that she had watched the children at all times while out of the van. If the employee’s hearsay testimony is true, and nothing in the record discredits it, she never was out of sight of the children for the few seconds that it took to obtain the bag of ice. Respondent has thus failed to prove this supervision deficiency. The inspector found no deficiencies in staffing ratios in what appears to have been a brief investigation of a somewhat stale incident. By letter dated February 10, 2000, from Ms. Melendez to the inspector, Ms. Melendez stated that she was looking forward to working with Respondent in making the necessary changes at the Center to improve the quality of care. Ms. Melendez identified six steps that the Center would take to achieve this improvement, including three inservice sessions at which attendance would be mandatory, the use of a consultant to recommend how to improve the child care and classroom management, financial assistance from Petitioner so three employees could attend the consultant’s CDA class starting in February, and already-completed updating of all staff persons’ files to ensure that they contained all required documentation. On February 15, 2000, Respondent conducted an inspection and found no deficiencies in staffing ratios, supervision, tuberculosis tests, the required number of staff persons certified in cardiopulmonary resuscitation, and the required background screenings. However, the inspector found that Petitioner lacked documentation that Barbara Hernandez, “Maria,” “Heather,” and “Crystal” had begun 30 hours of the required training, Jamie van de Mortel had completed or exempted 30 hours of the required training, and more than one staff person had obtained a CDA certificate. Respondent has proved the deficiency in failing to maintain the required number of staff persons with CDA certificates. Because the October 4, 1999, inspection report mentions Barbara Hernandez and the February 15 citation is for failing to start, not finish, the required training, Respondent has proved the training deficiency as to Ms. Hernandez. Absent evidence of hire dates, Respondent has failed to prove the remaining deficiencies. Although Jamie van de Morel was first mentioned in the October 4, 1999, inspection report, the citation concerning her file is that she failed to complete 30 hours of the required training. Using October 4, 1999, as evidence of her earliest date of employment, Petitioner would have until January 4, 2001, to obtain documentation of the completion of this training. On February 28, 2000, Respondent conducted an inspection and found no deficiencies in staffing ratios or supervision. However, the inspector found that Petitioner lacked documentation that Barbara Hernandez, Maria Cardentey, Heather Stallmer, Crystal Rumpot, Jamie van de Mortel, and Jennifer Pohlmann had enrolled in 30 hours of the required training. Respondent has proved this deficiency in the files of Barbara Hernandez, Jamie van de Mortel, and Jennifer Pohlmann. Absent evidence of hire dates more than 90 days prior to the inspection date, Respondent has failed to prove this deficiency as to the remaining staff persons. The inspector also found that Petitioner lacked documentation that M. S. and C. W. had current physical examinations. Absent evidence of enrollment dates, Respondent has failed to prove these deficiencies. By a note added to the inspection report at the time of the recheck on March 3, 2000, the inspector mentioned that the Center was advertising for a new director to replace Ms. Revuelta. On March 13, 2000, Respondent received a complaint from a parent that her one-year-old child had been bitten five times this week, including three times the preceding day. The parent reported that one bite had broken the skin and that the Center had prepared incident reports for only two of the bites. The parent added that five children had been identified as the children biting her child. Responding to the complaint, on March 14, 2000, Respondent conducted an inspection and observed the child with healing bite wounds on her stomach and arms, as well as “many incident reports” from this classroom for biting. The teachers explained that they had separated the biters and used time out to punish them. The inspector discussed the biting problem with Ms. Melendez and the new director, Jane Wissocki. They agreed to divide the children into small groups, train staff in classroom safety, and distribute literature to the parents. The inspector noted that, although the staffing ratio in the one-year-old classroom met the minimum requirement, and thus warranted no citations for deficiencies in staffing ratio or supervision, the quality of supervision was inadequate to protect the children from harm. On March 29, 2000, Respondent received a complaint from a different parent that her child had been bitten weekly for the past six weeks by the one child and all the bites had broken the skin. Responding to the complaint, Respondent conducted an inspection on March 31, 2000. The inspector spoke with the director, who was again Ms. Revuelta. Ms. Wissocki had quit after a short time, and Ms. Revuelta had agreed to return until Petitioner could find a replacement. Ms. Revuelta told the inspector that she had spoken with the parents of the child about his biting of the complainant’s child and aggressiveness with other children and staff persons, even to the point of hitting staff persons. Ms. Revuelta reported that the parents thought their child’s hearing difficulties, due to be corrected by surgery in mid- April, were the source of his aggressiveness. However, even though he had only attended the Center for a couple of months, the troubled child had generated at least 12 incident reports for pinching, choking, biting, and poking other children. Staff persons had repeatedly placed the child in timeout and even sent him home on occasions. When needed, a staff person remained near the child. Ms. Revuelta therefore promised the inspector to require the parents to remove the child from the Center if another incident occurred. Not citing any deficiencies in staffing ratios or supervision, the inspector concluded that the Center was supervising the children, but this aggressive child was unsuitable for the Center. On April 3, 2000, Respondent received a complaint from a parent who had visited the Center to decide whether to enroll her child there. The parent reported that she had waited outside for 15 minutes before a child opened the door to admit her. During that time, she had seen two school-aged children playing in the lobby without supervision. Responding to the complaint, Respondent conducted an inspection on April 6, 2000, and found that the two children were the children of Ms. Revuelta, who claimed that she never left them alone. She explained that, after she had resigned from the Center, she had begun homeschooling the children. She brought the children with her to the Center while she was serving as director until Petitioner could find her replacement. Not citing the Center for the complained-of incident, the inspector found no staffing ratio deficiencies, but found a supervision deficiency because five children were receiving dance lessons from a dance instructor who had not been screened. Respondent has proved this supervision deficiency. On April 20, 2000, Respondent conducted an inspection and found no deficiencies in staffing ratios or supervision. However, the inspector found that Petitioner lacked documentation that Heather Stallmer, Barbara Hernandez, Maria Cardentey, Crystal Rumpot, and Tammy Alfonso had enrolled in 30 hours of the required training; Jamie van de Mortel and Jennifer Pohlmann had completed 10 hours of the required training; Tammy Alfonso and Rebecca Esquivel had obtained tuberculosis tests; and Rebecca Esquivel had completed an employment history. Respondent has proved the deficiencies of failing to enroll in the required training within 90 days of employment for Maria Cardentey and Crystal Rumpot, who were mentioned in the January 5, 2000, inspection report, and Barbara Hernandez, who was mentioned in the October 4, 1999, inspection report. Respondent has proved the deficiencies of failing to document the tuberculosis tests and employment history of Rebecca Esquivel, whose records were first cited in the October 20, 1999, inspection report. Absent evidence of hire dates, Respondent has failed to prove the remaining deficiencies. On May 5, 2000, Respondent conducted an inspection and found no deficiencies in staffing ratios or supervision. However, the inspector found a discipline deficiency because a teacher was sternly and loudly telling a student, “now, now.” Absent evidence of the context, Respondent has failed to prove this deficiency. The inspector found that Petitioner lacked documentation that Heather Stallmer, Barbara Hernandez, Maria Cardentey, Crystal Rumpot, Michelle Valentine, and Tammy Alfonso had enrolled in 30 hours of the required training; Jamie van de Mortel and Jennifer Pohlmann had completed 10 hours of the required training; Patti Eggnatz had completed background screening and filed an affidavit of good moral character; and Rebecca Esquivel had completed an employment history. Respondent proved the deficiencies for failing to enroll in the required training within 90 days of employment for Barbara Hernandez, Maria Cardentey, and Crystal Rumpot, but not Heather Stallmer, who is first mentioned in the February 15, 2000, inspection report; Michelle Valentine, who is first mentioned in this inspection report; and Tammy Alfonso, who is first mentioned in the April 20, 2000, inspection report. Respondent also proved the deficiencies of Patti Eggnatz lacking an affidavit of good moral character and Rebecca Esquivel lacking documentation of an employment history. Respondent failed to prove the remaining deficiencies due to the lack of hire dates. The inspector added a note to the inspection report that Ms. Revuelta and Ms. Eggnatz would meet with her to discuss the Center and its operating history. Respondent had designated Ms. Eggnatz as the new Center director starting June 1, 2000. Ms. Eggnatz, who has a CDA certificate, had worked for several years at other centers operated by Respondent--most recently, as the director of the center in Miramar, Florida. On May 24, 2000, Respondent conducted an inspection and found no deficiencies in staffing ratios or supervision, equipment, planning and following posted activities, sanitation, eight-hour inservice training, tuberculosis test results, the number of staff persons trained in cardiopulmonary resuscitation, and classroom attendance records. However, the inspector found deficiencies in failing to discard all medication not currently being dispensed and failing to obtain parental signatures to incident reports, as several forms from February and March lacked such signatures. Respondent has proved these deficiencies. The inspector found that Petitioner lacked documentation that Barbara Hernandez, Maria Cardentey, and Tammy Alfonso had