The Issue Whether the Department of Children and Family Services (the "Department") had just cause to revoke the license of Petitioner to operate a family day care home.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony and evidence received at the hearing, the following findings are made: From April 15, 1987, through March 31, 2001, Marcia Edwards operated a registered family day care home at 15475 Chloe Circle, Fort Myers, Florida 33908. The Department regulates three types of day care facilities. In descending order of regulatory oversight, they are a licensed child care facility, a licensed family child care home, and a registered family child care home. Sections 402.305 and 402.313, Florida Statutes. While the first two categories of facilities require annual on-site Department inspections, background screening for all personnel, training, and more extensive paperwork, a registered family day care home involves no Department inspections and only requires that the operator complete a training course and provide to the Department certain paperwork and that the operator and other household members undergo background screening. The operator of a registered family day care home must comply with the limits on the number of children under care, as set forth in Subsection 402.302(7), Florida Statutes. Ms. Edwards had been reminded of the requirement for background screening of household members at least once, via letter dated February 12, 1993. Nonetheless, the Department received two complaints in December 1994, regarding the presence of an unidentified person in the home. One complaint noted that an "unidentified male houseguest was eating and drinking the children's food." The second complaint noted that Ms. Edwards was out of town and left the children in the care of her mother and "a guy named Wayne." On January 4, 1995, the Department sent Ms. Edwards a letter informing her of the complaints and reminding her that she could not leave children with persons who had not undergone background screening. The letter noted that neither Ms. Edwards' mother nor "Wayne" had undergone background screening. The adult male referenced in the complaints was Wayne Brueckman, who was residing in the Edwards home. On February 6, 1995, in compliance with the Department's letter, Ms. Edwards submitted the necessary information to initiate background screening on Mr. Brueckman, listed as a "Household Member" and "Sitter/Relief." Mr. Brueckman's background screening revealed no disqualifying information. Ms. Edwards was reminded of the statutory capacity limitations in person and in writing at least 11 times between September 1987 and June 1999. On at least five occasions, Ms. Edwards responded that she understood the capacity limitations. Nonetheless, Department employees personally observed violations of the capacity limitations on at least five separate occasions. By letter dated July 7, 1999, the Department gave Ms. Edwards an administrative warning that she would be subject to imposition of a fine if she continued to operate in violation of the statutory capacity limitations. On August 13, 1996, an abuse report was received by the Department that Wayne Brueckman sexually abused D.S., a three- year-old boy, in the Edwards home. The child had told his mother that Mr. Brueckman kissed his penis, put a "white thing" in his anus, and spanked him when he defecated in his pants. However, the child would not repeat his allegations to protective investigator Mae Cook, and an examining physician could find no physical evidence of sexual abuse. Mr. Brueckman denied the allegations. Ms. Edwards was interviewed by Ms. Cook concerning the August 13, 1996, complaint. Ms. Edwards denied any inappropriate activity and vouched for Mr. Brueckman as her friend of 20 years. Though she closed the file because she did not have sufficient evidence to confirm the allegations, Ms. Cook strongly suggested that children staying overnight not be allowed to sleep in Mr. Brueckman's room and that he not be left alone at any time with children, to avoid any repetition of such allegations. A repeated citation in the violation notices from this point forward was that Ms. Edwards would leave Mr. Brueckman alone with the children in her care for extended periods of time. Concerns regarding Mr. Brueckman were also raised during an investigation of another sexual abuse report received by the Department on November 18, 1996. This complaint involved Z.A., a three-year-old boy in care at the family day care home. The child told a story of some adult in the Edwards home rubbing his genitals, but his limited verbal skills made it unclear whether a man or woman did the touching. Wayne Brueckman and Marcia Edwards were both interviewed by the protective investigator and both denied any inappropriate activity. Again, there was no physical evidence to confirm the allegations. On February 5, 2001, the Department received an abuse report that W.W., a 19-month-old boy in care at the Edwards home, had bruises along his spine and arms, two large bumps on his head, and a patch of hair loss on the top of his head. Medical examinations by the Child Protection Team and the child's pediatrician determined the injuries