enrolled in 30 hours of the required training. Respondent has proved these deficiencies as to Barbara Hernandez and Maria Cardentey, but not Tammy Alfonso, who was first mentioned in an inspection report dated April 20, 2000. On June 12, 2000, Respondent received a complaint from an anonymous source that the Center had sent children on long field trips without water and sunscreen and there had been 19 children in one teacher’s three-year-old classroom between 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. that morning. Responding to the complaint, Respondent conducted an inspection on the next day at 1:00 p.m. and found no deficiencies in staffing ratios or supervision. The inspector found that staff persons had taken the children on a field trip without ensuring that they had received sunscreen, so that some children became sunburned. However, water had been available from fountains. The Center agreed to shorten the field trips, ask parents to be sure to apply sunscreen in the morning and send sunscreen to school with their children, and use a water cooler on trips. The inspector concluded that the situation did not constitute a deficiency. However, the inspector found that Petitioner lacked documentation that Barbara Hernandez, Maria Cardentey, and Tammy Alfonso had enrolled in 30 hours of the required training; “Willis” had a current physical examination; and A. S. had current immunizations. Respondent has proved these training deficiencies for Barbara Hernandez and Maria Cardentey, but not Tammy Alfonso. Respondent has proved the deficiency in immunizations, as A. S. was mentioned in the July 6, 1999, inspection report, but not in the physical examination of “Willis,” who does not appear to have been identified in any previous inspection report. On June 13, 2000, Respondent received a complaint from a parent, who was also an employee at the Center. The parent complained that her two-year-old child had been assigned to a teacher’s two-year-old classroom, over the objection of the teacher, who had said that the child was not yet ready for her class. Concerned that the teacher was using intimidating toilet-training tactics on her child, the parent noted that the child had complained of pain in his genitalia. A physician had examined the child, but found no evidence of abuse. Responding to the complaint, Respondent conducted an inspection on the same day, at 5:00 p.m. Obviously, the sexual content of the complaint necessitated an immediate investigation, but, nonetheless, this inspection was the second inspection of the Center on June 13, 2000. The inspector found no basis to the implied allegation of some form of abuse in what seems to have amounted to one employee seeking an ally in Respondent in a dispute with another employee. Finding no deficiencies in staffing ratios or supervision for a second time on the same day, the inspector unsurprisingly found that the deficiencies cited earlier in the day had not yet been corrected in the intervening four hours. On June 23, 2000, Respondent received complaints from several parents concerning child safety, supervision, incident reporting, discipline, communication, and communicable diseases. The parent of the child who had previously been bitten on her stomach and arms by several other children complained that, on June 16, her one-year-old child had been bitten over 40 times by red ants, and Ms. Eggnatz, the director, had failed to communicate the seriousness of the situation to the mother when Ms. Eggnatz had called her to report the incident. Responding to the complaint, Respondent conducted an inspection on June 27. The inspector was unable to see Ms. Eggnatz, who was attending an out-of-town conference, or the supervising teacher, who was on leave on the day of the visit. The assistant director told the inspector that the bites were considerably fewer than 40, but the inspector had seen the child and counted at least 40 bites. The assistant director also stated that an incident report had not been prepared. Returning to the Center the next day, the inspector spoke with Ms. Eggnatz and Ms. Melendez. They told her that they had had the playground treated for ants on June 21. The teacher responsible for supervising the children on the playground was present when the child was bitten by the ants. The teacher saw and heard the child as she was crying, but misinterpreted the crying. Thinking the child was merely crying as an extension of earlier behavior, the teacher merely called the child to come to her. When the child did not respond, but continued to cry, the teacher returned to the other children on the swing, erroneously thinking that the child would come to her or stop crying when she was ready. A short time later, the teacher approached the child when the employee realized that the crying had been too hard, and the teacher had found the child’s legs covered in red ants. The teacher immediately sprayed water on the child to remove the ants. Ms. Eggnatz promptly called the child’s mother, told her of the ant bites, and asked her if she wanted to pick up her child. The mother, who testified, felt that Ms. Eggnatz minimized the severity of the incident. When the mother arrived at the school and saw the severity of the bites, she asked Ms. Eggnatz why she had not taken precautions for a possible allergic reaction. Ms. Eggnatz admitted that she had not known what to look for in determining if someone was having an allergic reaction. By chance, the child already had a physician’s appointment for later in the day, but the mother brought her to the physician without waiting for the appointment. Fortunately, the child did not suffer an allergic reaction, or other lasting injury or scarring from the bites. After examining the child, the physician prescribed an over-the- counter cortisone ointment. The mother returned to the Center after visiting the physician. Missing Ms. Eggnatz, the mother asked the assistant director for a copy of the incident report, but the assistant director told her that she did not have one. The mother spoke with the teacher who had been supervising the child on the playground. The teacher candidly described the incident, as it has been described in this recommended order. After an intervening weekend, the mother returned to the Center the next Monday and met with Ms. Eggnatz. Again, the mother asked for an incident report, but Ms. Eggnatz did not give her one. The mother gave Ms. Eggnatz the two weeks’ notice required before removing a child from the Center. Notwithstanding the incident, the mother testified that she remained quite fond of the teacher, whom the child loved and the mother did not blame for the incident. However, the mother felt that her child was no longer safe at the Center, largely due to excessive staff turnover. Respondent produced an incident report concerning the ant bites. The incident report provides a brief description of the incident and notes that the mother was upset and refused to sign it. There are two separate issues concerning the incident report: whether the mother refused to sign it and whether Center staff prepared the incident report at the time of the incident. On the first issue, it is very unlikely that the mother saw the incident report, so it is very unlikely that she declined to sign it. Respondent has thus proved that Petitioner never attempted to obtain the signature of the mother to the incident report. On the second issue, it is harder to determine whether Petitioner’s employees prepared the incident report at, or even a few days after, the incident. It is possible that the teacher, who spoke primarily Spanish, and the assistant director did not know of the existence of the incident report. The failure of Ms. Eggnatz to provide the mother of the requested report may be explainable, although not justifiable, by the presumably tense and possibly confrontational nature of their meeting the following Monday. But this omission does not establish that Petitioner’s employees failed to prepare the report. Although the Center was sometimes lax about preparing incident reports, on balance, the record does not permit a finding that one of Petitioner’s employees prepared the report substantially after the incident in an attempt to make it appear as though someone had prepared the report in a timely manner. Additionally, although an incident report serves many purpose, the communication by telephone of the incident by Ms. Eggnatz to the mother served the primary purpose, which is to ensure that a parent learns of the incident and, if necessary, can obtain timely medical attention for her child. As to the ant-bite incident and the incident report, Respondent has proved no deficiencies except for the failure of Petitioner to obtain the signature of the parent on the incident report. During the June 27 inspection, the inspector found no deficiencies in staffing ratios, but found deficiencies in discipline because the inspector heard an employee sternly tell children to “sit down” and another employee yelling in a classroom, isolation because the assistant director had remained at work twice with her sick children, and supervision because staff had allowed one- to two-year-old children to cover their heads with blankets during nap time and one teacher had laid down with a child rubbing her back during nap time. Lacking evidence of the context or a violation of the Center’s disciplinary policy, Respondent has not proved either of the two disciplinary deficiencies. Lacking additional detail, Respondent has not proved an isolation deficiency in the assistant director keeping her two sick children with her at the Center. Lacking explicit support in the evidence, statutes, or rules, Respondent has not proved either of the two supervision deficiencies. The record does not reveal, at any given time, how many day care teachers may be lying down with a child soothingly rubbing the child’s back or how many teachers may be allowing toddlers to cover their heads with blankets to induce them to take a nap. The evidence does not support a finding of the potential for harm from these two incidents. By administrative complaint dated July 11, 2000, Respondent alleged a lack of supervision for the June 16 ant- bite incident because of the alleged inability of one teacher to supervise the entire area of the playground involved in the case, and the failure of the Center to complete an incident report. The administrative complaint also alleges two additional failures in supervision in lying down with a child and rubbing her back and allowing the children to nap with their heads under the covers. Lastly, the administrative complaint alleges that the Center was not adequately staffed to isolate ill children. The administrative complaint seeks a fine of $450, which Petitioner paid. On July 20, 2000, Respondent received a complaint from an unidentified source stating that one staff person had taken 14 children on a field trip and one child had become separated from the group for an unreported period of time. The complainant also asserted that the three- and four-year- old classrooms had been off-ratio on two days during the prior week. Lastly, the complainant reported that there were untreated wasp nests and ant mounds on the playground. Responding to the complaint, Respondent conducted the final inspection on July 19, 2000. (There appears to be an error in the date of the inspection or the date of the receipt of the complaint.) The inspector found no staffing ratio deficiencies. The inspector saw no wasp nests, but her ability to check for ant mounds was impeded by rain; however, the inspector saw receipts from an exterminator for treatments on June 21 and July 18. As for the field trip, the inspector learned that, on July 12, one employee had driven 13 children to the movie theater. One child was separated from the group and remained in the lobby after the rest of the group had seated themselves in the theater. A theater employee helped the child find the group, whose supervisor seemed not to have realized that she was missing a child. Upon learning of the incident, Ms. Eggnatz terminated the employee. When the inspector discussed this incident with Ms. Eggnatz, Ms. Eggnatz did not say that she had also been at the theater. Ms. Eggnatz later claimed that she had been at the theater, but this is untrue. The stress of repeated complaints--many of which were unfounded--and repeated inspections--many lasting several hours and two occurring on the same day--affected Ms. Eggnatz to the point that she briefly quit as director. Perhaps these same factors prompted her to misrepresent the facts to the inspector concerning the movie field trip. However, Respondent has proved a supervision deficiency because the rules require an additional staff person on field trips. By letter dated August 16, 2000, Respondent informed Petitioner that it was denying Petitioner’s application for an annual license. The letter cites five major areas as grounds for the denial: staffing ratios, supervision, background screening and personnel records, health-related requirements, and incident reporting. Analysis of the Center’s performance is facilitated by breaking down its three-year licensing history into four periods: August 19, 1997, through July 31, 1998 (the first two provisional licenses); August 1, 1998, through July 31, 1999 (the annual license); August 1, 1999, through January 31, 2000 (the third provisional license); and February 1, 2000, through July 31, 2000 (the fourth provisional license). In the first year, Respondent conducted eight inspections of the Center. (All references to inspections in this recommended order are to inspections for which Respondent produced admissible evidence; there were additional inspections.) Staffing ratios and supervision were in compliance at each of the seven inspections monitoring staffing ratios and supervision, except for one supervision deficiency in the March 6, 1998, inspection. In the second year, Respondent conducted 16 inspections of the Center. Staffing ratios and supervision were in compliance at each of these 16 inspections, except for one supervision deficiency in the January 7, 1999, inspection; and one staffing ratio and one supervision deficiency in the January 15, 1999, inspection. In the first half of the third year, Respondent conducted six inspections of the Center. Staffing ratios and supervision were in compliance at each of these six inspections, except for staffing ratio deficiencies in the inspections of August 24, 1999, and October 20, 1999. In the second half of the third year, Respondent conducted 13 inspections of the Center. Staffing ratios and supervision were in compliance at each of these 13 inspections, except for supervision deficiencies in the inspections of April 6, 2000, when an unscreened dance instructor was supervising children, and July 19, 2000, when an additional staff person failed to accompany the movie field trip. As reflected by the frequency of monitoring staffing ratios and supervision, these two items are crucial to the safety of children at a child day care center. The evidence demonstrates no significant shortcomings in the operation of the Center regarding these two items during the Center’s three years of operation. The Center’s operations have not been as good regarding background screening, personnel records, enrollment records, and health records. For these documentary requirements, the Center was not in compliance 14 times the first year, 70 times the second year, 18 times the first six months of the third year, and 21 times the second six months of the third year. There was some improvement in the last year of operation, but the second year was an easy year to follow. These screening and records requirements enable a child day care center to serve its children by providing quality care in a safe, healthy environment. However, the deficiencies proved in this case, while serious, do not constitute sufficient grounds for denial of a license at this time, although additional evidence of a pattern of ongoing deficiencies in these important documentation requirements would be indicative of unsuitability for licensure. As for incident reporting, which is the last basis for the denial, Petitioner demonstrated substantial, although not invariable, compliance. The Center was not in compliance once in the second year and twice in the second half of the third year, although one of these two deficiencies involved several incident reports and the other involved a failure to obtain the signature of the mother of the child bitten by ants. The remaining deficiencies, on which Respondent has not relied directly in declining to renew Petitioner’s license, range from relatively minor deficiencies involving equipment and sleeping mats to more troubling deficiencies involving classroom attendance records (through which staffing ratios are monitored), isolation practices, sanitation, and posting and following planned activities. The cumulative impact of the demonstrated deficiencies in these requirements does not alter the result in this case. In its three years, Respondent has fined Petitioner a total of $1150. Although Respondent has failed to prove many of the alleged deficiencies that supported the administrative fines, the many deficiencies that Respondent chose not to include in these administrative complaints would have sustained several times the total amount that Respondent fined Petitioner.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Family Services enter a final order issuing Petitioner an annual child day care license for the Naples center with an effective date of August 1, 2000. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of January, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of January, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: 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 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Ira L. Young General Counsel Tutor Time Learning Systems, Inc. 621 Northwest 53rd Street, Suite 450 Boca Raton, Florida 33487 Eugenie G. Rehak District Legal Counsel Department of Children and Family Services Post Office Box 60085 Fort Myers, Florida 33906
The Issue Whether Petitioner's license to operate a family day care home should be disciplined, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the testimony and evidence received at the hearing, the following findings are made: The Parties Petitioner is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating child care facilities, including family day care homes. Petitioner routinely conducts inspections of licensed family day care homes to determine whether the home is in compliance with the applicable statutes and rules. Any problems found during the inspections are noted on a report which is provided to the home's operator immediately following the inspection. When appropriate, the inspection report provides a time frame within which the problems must be corrected. Regular inspections are conducted approximately twice a year. More frequent inspections--monthly or every six weeks-- are conducted on family day care homes which have a provisional license rather than a standard license. Petitioner also conducts inspections in response to complaints it receives, and it has the authority to inspect family day care homes at any time with or without notice. Respondent is the owner and operator of a licensed family day care home located at 2406 Winter Ridge Drive, Auburndale, Florida (hereinafter "Respondent's facility" or "the facility"). Respondent resides at that address as well. Respondent has operated a day care home at the above address for approximately five years, and she has been involved in child care for approximately ten years. Respondent has taken all required training in order to be licensed. As a result, she is, or should be, familiar with the rules regulating family day care homes. Respondent keeps children in her home, and children also play in Respondent's backyard. This area is enclosed by an approximately three and a half foot high chain-link fence. Respondent also owns a one-acre parcel behind her house and yard, which is apparently not fenced. Inspections and Resulting Actions by Petitioner Respondent's facility was inspected on April 16, 2003, and several areas of non-compliance were identified during this inspection. Noted as violations included Petitioner's son and husband who were in the home without a completed background screening on each of them; a fence surrounding the property had protruding chicken wire and was less than four feet in height; children's floor mats were torn and not properly covered; a bathroom sink was missing and needed replacement; no paper towels were in the bathroom for the children; one child's immunization records had expired and one child's required physical examination was out of date; and there were eight preschool children over the age of one year old in the home, where the maximum allowed was six. A re-inspection was conducted on April 23, 2003. On January 22, 2004, Petitioner's inspector Mr. Pickett went to Respondent's family day care home to carry out a routine inspection. Several areas of non-compliance were identified. Ms. Gainey's husband, Jerry Gainey, was staying in the home, but he had no letter on file showing he had been properly screened; there were too many children in the home (three children under 12 months old) when the maximum allowable is two; there were seven preschool children in the home when the maximum allowable is three; hazardous containers, a gas can and a paint can, had been left near the front door easily accessible to small children; a glass sliding door had a metal obstacle that could cause children to trip and fall; and three of the children in the home had no enrollment information on file--even their names and parents' names could not be found or names of anyone to call in case of an emergency. After Pickett completed his inspection, he discussed the results with Respondent and provided Respondent a copy of the inspection report. Pickett then went back to his office and