were significant, inflicted and the result of physical abuse. The abuse report was called in by J.W., the divorced father of the child. W.W. lived with his father and his older sister in the home of J.W.'s mother. J.W.'s teenaged nephew also lived in the house. W.W. did not see his biological mother. J.W. worked as a chef, and left W.W. and his older sister at the Edwards home on evenings that he worked. The medical determination of the approximate time of injury indicated the injuries occurred either at the child's residence or the Edwards family day care home. When at his residence, W.W. was in his father's care. J.W. denied inflicting the injuries on his son, and discounted the possibility that anyone else living in his household might have done so. J.W. was certain that his son's injuries were inflicted at the Edwards home. W.W.'s older sister told investigators that "bad boys" at the Edwards home had inflicted the injuries on the boy. J.W. readily consented to the CAT Scan, eye examination, and clotting factor test recommended by the pediatrician. The father expressed concern about the supervision provided by the family day care home. He recalled several times in the past that when he came to pick up his children at night, he could look in the window of the Edwards home and see Mr. Brueckman sleeping. It required lengthy knocking and ringing of the doorbell to finally rouse Mr. Brueckman or anyone else in the home. Wayne Brueckman and Marcia Edwards were interviewed by the Protective Investigator. Both denied any inappropriate activity or failure to supervise. However, based upon the medical evidence, and multiple interviews including questioning of the children in attendance at the family day care home, the report was closed as verified. The Protective Investigator concluded that the child was injured by other children at the family day care home. The case determination found that Marcia Edwards and Wayne Brueckman inadequately supervised and neglected W.W. On February 22, 2001, while the W.W. case was being investigated, Ms. Edwards applied to renew her family day care home registration. Based upon the W.W. investigation, the Department issued a denial of registration on May 29, 2002. Ms. Edwards requested a formal administrative hearing to contest the denial of registration. The Department forwarded the matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings, where it was assigned DOAH Case No. 01-2840. A hearing was scheduled for September 19, 2001, in Fort Myers, Florida, before Judge Daniel S. Manry. Counsel for Ms. Edwards requested a continuance due to a scheduling conflict. Judge Manry granted the continuance and rescheduled the hearing for October 19, 2001. On October 12, 2001, the Department filed a motion to relinquish jurisdiction, accompanied by a settlement agreement between the parties. On October 15, 2001, Judge Manry entered an order closing the file in DOAH Case No. 01-2840. The settlement agreement required licensure of the family day care home, which would obligate the family day care home to comply with increased regulatory standards. One such standard prohibits the owner from working out of the home during the hours the family day care is operating. Rule 65C- 20.009(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code. In the settlement agreement, Ms. Edwards affirmatively recognized her on-going obligation to comply with all requirements of the Florida Statutes and Administrative Code applicable to family day care homes. The settlement agreement also provided that the Edwards home would receive a consultation by Child Care of Southwest Florida ("CCSWF"), a private, non-profit regional organization that, among many other services, provides training and technical assistance to home-based child care providers. This consultation would be at the Department's expense. CCSWF's consultant would assess the home's compliance with licensing standards and make suggestions as to implementation of best practices. The Department's experience has been that CCSWF's consultation, technical assistance, and training have proven successful in improving marginal child care providers. On December 17, 2001, Lisa Bledsoe, the infant/toddler coordinator for CCSWF, visited the Edwards home for the required consultation. Ms. Bledsoe rated the home based on the Family Day Care Rating Scale ("FDCRS"), an objective tool developed by the National Network for Child Care for the assessment of infant/toddler group care. The FDCRS consists of 32 items which assess the quality of center-based child care for children up to 30 months of age. This 32-item scale covers six categories: Space and Furnishings for Care and Learning, Basic Care, Language and Reasoning, Learning Activities, Social Development, and Adult Needs. Each item can be ranked from 1 to 7. A ranking of 1 describes care that does not even meet custodial care needs while a ranking of 7 describes excellent, high- quality personalized care. The Edwards family day care home received a cumulative score of 2.375 on the FDCRS. Deficits included a sterile and child-unfriendly interior, lack of interesting and colorful pictures and no pictures at child's eye level, insufficient opportunity for outdoor