discussed the results of the inspection with his supervisor, Ms. Hamilton. Based upon the results of the January 22, 2004, inspection and the prior incidence of non-compliance at Respondent's facility, Ms. Hamilton determined that Respondent's license should be revoked. Petitioner did not give Respondent an opportunity to bring her home into compliance with the minimum standards in Petitioner's licensing rules and standards. Thereafter, on January 26, 2004, Pickett sent a letter to Respondent informing her that her license was being revoked and advising Respondent of her right to "appeal" that decision through the administrative process. At the hearing, Ms. Hamilton testified that she was particularly concerned about Respondent's repeat violations, namely Respondent's husband not being screened for nearly nine months and the repeated ratio violations, that is, too many children in the home. She characterized these as serious child safety violations. These were the primary reasons she recommended that Respondent's child care license be revoked. Respondent, in her testimony, did not deny committing the violations noted in the inspections of April 16, 2003, and January 22, 2004. However, she did demonstrate that a re-inspection of her facility on April 23, 2003, listed her to be in compliance with all violations listed in the April 16, 2003, report, except for the background screening requirement for her husband. Respondent insisted that her son, Jerry L. Gainey, who is 28 years old, lives down the street from her and does not regularly watch the children in her home. Due to an emergency situation, she was required to leave her home in order to pick up some children from school, and she called upon her son to watch the children until her return. Respondent asserts that her son has not watched the children since that date. Respondent also asserts that her husband, who has had a stroke and is cognitively impaired and walks with the aide of a cane or scooter, does not reside with her full-time but, in fact, lives with his sister in Arkansas. The testimony in regard to her husband's permanent place of resident is not credible, since he was in the home on at least two occasions--April 16, 2003, and January 22, 2004--when it was inspected. It is undisputed that Respondent was not at the facility when Mr. McClary arrived in the early afternoon of April 16, 2003. Her husband and son were watching the children. Respondent's testimony indicated that her husband was physically impaired and not capable of supervising the children. Therefore, only her son was left in charge of the facility and the children that afternoon, and her son was not authorized to supervise the children. As a result, the children were effectively left unsupervised when Respondent left the facility that afternoon. Respondent's testimony is credible, especially when bolstered by her client's testimony, that she is a loving and caring person who goes out of her way to care for the children she keeps in her home. Respondent explained that at the time of the April 16, 2003, inspection, the sink was missing because the entire bathroom was being renovated, and the renovation has been complete for some time. Respondent also stated that she did not understand the need for Petitioner's insistence on strict compliance with the four-foot height requirement for the chain- link fence, especially since she owns the one-acre parcel in the back of her yard. Respondent also explained that the reason she had exceeded the maximum allowable number of children in her home on two occasions was concern for the custodial parents' inability to find suitable child care when they worked odd hours or the swing shift and that she was willing to inconvenience herself in order to provide this service. This testimony was corroborated by several parents and grandparents who testified in Petitioner's behalf. The evidence is clear and convincing that Respondent violated several code provisions, including failure to properly screen her husband, having too many children in the home, and failure to have current enrollment on file for each child. The evidence is not clear and convincing that Respondent violated the code provisions relating to minimum fence height requirements; improper floor mats; failure to have a functioning sink in the children's bathroom; no paper towels in the bathroom for the children; expiration of a child's shot records or that a child's physical examination was outdated. Respondent has shown mitigating evidence that she is a concerned and loving caregiver which demonstrates that her license as a family day care home license should not be revoked.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Family Services issue a final order as follows: Finding Petitioner guilty of violating the provisions of Florida Administrative Code Rules 65C-20.009(3)(a) (one count), 65C-20.010(1)(b) (one count), and 65C-20.011(4); and Subsection 402.032(7), Florida Statutes (two counts). Finding Petitioner not guilty of violating the provisions of Florida Administrative Code Rules 65C-20.010(1)(o), 65C-20.010(1)(f), and 65C-20.011(1) and (2)(a). Issuing Respondent a provisional license and imposing an administrative fine of $250.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of June, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 8th day of June, 2004.
The Issue Whether Petitioner may be granted a family day care home registration/license.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner operated a licensed family day care home from 1992 until June 2002, when she ceased to operate a home. In late 2002 or early 2003, Petitioner applied to DCF for a new license. Petitioner's new application was denied solely because of information found during the background screening, including information from her prior licensure file. Glenda McDonald was Petitioner's day care supervisor during Petitioner's prior licensure. In that capacity, Ms. McDonald conducted regular inspections of Petitioner's day care home. On August 25, 1992, Ms. McDonald's superior sent Petitioner a letter stating that Petitioner was operating a day care facility in excess of its licensed capacity and requiring Petitioner to come into compliance by August 28, 1992. Petitioner credibly denied that she received this letter. The letter was not sent to Petitioner's address of record and no proof of the allegations in the letter were presented. During Petitioner's prior licensure, DCF generated four abuse/neglect reports related to Petitioner's day care home. None of these reports were written by Ms. McDonald, who was never a child protection investigator (CPI). Copies of these reports were included in Petitioner's old licensure file.1/ Abuse/neglect Report 1998-050246 relates to a child who wandered away from Petitioner's day care home on May 1, 1998. The report was verified for "inadequate supervision: neglect" against Petitioner. As a result of the events giving rise to the May 1, 1998 abuse/neglect report, Ms. McDonald cited Petitioner's day care home on June 4, 1998, with one count of "Class II non- compliance: lack of direct supervision," pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rules 10M-12.020(5)(a) and 65C-22.001(5)(a). Since this exhibit was a carbon copy in Ms. McDonald's possession, it is inferred that Petitioner actually received a copy of this informal citation. Ms. McDonald also issued a warning letter to Petitioner on June 4, 1998, citing only Rule 10M-12.0202(5)(a), and saying that Petitioner could appeal after she received a subsequent fine letter for either $50.00 or $100.00. In connection with the May 1, 1998 incident, Ms. McDonald had interviewed Petitioner, who had made various admissions. After her investigation, Ms. McDonald was satisfied that a child entrusted to Petitioner's care had walked out of Petitioner's enclosed yard and further had walked beside a busy road, without Petitioner's knowledge, and that the child had been picked up by the police after nearly two hours' absence, near a busy intersection. In the course of Ms. McDonald's investigation, Petitioner had admitted her caretaker responsibility for the child but had denied that he was a paying day care client. At the hearing in the instant case, Petitioner maintained essentially the same position. Abuse/neglect Report 1999-105502 relates to allegations, arising on August 19, 1999, that Petitioner had locked day care children in a time-out room or "cubby" and that day care children had been beaten. No indicators were found by the CPI against Petitioner for corporal punishment. The report was eventually closed with "some indicators" against Petitioner as the caretaker responsible for confinement and bizarre punishment, constituting neglect. However, DCF did not classify or close this report at all until January 25, 2002. As a result, the report refers to "prior reports," but lists reports for both previous and subsequent years: 98-505246, 99-105502, 99-118736, 00-128236, and 02-006119. Because the classification of abuse/neglect report 99-105502 depended upon reports after its date of commencement, some of which cannot be assessed as to status,2/ and because no competent, credible evidence concerning the underlying August 19, 1999, event alleged in the report was presented in the instant hearing, report 1999-105502 is discounted in its entirety as evidence of any wrong-doing, abuse, or neglect by Petitioner.3/ Abuse/neglect Report 1999-118736 relates to allegations of bite marks found on a nine-month-old child in Petitioner's day care home on September 17, 1999. Petitioner was listed therein as a "significant other." The report was "closed with no on-going care needed." Abuse/neglect report 2000-128236 relates to bite marks found on one two-year-old child inflicted by another two-year old child, both of whom were in Petitioner's day care home on August 16, 2000. This report was classified only as "investigation complete," and further stated that Petitioner was the caretaker responsible. The report further noted that the CPI wanted DCF to consider "removing" Petitioner's license due to the number of abuse/neglect reports with "verified" allegations and some indicators. Yet as of the closure of this report, there appears to have been only the 1998 verified report. (See Findings of Fact 7 and 8). Due to all of the inconsistencies within the 1999 and 2000 reports, due to there being only one report (No. 98-050246) ever actually classified as "verified," and due to the legally indefinite nature of the classifications assigned by CPIs in 1999 and 2000, it is apparent that the CPIs who completed the 1999 and 2000 abuse/neglect reports had no clear understanding of the terms required by law for classifying them. Because of the vague classifications assigned to the 1999 and 2000 reports, it may be inferred that Petitioner was never provided a timely opportunity to contest them. (See also Finding of Fact 17.) Therefore, these reports cannot be called either "verified," "confirmed," "upheld," or "uncontested." (See Conclusion of Law 27). On November 24, 1999, Ms. McDonald wrote Petitioner to express DCF's concern, pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C-22.001(5)(a), after the CPI's investigation and her own independent inspection arising from "the repeated abuse reports". Ms. McDonald's use of the plural for "abuse reports" is noted. However, her letter stated no "concern" other than the incident of September 17, 1999, on which investigation had been closed, naming Petitioner only as a "significant other." The letter was sent certified mail to inform Petitioner that the violation was being classified as a Class II violation with a $25.00 fine for each day of violation and she could appeal when she got a subsequent fine letter. No return of certified mail receipt was offered in evidence. Ms. McDonald testified in the instant case that she was contemporaneously aware of the bites on the nine-month-old who was in Petitioner's day care on September 17, 1999, and that she also was contemporaneously aware of another child who had been bitten while in Petitioner's day care. It is inferred from her testimony that Ms. McDonald was familiar, from her regular inspections, with the events surrounding the August 16, 2000, abuse/neglect report of a two-year-old child suffering bite marks from another two-year-old child, because Ms. McDonald further testified that it was upon the second biting incident that DCF began to seriously consider revoking Petitioner's first license. (See Findings of Fact 10-11). On or about December 11, 2000, a DCF attorney drafted an administrative complaint against Petitioner. The administrative complaint sought only to impose administrative fines for violations as follows: one 65C-20.009(3)(a) violation, Class I, inadequate supervision, with a fine of $100.00; one 65C-20.009(3)(a), Class II violation, inadequate supervision, with a fine of $50.00; and one 65C-20.009(3)(a) violation, Class II, inadequate supervision, with a fine of $50.00. The administrative complaint contained no prayer to revoke Petitioner's license. The charges contained therein apparently were solely the result of the abuse/neglect reports arising from incidents on May 1, 1998 (the wandering child incident); September 17, 1999, (the bites on the nine-month-old child); and August 16, 2000, (the bites on the two-year-old child). An administrative complaint is merely an allegation. Of itself, it proves none of the charges contained therein. Moreover, there is no clear evidence that Petitioner ever received the foregoing administrative complaint so as to have an opportunity to contest the charges. However, the administrative complaint suggests, contrary to some testimony, that Petitioner had not previously been fined for these dates. It also clearly demonstrates that, as of December 11, 2000, DCF did not view the wandering child or the two incidents of biting children biting each other as Code violations worthy of revoking Petitioner's license. Ms. McDonald testified that in 2002, as a result of the foregoing administrative complaint, she told Petitioner that DCF would not renew Petitioner's license when it came up for renewal, and that consequently, Petitioner agreed to retire and never reapply for a day care license, rather than suffer administrative prosecution. Petitioner credibly denied that such a scenario had ever occurred. Petitioner testified that she had never signed anything, did not know there were charges pending against her, and only "retired" in 2002 because she had been hospitalized and unable to work for a period of time. Her husband credibly corroborated her desire to retire after hospitalization. Because the 2000 administrative complaint was apparently never served on Petitioner; because of the greater weight of Petitioner's and her husband's combined testimony; because DCF seems to have repeatedly intended to assess different degrees of noncompliance and different amounts of fines for the same alleged events; because DCF introduced warnings and citations but no fine letters containing the opportunity to appeal/contest; and because it is not credible that someone licensed for 10 years would retire and guarantee never to reapply, only to avoid what, at worst, would be a $200 fine, Petitioner and her husband are found to be the more credible witnesses on why Petitioner surrendered her first license, and it is accordingly found that Petitioner surrendered her first license without coercion by DCF and without giving DCF any promise not to reapply. Petitioner is also found credible that she did not know there were any continuing problems as a result of any of the oral or written warnings she had received. Her testimony in this respect is understood to mean that she never received a notice permitting her to contest any of the four abuse/neglect reports discussed, supra., or any formal notices to pay fines.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Children and Family Services enter a Final Order granting Petitioner registration for licensing as a day care home, subject to her fulfilling all the other requirements for a new license applicant. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of June, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of June, 2004.
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner's license to operate a family day care home should be denied based upon the reasons asserted in the denial letter.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, until denial of licensure, owned and operated a licensed day care facility, licensed under Chapter 402, Florida Statutes. The Respondent is an agency of the State of Florida charged, in pertinent part, with administering and regulating the statutory and regulatory provisions governing entry into and licensure of the business of operating day care facilities and with regulating the practice of day care facilities and operators such as the Petitioner. Witness Tamika McConner is the mother of a child who was placed by Ms. McConner in the Petitioner's day care facility under Petitioner's care at the time pertinent hereto. Ms. McConner maintains that the Petitioner struck her child with a sandal while they were in the Petitioner's car or van on one occasion and that the Petitioner did not see to it that the child ate properly or at the proper times while in her facility. The Petitioner denies these occurrences or indications of improper child care. The evidence show that there is a hostile relationship between Ms. McConner and the Petitioner, apparently stemming from a check written by Ms. McConner for services to the Petitioner which was returned for insufficient funds and concerning which they apparently had a dispute. Under these circumstances, it is not found that Ms. McConner's testimony is preponderant evidence to establish that the occurrences she related actually happened. Moreover, as near as can be gleaned from the paucity of concise pleadings of the agency's allegations, this incident or incidents was not the subject of the report which led to license denial. On or shortly before October 3, 1996, an abuse report was received by the above-named agency concerning a child T.S. T.S. was enrolled in the care of the Petitioner in her day care center. An incident occurred that day when the Petitioner was taking the children in her charge to the Regency Mall for shopping. While at the mall, when the Petitioner was in a store shopping with the children, the child T.S. got to close to her and almost knocked something over on a shelf in the store. The Petitioner maintained that the child was so close to her that she contacted him when she turned around and it caused her to lose her balance and start to fall with the result that she reached out, accidentally knocking the child to the floor. Instead, however, witness Quinones testified and at least one witness in the store verified to the Department's investigator (see Respondent's exhibit 5 in evidence and the testimony of Mr. Gore) that the Petitioner struck the child in anger and knocked him to the floor. Ms. Quinones testified that the child didn't cry but was visibly shaken and Ms. Quinones was concerned that the Petitioner appeared to lose control of her temper on that occasion. Witness David Gore of the Department of Children and Family Services is in the business of inspecting and licensing child care facilities and has owned and operated a child care facility himself. He inspected the Petitioner's facility and found deficiency problems involving immunization records, some sanitary conditions, inoperative smoke detectors and hazardous household products left in reach of children, an incomplete first aid kit and paint and lumber left in the play area. The paint and lumber was there temporarily for the purpose of building a swing set for the children. The deficiencies were promptly corrected by the Petitioner. These deficiencies, however, were not the basis for the notice of licensure denial to the Petitioner however. Witness Roxanne Jordan testified on behalf of the Petitioner. The Petitioner cares for her child or did before the licensure problem arose and said she never had a problem with the Petitioner's care for her child nor did she observe any deficiencies or improprieties in the care of other children she observed at the Petitioner's facility. Ms. Jordan's describes the Petitioner as an excellent caregiver for children. This testimony is corroborated by substantial number of "testimonial letters" from people who have experience with her child care activities, in evidence as "corroborative hearsay." These served to establish that indeed the Petitioner is a caring, compassionate keeper of children in the operation of her day care facility and in the course of her duties baby-sitting for friends' children before she was licensed as a day care facility operator. The Petitioner is in earnest about pursuing the profession of child care and becoming re-licensed to do that. The Petitioner has demonstrated a long-standing interest and aptitude for caring for children. Indeed, in the last two years, she has earned approximately 55 hours of educational training at Florida Community College in Jacksonville in courses generally applicable to the profession of child care. The direct, competent evidence of record and the corroborative hearsay evidence in the form of testimonial letters, from people who have experience with her child care skills and her personality, establish that she has been, in most ways, a competent child care facility operator and caregiver for children and has the capability of becoming more so. In order to justify her re- licensure, however, she must demonstrate a willingness to and a capability of controlling her anger and enhancing her positive child discipline skills.
Recommendation Accordingly, in consideration of the greater weight of the evidence, supportive of the above findings of fact and these conclusions of law, it is
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Petitioner's registration to operate a registered family daycare home should be revoked.