play, minimum hand washing requirements not met, diapers not checked regularly, failure to conduct regular fire drills, dim lighting, and insufficient activities to encourage language development. Ms. Bledsoe contacted Ms. Edwards to notify her the completed rating would be mailed to her. Ms. Bledsoe offered follow-up visits, technical assistance, and training classes for caregivers. Ms. Edwards rejected the offer of further assistance. While acknowledging that her recommendations were not mandatory, Ms. Bledsoe could recall no other day care provider rejecting additional help from CCSWF, which is provided free of charge. The need for Ms. Edwards to provide supervision at the family day care home and to be present was an important issue in the settlement of DOAH Case No. 01-2840. On October 10, 2001, prior to the signing of the settlement agreement, Ellen Blake, a licensing counselor for the Department, conducted a pre- licensing orientation and review at the Edwards home. Ms. Blake and Ms. Edwards had a lengthy discussion about supervision requirements. Ms. Edwards told Ms. Blake that she would be absent only when taking and picking her children up from school. She and Mr. Brueckman were sharing the care of the children. After obtaining licensure, Ms. Edwards appeared to be providing closer supervision of Mr. Brueckman. Ms. Edwards was present for six of the seven licensing inspections the Department performed between October 10, 2001, through June 18, 2002. However, testimony from Ms. Edwards' own witnesses established Ms. Edwards was readily available in the evenings to do extensive hours of volunteer work. Additionally, she transported her own minor children to after-school and weekend activities and was always available to transport other people's children to and from school and outside activities. Further, Ms. Edwards operated a photography business that often involved out-of-home shoots, including a large annual undertaking at St. Xavier School. Mr. Brueckman was left alone with children when Ms. Edwards was out of the home. Ms. Edwards' witnesses also established that she provides child care 24 hours a day, 7 days per week, which is a service not readily available in the community. The home is consistently well utilized, especially during the expanded hours. Mr. Brueckman was providing evening and night supervision, and slept in the same room as the children under his care. The Edwards have three minor children who often have multiple friends spend the night for sleep-overs. Neither the Edwards children nor their friends were restricted from access to the designated child care room. On June 13, 2002, the Department received an abuse report stating that Wayne Brueckman sexually abused D.S., a two- and a half-year-old boy in care at the Edwards family day care home. On June 20, 2002, during an interview with the Lee County Sheriff's Office, Mr. Brueckman admitted to inappropriately touching the child's penis and having the child touch his penis during diaper changes. Mr. Brueckman has been charged with two counts of felony lewd and lascivious molestation and is awaiting trial. Commission of sexual battery on a two-and-a-half-year- old child is a serious violation of the obligation of a child care provider to supervise a child entrusted to their care and for which they are receiving payment. Molestation of a child creates a great likelihood of actual or potential harm. Mr. Brueckman lived at the Edwards home and received only room and board for the continuous care he provided for the children of paying clients, as well as Ms. Edwards' three minor children and their numerous friends. Mr. Brueckman admitted to having had no dating or sexual relationships with an adult for over ten years. He had no private time and felt overwhelmed by his work situation. On June 20, 2002, the Department cited Ms. Edwards for a deficiency in supervision as she failed to meet the needs of children in her care due to Wayne Brueckman's molestation of D.S. The operator of a family day care home is ultimately responsible for the supervision of the children in care. Rule 65C-20.009(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code. Upon learning of Mr. Brueckman's actions, Ms. Edwards immediately evicted him from her house. To meet the requirement that she have a trained substitute caregiver in the home, Ms. Edwards designated her husband as her substitute in July 2002. As of the date of hearing, Mr. Edwards had not completed the required training. During the nine licensing inspections the Department performed between October 10, 2001 through July 1, 2002, various violations of minimum licensing standards were found, including: inadequate lighting in the playroom; failure to keep up-to-date immunization records; failure to keep on file the required enrollment information; ants on the kitchen table; home, furnishings, toys and equipment not kept clean and in good repair; incomplete first aid supplies; and hazardous materials (alcoholic beverages and protein shake mix) within a child's reach. Ms. Edwards corrected all these violations. The Department never sought to fine Ms. Edwards for any of the cited violations. By notice, dated August 14, 2002, the Department revoked Ms. Edwards' license based on the reasons delineated in the letter including past history, licensing inspections, the arrest of Mr. Brueckman for lewd and lascivious molestation of a child at the family day care home, and the ongoing failure to have a qualified substitute.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered revoking the license of Marcia Edwards to operate a family day care home. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of February, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 February, 2003.