Findings Of Fact The Department is an agency of the State of Florida charged with registering family daycare homes in Florida and regulating their practices and operations. The Petitioner has been registered to operate a family daycare home since 1998. That registration was conditional because of an incident which occurred on January 14, 1999, involving the Petitioner's daughter, Cleta Brantley, in which Ms. Brantley purportedly brandished a knife and threatened a neighbor in the daycare home in the presence of the children being kept there. The investigation of that incident (not directly involved in this proceeding) resulted in the Petitioner's registration being made conditional, based upon her ensuring that in the future Cleta Brantley would never be present in the home. James Farrar is a child protective investigator with the Department. He testified on behalf of the Department in this proceeding. He is personally engaged in three investigations regarding child abuse, abandonment or neglect involving the Petitioner's home, including one investigation which was still in progress as of the date of the hearing. The earliest investigation involved an incident of domestic violence which occurred on January 14, 1999. That incident was a violent altercation between the Petitioner's daughter, Cleta Brantley and the neighbor, during which Ms. Brantley brandished a knife in the daycare home in the presence of the clients' children. The investigation revealed that three of Ms. Parker's relatives, Cleta Brantley, Thomas Brantley, and William Ousley, were residing with Ms. Parker, at least part of the time. Mr. Farrar made findings of maltreatment, verified, for domestic violence and associated with a deadly weapon. The second investigation involving Mr. Farrar related to concerns involving an incident occurring in May 2002. In this incident, Ms. Parker's son William Ousley, was residing at the home when a verbal altercation erupted between Mr. Ousley and other family members and the Petitioner's assistant who worked in the daycare operation at the home. Mr. Ousley was under the influence of alcohol during this altercation and children were present in his immediate vicinity in the home. Mr. Farrar's investigation revealed that Mr. Ousley had a criminal background involving a felony conviction and had not been subjected to "level two screening" before the Petitioner allowed him to occupy the home, at least on a part-time basis. On the day in question Mr. Ousley was in a drunken state and became very angry and argumentative and engaged in a shouting altercation with a person or persons in the home, culminating in his throwing a beer bottle inside the home. The daycare worker or assistant of Petitioner ordered him to leave or she would call the police. Ultimately she summoned the police who arrived, investigated the incident and made a report. One of the officers involved testified at the hearing. Mr. Farrar made verified findings of maltreatment regarding the children in the home on the basis of their being exposed to a person who was abusing alcohol and for possible physical harm to the children. Mr. Farrar also had an active investigation of child abuse at the time of this hearing. This investigation involved an incident occurring less than two weeks before the administrative hearing. In this incident some dogs which the Petitioner was keeping at her home, which belonged to her son Thomas Brantley, attacked a child in the front yard of the home, resulting in injuries to the child requiring some 50 stitches and staples in the child's head and back. Four other children were present in the home at the time of the attack. The dogs had been living in the home for approximately two years at the time of the incident. This incident is not itself a basis for the proposed revocation in this case and was not noticed as a ground for proposed revocation by the Department's charging letter of June 11, 2002. The evidence of this incident is used as corroborative evidence to the testimony and evidence offered concerning the incidents giving rise to the charging letter and proposed agency action. Debra Ann Martin is a family counselor in the licensing department of the Department of Children and Family Services. She testified at the hearing. She is the caseworker who has been assigned to the Petitioner's home since March of 1999. She described the Department's requirements concerning background screening for anyone over the age of 12 who lives in, occupies or resides in a registered daycare home. Ms. Martin established that Ms. Parker has been advised a number of times concerning these rules regarding screening and has knowledge of the screening requirements. The Department's Composite Exhibit One in evidence consists of Ms. Parker's registration applications with the Department, each dated in December 1999, 2000 and 2001, respectively. Other than her granddaughter, listed on the 1999 application, Ms. Parker did not list anyone as a family or household member in any of those applications. Ms. Martin offered a chronology of history of disturbances and incidents involving the Lucille Parker Daycare Home. Ms. Martin established that the Department had denied Ms. Parker's application to re-new her registration in 1999 based upon the concerns of the Department involving Ms. Parker's daughter, Cleta Brantley, referenced above. Ultimately, however, Ms. Parker was allowed to re-register her home on the condition that Cleta Brantley would not live at the home or be allowed any access to the children in the home. During a visit on December 22, 1999, however, Ms. Martin observed Cleta Brantley in the home with her belongings and clothing. The Petitioner testified that Ms. Brantley was merely at the home briefly that day to pick up belongings and clothing which had been left at the home at an earlier date and that she did not actually reside at the home. Further contact by Ms. Martin in the year 2000 and 2001, however, showed that Cleta Brantley and William Ousley both stayed at the home or spent the night on occasions. Ms. Martin described several other incidents when she found evidence that one or more of Ms. Parker's children were sleeping in the daycare home, including an incident in which Thomas Brantley threatened to turn his dogs on her. All of these children or relatives were over the age of 12 at the times in question. They were not and have not been subjected to screening by the Department. Officer Frank Van Schmidt of the Fort Walton Beach Police Department testified on behalf of the Department. Officer Van Schmidt was involving in an incident in May of 2002, in the daycare home of the Petitioner, Lucille Parker. The incident involved Ms. Parker's son, William Ousley. Officer Van Schmidt described observing Mr. Ousley as very intoxicated, angry, yelling and screaming. Officer Van Schmidt testified that Mr. Ousley made it clear to him that he lived at Ms. Parker's home. Officer Van Schmidt established that the Petitioner, Lucille Parker, initially told him that Mr. Ousley did indeed live there but changed her story later on the same day. This was the day when Officer Van Schmidt investigated the incident, described above, involving William Ousley and the angry drunken altercation. Officer Van Schmidt testified that during the investigation of the incident he overheard Lucille Parker telling someone that she had previously advised the Department several times that Mr. Ousley did not live in the residence because if the Department found out that he did live there she could lose her license. This was after Ms. Parker had advised the officer that Mr. Ousley did not reside at the residence. This is also after Ms. Clayborne, who worked for Ms. Parker and Ms. Gibson, who was present at the scene, had earlier advised the officer that Mr. Ousley did live at the residence. Before he left the home on that day Officer Van Schmidt advised Ms. Parker that the case would be forwarded to the Department of Children and Families. She asked him not to contact the Department and he advised her that he had to tell them according to law. She then stated that she would pay him money if he would not say anything to the Department but he advised her that they had already been notified and that a report would be sent to them. The Petitioner, Lucille Parker, testified on her own behalf. She testified generally that various persons often stayed at her home for limited periods of time. She testified that William Ousley would "stay" with her when he was in town and that the Department found out about that when Ms. Martin discovered Mr. Ousley at the home. Ms. Parker acknowledged that Ms. Ousley had never been given or requested a background screening. Ms. Parker stated that she told Debra Martin that Mr. Ousley was not living there. She further acknowledged that she had kept Mr. Thomas Brantley's dogs at her home for several years and that these were the same dogs involved in the October 2002 attack on a child on her premises. The Petitioner called her other witnesses, some of whom have had their children kept by the Petitioner for substantial periods of time in the last two decades. They uniformly described the Petitioner as given good care to their children, maintaining a safe environment for them and being a very loving keeper of their children. These witnesses who have had their children kept by the Petitioner uniformly testified that they would not hesitate to have her keep their children once more or to continue to keep them as the case may be. Additionally, the Petitioner's minister described the Petitioner as good Christian person who has been an active worker in her church for some 40 or more years, of the highest moral character and otherwise quite well suited to continue to keep children in her home.
Recommendation 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 the Petitioner's registration to operate a registered family daycare home should be revoked; however, the revocation should be suspended for a period of one year, during which time the Petitioner, operating under reasonable, but frequent inspection and reporting requirements imposed by the Department, should be given an opportunity to show that the violations of the relevant statutes and rules have been corrected and that she is maintaining the operation of her registered family daycare home in a manner which precisely comports with the rules, policies and statutes that the Department is charged with enforcing. If she demonstrates such compliance to the Department at the end of one year then her registration should be restored in an unimpeded status. If she does not, then revocation should be carried out. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of May, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of May, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Lucille Parker 2112 Ajax Drive Pensacola, Florida 32548 Rick D. Cserep, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 160 Governmental Center, Suite 601 Pensacola, Florida 32501 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