The Issue Whether Petitioner has grounds to impose a fine for a violation of the rule that requires the family day care operator to allow access to the entire premises of the family day care home for inspection.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to the allegations of this case, Respondent, Mary Higdon, was licensed by Petitioner to operate a family day care in her home. Barbara Ivey, DCF, has been the day care licensing representative for Respondent since 1996. At Ivey's first inspection of the day care home, Higdon refused her access to the master bedroom. Ivey did not note the violation. However, Ivey advised Respondent that the rule required that the entire premises had to be inspected. In 1998, during a scheduled appointment, Respondent again refused access to the master bedroom on the grounds that her husband worked nights and was sleeping. Ivey insisted that she must inspect the master bedroom and she would be back. When Ivey returned, she was able to inspect the master bedroom. In 1999, during a scheduled appointment, Respondent again refused access to the master bedroom. Ivey reminded her that Respondent had agreed to the time of the appointment and that this refusal was not acceptable. Respondent then stated that someone could "peek" in to the room while her husband slept. A trainee, who was with Ivey, went with Respondent toward the bedroom; the door was opened slightly, and the trainee peeked into the room but was not able to see into the dark room. On August 24, 1999, Ivey made an unannounced visit to Respondent's home to inspect the entire premises and re-check an air-conditioner that was out of compliance. This re-check was necessary for re-licensing. Ivey arrived at the home on a weekday during regular operating hours. Stacy Rivera, Respondent's daughter, answered the door to Ivey. Ivey identified herself and asked to inspect the premises. She explained to Rivera that the inspection would only take a moment. Rivera acknowledged that she knew that Ivey was an inspector for DCF. Ivey also noted that there were six or seven children present at the home. Rivera indicated that all of them were her children. Rivera stated her mother was out of town and refused to permit Ivey entry. Ivey requested that Rivera contact her mother so she could complete the re-licensing. Ivey observed Rivera calling someone, but did not know who. Rivera returned to the door and reiterated that Ivey could not enter. Rivera has not been screened to care for children. Rivera testified that she was not an employee of the family day care. Respondent did not notify Petitioner that the day care would not be in operation during the week of the inspection.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Respondent was found guilty of violating Rule 65C-20.012(3), Florida Administrative Code, and that an administrative fine of $100.00 be imposed. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of August, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 7th day of August, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Carmen M. Sierra, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 400 West Robinson Street, Suite S-1106 Orlando, Florida 32801-1792 Mary Higdon 7141 Green Needle Drive Winter Park, Florida 32792 Virginia A. Daire, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204B 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Josie Tomayo, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204B 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence allegations contained in its Proposed Revocation of Respondent's Family Day Care License No. 907 dated January 21, 2004.
Findings Of Fact Based upon observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, exhibits admitted into evidence, stipulations and arguments of the parties, evidentiary rulings made pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes (2003), and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant and material facts are determined: 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 that 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 without notice. Respondent is the provider and licensed owner of a licensed family day care home located at 965 Waldon Avenue in Bartow, Florida (hereinafter “Respondent’s facility” or “the facility”). Respondent’s facility consists of a family residence with a connecting door to the converted garage. The number of children Respondent may have in “care” each day depends upon: (1) the ages of the children in care and (2) the number of qualified caregivers available to supervise the children in various age groups. This restrictive requirement, referred to as the “child care ratio,” is mandated by statute, the violation of which creates a dangerous situation and a dangerous condition for the safety and well-being of the children in care. The Inspection and violations On March 12, 2003, Respondent’s facility was inspected by Gloria Mathews (Ms. Mathews) and Tricia Step (Ms. Step), and several areas of non-compliance were identified during this inspection. The following non-compliant items were noted on Petitioner’s Family Child Care Home Inspection Checklist: unsafe storage of materials dangerous to children was observed in the bathroom drawers, litter was observed in areas where children play, equipment or plumbing not in working order (item was a baby crib and toilet with tissue the children had not flushed), no operable smoke detector or fire extinguisher, the surface of the diaper changing area was not impermeable, no record of fire drills for the past six months, and an up-to-date and age-appropriate immunization record was missing for one child. Two other non-compliant items, Ipecac not labeled with poison control phone number and seven pre-school age children ages 12 months and older were in the facility. Respondent may provide care to only six children in this age group. The extra child was taken home, and this item was corrected at the time of inspection. On December 18, 2003, Respondent’s facility was inspected by Ms. Mathews and Ms. Step, and the following non- compliant items were noted on the Family Child Care Home Complaint: Respondent had 18 children in the facility three of which were infants. Respondent was not present at the time of inspection, and the substitute caregiver was in charge. Petitioner could not determine whether screening of the substitute caregiver, Elizabeth Ricks, had been completed. Ms. Mathews and Ms. Step remained at Respondent’s facility until the parents picked up their children. James Hayes (Mr. Hayes), Respondent’s husband, took one child home. On January 21, 2004, Petitioner informed Respondent by certified mail of the proposed revocation of her family day care license initially issued in March 2002. Petitioner alleged that the decision to revoke Respondent’s license to operate a family child care facility was based on her failure to ensure that the children' substitute caregivers were adequately screened and because Respondent's home was over capacity and out of ratio. The notice stated: On December 18, 2003, there were eighteen (18) children in your day care home. Three (3) of the children were under the age of twelve (12) months. With 3 infants in your care, your license permits you to care for a maximum of six (6) children. The number of children in your home far exceeds the number of children allowed. During an inspection on March 12, 2003, seven (7) preschool age children ages 12 months and older were observed in your home. You are permitted six (6) children in this age group. This violates section 402.302(7), F.S. You also failed to insure [sic] that the substitute care persons in your home caring for children were properly screened in accordance with section 402.313, Florida Statutes. At the final hearing, Petitioner’s inspectors, Ms. Mathews and Ms. Step testified that when they arrived at Respondent’s facility on December 18, 2003, Mr. Hayes was in the facility. Based upon the testimony of the inspectors, Petitioner argued in its post-hearing submittal that Mr. Hayes had not been screened and that he had a criminal record. Petitioner presented no evidence to substantiate the claim that Mr. Hayes had a criminal record. The testimony and argument regarding this issue is hearsay without corroboration and disregarded. Respondent's Evidence Respondent testified that she was out of town on December 18, 2003, and that her substitute caregiver had begun training classes, but apparently had not completed the course and, therefore, had no background check performed. According to Respondent, non-compliant items identified by Petitioner’s inspectors were corrected as soon thereafter as possible. Respondent testified that she was confused regarding the infant and pre-school child-to-caregiver ratio because it was never explained to her in the manner testified to by both Ms. Mathews and Ms. Step. Continuing, Respondent testified that her substitute caregiver(s) had completed the required training and are now qualified to assist her. She contended that submission of the names and certification of training completion had been provided to Petitioner and that she was awaiting Petitioner's response. This testimony was not disputed by Petitioner. Respondent, to counter allegations that her facility and personnel presented a significant or potential risk of harm to the children, provided four testimonial letters from parents who were regular patrons of her facility. Each of the four parents expressed confidence in the assurance of safety and the ready necessity of Respondent’s child care services during the work week and often times during the weekend. Respondent presented photographs of her facility evidencing the facility’s configuration, carpeting, equipment, beds, and other furniture. Respondent testified that Mr. Hayes does not enter the facility during the time children are present. To ensure