The Issue Was Petitioner properly disqualified from working in a position of special trust pursuant to Section 435.04, Florida Statutes, on the basis of a July 21, 1996, incident? If Petitioner was properly disqualified as a result of the July 21, 1996, incident, has she been sufficiently rehabilitated so as to be eligible for an exemption to work in a position of special trust, pursuant to Section 435.07(3), Florida Statutes?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was licensed through Leon County as a family home day care provider in 1995. Since 1996, she has been operating her family day care home pursuant to an exemption from disqualification by a 1973 disqualifying felony (manslaughter). Petitioner is a high school graduate. She was schooled and certified in New York as a nurse technician. She is certified as a home health aide in Florida. When she sought to renew her license in 2000, Petitioner was required to sign an Affidavit of Good Moral Character. The 2000 Affidavit of Good Moral Character read: By signing this form, I am swearing that I have not been found guilty or entered a plea of guilty of nolo contendere (no contest), regardless of the adjudication, to any of the following charges under the provisions of the Florida Statutes or under any similar statute of another jurisdiction. I also attest that I do not have a delinquency record that is similar to any of these offenses. I understand I must acknowledge the existence of criminal records relating to the following list regardless of whether or not those records have been sealed or expunged. I understand that I am also obligated to notify my employer of any possible disqualifying offenses that may occur while employed in a position subject to background screening under Chapter 435, Florida Statutes. The 2000 Affidavit then listed a number of offenses and the corresponding statute numbers. Among the offenses listed were: Sections 741.30 domestic violence and injunction for protection. 784.03 battery, if the victim was a minor. The 2000 Affidavit is DCF's attempt to paraphrase Section 435.04, Florida Statutes, listing disqualifying offenses. It is flawed and could be misleading because domestic violence can occur without an injunction for protection. Petitioner signed the 2000 Affidavit on January 25, 2000, in the portion declaring herself free of any disqualifying statutory violations and also signed the Affidavit in the portion stating, "To the best of my knowledge and belief, my record may contain one or more of the foregoing disqualifying acts or offenses." Petitioner testified in the instant case that she did not divulge the July 21, 1996, incident on her 2000 Affidavit because she did not think it constituted domestic violence, but why she signed contradictory statements was not explained. Petitioner's day care license was renewed, despite Petitioner's contradictory declarations on her 2000 Affidavit. She was notified of her disqualification when the five-year background screening turned-up an offense that had occurred on July 21, 1996. The Year 2000 background screening results which DCF received from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement indicated that Petitioner had been found guilty of "battery," on the basis of the July 21, 1996, incident. The Department's Background Screening Coordinator then obtained additional documentation from the file of the Leon County Court. Based on the information in the court file, the Department's District II Office concluded that Petitioner was disqualified because of a "domestic battery" offense. Petitioner exhausted informal procedures and timely requested an evidentiary hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (2000). The instant case followed. The instant case is the second occasion Petitioner has appeared before the Division of Administrative Hearings requesting an exemption from disqualification to work in a position of special trust. The first occasion Petitioner appeared before the Division occurred in September 1996, when she sought an exemption because she had been disqualified due to her 1973 felony manslaughter conviction in New York. Petitioner had failed to disclose the 1973 felony conviction on her 1995 affidavit when she first applied to be a child care worker.1 That disqualifying offense showed-up in the initial screening procedures applicable to such applicants. Petitioner was granted an exemption for the 1973 manslaughter conviction in Harris v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, DOAH Case No. 96-2010 (Recommended Order entered September 10, 1996; Final Order entered October 30, 1996), as more fully described below in Findings of Fact 34-36. She has been a licensed day care provider ever since. In 1996, Petitioner and Frank Fields had a romantic involvement bounded by Mr. Fields' keeping most of his belongings at his sister's apartment and merely sleeping over at Petitioner's home two to three nights per week, on a sporadic basis.2 On these occasions, he brought with him, and occasionally left in Petitioner's home, only his underwear and some music CDs. At all times material, Frank Fields was an adult male. Although younger than Petitioner, he was not a minor. On July 21, 1996, Petitioner, who was then 47 years old, was two months' pregnant with Frank Fields' child. She testified that at that time she was very upset and confused because of her pregnancy; because Mr. Fields was not helping with household expenses; and because she had heard that Mr. Fields was moving from his sister's apartment to an apartment of his own. On July 21, 1996, Petitioner was driving her car on Blountstown Highway. She noticed Mr. Fields' van and also noticed that there was a female in the passenger's seat of the van. Apparently, Petitioner believed that Mr. Fields was romantically involved with his female passenger. Petitioner had one adult daughter; the adult daughter's three children, all under the age of nine years, and her own eight-year-old daughter with her in her car. According to Petitioner's testimony, none of the four children in her car were young enough to require a car seat and none of her day care children were in her car. According to the police officer who later arrested Petitioner, there were six "children" in the back seat of Petitioner's car, not six people in the whole car. Regardless of this discrepancy in testimony, it is undisputed that there were no car seats and insufficient car safety belts for the number of passengers in Petitioner's car on July 21, 1996. Without approving either Petitioner's motivation or her reasoning, I find credible her testimony that she would not have taken her next actions had there been any day care children in her car because if day care parents found out about it, Petitioner could be "put in jeopardy"; she "could be in a lot of trouble"; and she would not have had day care children with her over a weekend. July 21, 1996 was, in fact, a Sunday. In making the immediately foregoing Finding of Fact, I have not overlooked Ms. Brantley's testimony that on occasion Petitioner has kept Ms. Brantley's children in Petitioner's home on nights and weekends while Ms. Brantley traveled. However, even assuming arguendo, but not ruling, that six rather than four children were in Petitioner's car on July 21, 1996, there is no direct evidence that any of them were also day care clients. Petitioner drove her car, filled with passengers, following Mr. Fields' van. Mr. Fields turned onto Nekoma Lane and pulled over to the side of the road. Petitioner pulled over and intentionally bumped her car into the back of Mr. Fields' van. Petitioner and Mr. Fields exited their respective vehicles, and Petitioner demanded to know who Mr. Fields' female passenger was, even though Petitioner knew the passenger was named "Melissa." Some screaming ensued, and Petitioner and Mr. Fields "tussled," hitting and scratching each other. Petitioner and her adult daughter testified that they did not know who struck the first blow. The non-hearsay evidence is insufficient to establish that on this occasion Petitioner left a bite mark on Mr. Fields' arm. When Mr. Fields began to wield a stick he had picked up from the side of the road, Petitioner's adult daughter got between him and her mother. Petitioner then drove her car, still containing its passengers, so as to follow Melissa, who had walked around the corner. Petitioner then "had a conversation" with Melissa. There is no evidence that the children were anywhere except inside Petitioner's car during either her confrontation with Mr. Fields or with Melissa. When the police arrived on the scene, Petitioner was arrested for battery and for driving with a suspended driver's license. The suspended license charge arose because, when questioned by the police, Petitioner gave her name as "Veronica L. Wynn." Petitioner's legal name was, in fact, "Veronica Harris." Petitioner also told the officer that her date of birth was September 19, 1959, and that she lived at 2106 Monday Street. Petitioner's true date of birth is September 19, 1949, and her true address was 1229 Elberta Street. When the officer could not find a driver's license record for "Veronica L. Wynn," Petitioner told him that the name on her license might be "Veronica Lee Harris Wynn." After she gave him the name "Veronica Lee Harris Wynn," the officer found Petitioner's driver's license record and learned that her driver's license had been suspended. Petitioner had recently been divorced and had "gone back" to her maiden name, but she testified herein that on July 21, 1996, she deliberately gave incorrect information to the police because she knew her driver's license was suspended and the police were going to check on it. Mr. Fields was provided with a pamphlet explaining his right to request domestic abuse protection and prosecution. Apparently, he did nothing about it. Petitioner was charged, in an Information which recited the statutory language of both Subsections 784.03(1) (a) and (b), Florida Statutes (1995), with "battery (M1)," meaning "first degree misdemeanor battery." The Information cited only "Section 784.03, Florida Statutes," for that offense. The Information also charged Petitioner with "driving while license suspended or revoked (M2)" also a misdemeanor, under Section 322.34(1), Florida Statutes (1995). On August 28, 2000, Petitioner entered a "no contest" plea to both charges. Petitioner was adjudicated guilty of misdemeanor battery and was ordered to serve 12 months of probation with the following conditions: (1) no contact with Frank Fields; (2) $155.00 court costs; and (3) $100.00 fine. She was also required to pay a monthly supervision fee while on probation and a fee for the services of the public defender. There was no charge, plea, or sentence stating "domestic violence" or citing a domestic violence statute. Petitioner was not required to attend a batterers' intervention program, pursuant to Section 741.281, Florida Statutes. No evidence was presented to show that the sentencing court had made written, factual findings that attendance at a batterers' intervention program would be an inappropriate condition for her probation. Petitioner's probation was terminated in December 1997. Petitioner miscarried her child conceived of Frank Fields before a live birth. Petitioner's emotional connection with Mr. Fields seems to have terminated with the July 21, 1996, incident. At the September 9, 1996, formal exemption hearing in Harris v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, DOAH Case No. 96-2010 (see Finding of Fact No. 12) Petitioner and her witnesses did not divulge that six weeks earlier, on July 21, 1996, Petitioner had been arrested for her altercation with Frank Fields or that less than two weeks earlier, on August 28, 1996, Petitioner had pled "no contest" to battery of Frank Fields. Petitioner testified in the instant case that she did not divulge the July 21, 1996, incident during the 1996 formal exemption proceeding before the Division because "it was not part of my day care home and had nothing to do with day care children."3 The Recommended Order in DOAH Case No. 96-2010 observed that "Petitioner, now a grandmother, testified tearfully to her errant behavior at the age of 21, over 24 years ago in New York. Petitioner has never been charged with any legal violation since that time, with the exception of traffic tickets . . .since the [1973] incident, . . . Petitioner has lived an exemplary life . . . ." That Order recommended granting an exemption. The outcome of the Final Order, entered October 26, 1996, was that Petitioner was exempted from the 1973 felony disqualification.4 Petitioner contends that she never committed "domestic violence" and even if she did, she has been "rehabilitated" since July 21, 1996. She feels that she should be granted an exemption because she is sorry for what she did; because if she had been thinking, she would not have done it; and because she loves her day care children. Since 1996, Petitioner has operated her family day care home and has pursued her goal of becoming a Master Provider of day care. In order to become a Master Provider, one must have taken the Second Helping Course (a refresher course for experienced