separation between the family’s living area and the attached rooms used for child care, Respondent installed a door between the room leading from the family’s living area to the anteroom and the garage. Respondent corrected every non-compliant item identified by Petitioner during their two inspections of her facility. Many, if not all, corrections were made when identified; i.e., the clogged toilet was flushed. The non- compliant items, individually or collectively, were minor and did not directly create an unsafe situation for the children in care. These efforts demonstrated a sincere intent and desire to comply with Petitioner's rules and regulations and to continue to provide a safe and necessary family day care home for working parents in her immediate neighborhood. Violations Proven by Petitioner Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence that on March 12, 2003, there were seven preschool children ages 12 months and older in the facility, Family Day Care License No. 907 permits a maximum of six children in care, an amount in violation of Subsection 402.302(7)(c), Florida Statutes (2003). Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence that on December 18, 2003, there were 18 children in Respondent's facility in violation of Subsection 402.302(7)(b), Florida Statutes (2003).
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Finding of Facts 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 Subsection 402.302(7), Florida Statutes (2003), twice. Finding Petitioner not guilty of violating Section 402.313(3), Florida Statutes (2003). Setting aside the revocation of Respondent's family day care home license. Suspending Respondent's family day care home license until such time that the following conditions are met to the satisfaction of the Department: Respondent's substitute caregivers are identified, trained, qualified, and approved by Petitioner. Respondent demonstrates an understanding of the required child-to-child caregiver ratios. Respondent has trained each of her substitute caregivers on the child-to-child caregiver ratios and provides written instructions to be followed by her caregivers each day when the children in care in a specific age group are out of ratio to the number of caregivers present. That all conditions hereinabove are completed to the satisfaction of Petitioner as the condition for lifting the suspension. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of September 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FRED L. BUCKINE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of September, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack Emory Farley, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 4720 Old Highway 37 Lakeland, Florida 33813-2030 Theresa Hayes Arielle's Angel Care 965 Waldon Avenue Bartow, Florida 33830 Paul F. Flounlacker, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204B Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Josie Tomayo, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue in the case is whether the registration of Thorpe Lindsay's family day care home should be revoked.
Findings Of Fact The Department is responsible for the registration and supervision of family day care homes, pursuant to Section 402.313, Florida Statutes (2007). Respondent, Thorpe Lindsey, has been registered to operate a family day care home at 2306 Savoy Drive, Orlando, Florida, since December 18, 2006. 3. On June 27, 2007; July 13, 2007; and July 26, 2007, Respondent allowed an unscreened and unapproved substitute, Sheneka Henderson, to be alone with and supervise children in the family day care home. Respondent was not present in the home on at least two of these occasions. On all three occasions, Respondent appeared after the Department's protective investigator or child care licensing supervisor noted his absence and the presence of Ms. Henderson as the caregiver.2 On July 13, 2007, Respondent was cautioned in person about the repercussions of allowing unscreened personnel to supervise children. On September 14, 2007, the Department issued an Administrative Complaint against Respondent, seeking to impose a civil penalty in the amount of $500.00 for the three instances of using an unscreened and unapproved substitute caregiver. Respondent refused to accept service of the Department's certified letter. The copy of the Administrative Complaint sent by regular U.S. Mail was not returned to the Department, and Respondent never sought a hearing or otherwise contested the allegations of the Administrative Complaint. Aside from the problem of unscreened personnel, Respondent also had a recurring problem of caring for a number of children greatly in excess of the ratios allowed by statute in his family day care home. Under any circumstances, a family day care home may provide care for no more than ten children. See § 402.302(7), Florida Statutes (2007). On June 27, 2007, the Department sent a certified letter to Respondent noting that on the previous day, the Department had received a report that Respondent was caring for between 30 and 40 children. The letter cautioned Respondent that he must immediately reduce enrollment and submit a written plan to the Department by July 10, 2007, identifying the names and birth dates of the children for whom Respondent would continue to provide care, as well as the names and birth dates of the children whom Respondent eliminated from his roster. Respondent never provided the required documentation to the Department. The Early Learning Coalition of Orange County is a public/private partnership established to ensure that children enter school ready to learn. In coordination with the Department, the Early Learning Coalition provides health and safety inspections for anyone receiving school readiness funding. Because Respondent received such funding, Eric Allen, an inspector for the Early Learning Coalition, made regular visits to the family day care home. On July 6, 2007, Mr. Allen made a routine visit to Respondent's home and found several violations, including a ratio violation, the presence of unscreened volunteers caring for children, chemicals under kitchen and bathroom sinks without door locks on the cabinets, and uncapped electrical outlets. On July 9, 2007, the Early Learning Coalition sent a letter to Respondent outlining the violations and requiring their correction pending a re-inspection of the family day care home. On July 20, 2007, Mr. Allen conducted a routine visit to Respondent's home and again found the home to be out of ratio. On July 26, 2007, the Early Learning Coalition sent a letter, signed by Donna J. Williams, director of quality services, to Respondent that stated the following, in relevant part: This letter will clear up any confusion as to the number of children you are legally allowed to care for. As a family home provider, six (6) is the maximum number of children under the age of five you are allowed to have in care at one time. If an infant is present, the maximum number of children allowable at one time is five (5). I am enclosing the state ratio chart so you may be clear on the number and age of children you are legally allowed to have in your care at one time. Since this falls under our Non-compliance Policy, you are hereby on notice that if there is any other incident where you are found in non-compliance with any Level I violation, the parents of school readiness funded children will be contacted and given the opportunity to transfer as you will be ineligible to receive school readiness funds for a period of one year. On September 7, 2007, at approximately 3:45 p.m., Mr. Allen again visited Respondent's registered family day care home. Mr. Allen found a note on the front door stating, "We are on a field trip," with contact information for parents at the bottom. Mr. Allen noted that the contact numbers on the note did not match the contact information on file at the Early Learning Coalition. He also noted that all of the windows of the house were covered with blinds or cardboard. Mr. Allen testified that he had made several prior attempts to visit the home in recent days, but that on each occasion was met with a note claiming the children were out on a "field trip." He was about to walk away from the house when he heard a baby crying inside. He rang the doorbell and knocked on the door but received no response. He called out to whomever was inside the house, "This is Eric from the Early Learning Coalition. I can hear a baby crying. You need to open the door or you are violating your provider agreement and you are in danger of being de-funded." There was still no response from inside the house. Mr. Allen walked around to the back door. He knocked on the window of the rear childcare area and repeated his warning. After several minutes, a car pulled up to the home. A woman got out of the car and approached the front door. Mr. Allen asked if she was there to pick up a child, and she answered affirmatively. She rang the doorbell but no one answered. Mr. Allen offered to call the contact number, but the woman just turned and drove away. Mr. Allen called the Early Learning Coalition's office and asked the administrative assistant to verify and call the contact number for Respondent's home. When the assistant called the number, a woman who identified herself as Respondent's sister answered and stated that the children were out on a field trip. Mr. Allen then called the contact number and asked Respondent's sister where the children were. She stated they were on a field trip to Pizza Hut. Mr. Allen told her he could hear a baby crying inside and that if the door was not opened he would call the police. Respondent's sister hung up the phone. Just as Mr. Allen's phone conversation concluded, approximately 25 minutes after he first arrived at the house, the woman in the car returned. As the woman walked up to the front door, the door was opened by Toshiba Lindsey, another of Respondent's sisters, who was holding a baby she said was her son. Mr. Allen showed Ms. Lindsey his identification and asked her why he had been left outside trying to get someone to open the door for nearly a half hour. Ms. Lindsey claimed to have been sleeping and not to have heard the knocking. Mr. Allen entered the home and started down the hallway, but Ms. Lindsey forbade him from entering one of the rooms. Mr. Allen could hear a child crying inside the room. He demanded to know whose