day care providers); have either a Child Development Associate Certificate or national accreditation; and have five years' experience. Currently, there are only two Master Providers in Leon County. In 1998, Petitioner received a $500.00 Caring for Kids Mini-Grant which she used to purchase day care toys. In March 2000, Petitioner received a scholarship from the T.E.A.C.H. Early Childhood Project, which she had planned to use to take classes at Tallahassee Community Hospital towards her Child Development Associate certification. Petitioner has put this project on "hold" during the pendancy of the instant case. In May 2000, Petitioner completed the Second Helping Course. In Leon County, only approximately 20 family home day care providers have taken this course. In 2000, Petitioner received a $275.00 Caring for Kids Mini-Grant which she used to help pay for her Second Helping Course. Petitioner was selected to receive a Kids Incorporated Infant/Toddler Initiative Grant of $3,000, which she intended to use to purchase toys and equipment for her day care home. Petitioner was hand-picked by Kids Incorporated because of her genuine love and concern for the children and because Kids Incorporated felt that Petitioner only needed additional toys and equipment in order to improve her day care home. However, because of the instant case, Kids Incorporated has not yet disbursed this money to Petitioner. Kids Incorporated wants to be assured the money will go to someone who will be a day care provider for the long-term. Petitioner has volunteered for the school readiness program sponsored by Kids Incorporated, which has resulted in additional visits and evaluations of her day care home. Her day care children have all scored "above average" in the program. Katherine Schmidt, a Family Child Care Specialist with Kids Incorporated, testified that she has evaluated and assessed Petitioner's day care home in her capacity with Kids Incorporated and during the period she was helping Petitioner obtain the grants mentioned above. Ms. Schmidt believes Petitioner is an excellent day care provider and would not be a danger to the children in her care. Ms. Schmidt also believes Petitioner would be a benefit to the children and their families. The Leon County Home Day Care Providers Association and Support Group meets monthly, and Petitioner regularly attends. Two day care providers wrote letters in support of Petitioner. Cicely Brantley is a professional music education teacher in Leon County's public school system. Ms. Brantley's two children attend Petitioner's family day care home. She has seen Petitioner briefly at least five days per week for the last two years. Ms. Brantley's older child is two and one-half years old and has been in Petitioner's day care home since he was nine months' old. Her younger child is 15 months old and has been in Petitioner's day care home since she was eight weeks old. Ms. Brantley testified that she trusts Petitioner with her children and that she trusts and values Petitioner's judgment when it comes to the children. Ms. Brantley often asks Petitioner's advice about parenting, discipline, and health issues involving her children. Ms. Brantley testified that other than her husband, Petitioner is the person she trusts the most with her children and that Petitioner goes above and beyond what most day care providers would do, both in education and care. Ms. Brantley was aware of the battery incident that occurred between Petitioner and Mr. Fields, but it did not change her opinion of Petitioner. She does not believe that Petitioner would ever be a danger to her children. Ms. Brantley really does not want to have to find other child care if Petitioner is unsuccessful in getting an exemption, and it is apparent that this concern has influenced her testimony. Versee Hoffman is a Pioneer with the Jehovah's Witnesses. This means that she has committed to serving 70 hours per month with her ministry. Ms. Hoffman met Petitioner approximately five years ago through church. Ms. Hoffman and Petitioner studied the Bible together periodically. At that time, Ms. Hoffman felt that Petitioner was not really committed to the church or its moral standards, and their studies ended. Thereafter, Ms. Hoffman did not see Petitioner for approximately two years. In early 1999, Petitioner approached Ms. Hoffman and told Ms. Hoffman that she wanted to renew their Bible studies. Ms. Hoffman agreed, and they have been studying the Bible together weekly ever since. Ms. Hoffman testified that the Jehovah's Witnesses expect their members to attend five weekly meetings and that Petitioner consistently attends those meetings. Ms. Hoffman testified that Petitioner has grown spiritually and personally since Ms. Hoffman first met her five years ago. Ms. Hoffman believes that Petitioner is truly committed to leading a spiritual life and to meeting the Jehovah's Witnesses' moral standards against violence. Ms. Hoffman believes that Petitioner will continue to meet these standards.
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 determining that Petitioner is not disqualified from working in a position of special trust solely on the basis of her 1996 battery conviction. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of November, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of November, 2000.
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 resides in Lakeland, Florida. In the fall of 2002, she applied for a license to operate a family day care home in her residence. In the course of discharging its statutory responsibility of investigating applicants seeking licensure for family day care homes, a representative of Respondent, Gloria Mathews, an experienced child care licensing inspector, visited Petitioner's residence and discovered numerous instances of non- compliance with requirements of Sections 402.301 through 402.319, Florida Statutes (2002), and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 65C-20. Ms. Mathews talked with Petitioner, pointed out the various instances of non-compliance, and made suggestions regarding correcting the various instances of non-compliance. Ms. Mathews anticipated that upon Petitioner’s correcting the areas of non-compliance, Petitioner would notify her and request a re-inspection. She was not contacted by Petitioner for several months. On May 20, 2003, Francis Williams, an employee of Youth and Family Alternatives, a private, not-for-profit agency that contracts with Respondent to provide assistance to individuals seeking family day care licensure, went to Petitioner's home to provide guidance and assistance to Petitioner in her effort to obtain licensure. Ms. Williams determined that several instances of non- compliance continued. In addition, Ms. Williams noted that Petitioner was caring for five non-related children without being licensed and later discovered that a sixth child had gone unsupervised for more that 15 minutes while Petitioner, Ms. Williams, and five children were in the yard noting various non-compliant conditions and discussing required improvements. On July 28, 2003, Ms. Williams again visited Petitioner's home, found discrepancies, noted that Petitioner was caring for non-related children, and, in Petitioner's absence, discovered a substitute caregiver who had not been screened. On August 27, 2003, Ms. Mathews revisited Petitioner's home and discovered that she was not in compliance; she did not have health examination forms for all of the children. Ms. Mathews and Ms. Williams, both having extensive experience in family day care facilities, testified that they did not believe that Petitioner should be licensed based on her continuing disregard for the rules provided for the safety and protection of children. Petitioner had little to offer regarding the failure of her home to qualify due to the various instances of non- compliance and her violation of the prohibition of caring for non-related children without being licensed.
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 denying Petitioner's application for a family day care home license. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of February, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S 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 26th day of February, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack Emory Farley, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 4720 Old Highway 37 Lakeland, Florida 33813-2030 Cassandra Napier 1535 Peavy Court Lakeland, Florida 33801 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
The Issue Should the Petitioner's application for registration to operate a family day care home be approved?
Findings Of Fact In August 1998, Petitioner, Yolanda Cheesmon, registered her home at 1012 Yates Avenue in Panama City, Florida, as a family day care home with Respondent, Department of Children and Family Services. In September 1998, Michelle Barsanti, the Department's Licensing Counselor, attempted to reach Ms. Cheesmon at her home by telephone. She was unable to do so because the telephone had been disconnected. Because the Department's day care standards required day care homes to have telephones, Ms. Barsanti continued to try an reach Petitioner. She eventually contacted Petitioner by phone, found she had moved, and sent her a new application to 920 Thomas Avenue, Panama City, Florida. On October 23, 1998, Ms. Barsanti attempted to visit Ms. Cheesmon at her new home. It was only then that she noticed that Ms. Cheesmon's address had changed. She obtained directions to the new home, and went there to discuss with Ms. Cheesmon licensing her home as a family day care home. During this visit, Ms. Barsanti reminded Ms. Cheesmon that it was the home and not the operator which was licensed or registered; and, therefore, the Department had to be notified whenever the operator of a family day care home changed residence. Ms. Barsanti discussed with Ms. Cheesmon during this meeting that Ms. Cheesmon would have to procure a written statement form the landlord approving the use of the property as a family day care home. The facts reveal a mix up between the Petitioner and the investigator regarding almost every aspect of Petitioner's application. As both women endeavored to perfect the application, more and more things arose which needed to be done. All of this occurred under circumstances in which the Petitioner's income was reduced because she had quit her job to care for children. Ms. Cheesmon filed her application and a letter which purported to be from her landlord giving Ms. Cheesmon permission to operate a family day care home on the property. Ms. Barsanti received an anonymous letter alleging the permission letter was a forgery. After being confronted by Ms. Barsanti Ms. Cheesmon admitted that she had forged the permission letter. Ms. Cheesmon testified that she forged the letter which she gave to Ms. Barsanti in order to get the application processed and obtain insurance which the landlord required as a condition for approval. The landlord did not disapprove of the child care activity. The landlord wanted insurance to hold her blameless. The Petitioner needed approval by the Department to obtain insurance. Petitioner's forgery was not so much a false statement of the landlord's position, as an improper means to accomplish what the landlord wanted. By the time of hearing, the Petitioner had moved back to her original address into property which she does not rent.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department enter a final order which would deny the current application as moot. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of June, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 14th day of June, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Yolanda Cheesmon 1012 Yates Avenue Blountstown, Florida 32424 John R. Perry, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 2639 North Monroe Street, Suite 252A Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2949 Gregory D. Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John S. Slye, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