child was behind the door. Ms. Lindsey denied there was anyone in the room. For several minutes, Mr. Allen attempted to convince Ms. Lindsey to open the door, but she continued to say that she could not open it. Mr. Allen told her to call Respondent, who was not in the house. Mr. Allen spoke to Respondent and told him that he would call the police if Ms. Lindsey did not open the door. Respondent hung up on him. Mr. Allen called 911 and requested an officer to come to the house and open the door. A moment later, the door to the room opened and another woman, Sheneka Henderson, emerged with 13 children. Neither Ms. Lindsey nor Ms. Henderson had been background screened or trained to act as caregivers. Mr. Allen recorded the names and ages of the children, then left the home. Respondent never showed up at the house while Mr. Allen was there. On September 10, 2007, the Early Learning Coalition sent Respondent a letter notifying him that he would be ineligible to receive school readiness funds for a period of one year, based on Respondent's repeated violations of mandatory state ratio requirements.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Family Services enter a final order revoking the registration of Thorpe Lindsey to operate a family day care home. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of April, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 10th day of April, 2008.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent's license to operate a family day care home should be revoked.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony and evidence received at the hearing, the following findings are made: Parties The Department is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating child care facilities, including family day care homes. The Department 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 inspection 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. The Department 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 1218 Jordan Avenue in Orlando, Florida (hereafter "Respondent's facility" or "the facility"). Respondent and her husband reside at that address as well. Respondent has operated day care homes in Florida since 1992, and she has been involved in child care for approximately 21 years. As a result, she is or should be familiar with the rules regulating family day care homes. Respondent keeps children in the back portion of her home. The children also play in Respondent's backyard, which is enclosed by an approximately six-foot high wooden fence. A wooden gate in the fence connects Respondent's backyard to the backyard of the house immediately behind Respondent's home. That house has been rented by Annette Rodgers since November 2002. Respondent does not have a pool in her yard. Ms. Rodgers' yard does have a pool, which at the time of the Department's February 27, 2003 inspection (discussed below), was only partially filled with water. Ms. Rodgers' pool is not visible from Respondent's back yard because of the wooden fence and gate. The photographs and videotape received into evidence show that Ms. Rodgers' pool is now completely enclosed by a series of fences.4 The evidence does not clearly and convincingly establish that the fences were not in place on February 27, 2003. Indeed, the weeds and high grass which can be seen along the base of and around the posts of the chain-link fence and the discoloration on some of the fence posts indicate that at least that fence has been in place for quite some time.5 Previous Inspections of Respondent's Facility and Actions Taken by the Department Respondent's facility was inspected on May 28, June 14, and September 30, 2002. Several areas of noncompliance were identified during each of those inspections, including inadequate supervision of children, unsafe storage of chemicals, evidence of roaches in the home, and incomplete enrollment and health records for the children at the home. On each occasion, Respondent was given a period of time within which to correct the areas of noncompliance. The inadequate supervision for which Respondent was cited in June 14, 2002, involved several children playing unsupervised in Respondent's carport area, which has access to the street; several children playing in the backyard under the "supervision" of Respondent's mother, who was not an authorized caregiver; and several children playing unsupervised on the porch area in the vicinity of tools and small screws. The Department issued Respondent a provisional license on October 28, 2002, presumably as part of the license renewal process. The provisional license was based upon Respondent's history of noncompliance with the Department's minimum standards, and it was valid through April 2, 2003, unless Respondent applied for an received a change in license status (which she apparently did not) or "if the license is suspended or revoked by the Department." A provisional license is issued where the Department has continued concerns regarding the day care home's compliance with the applicable statutes and rules. A provisional license is issued in lieu of denying a license renewal or suspending or revoking the home's license. A provisional license gives the licensee an opportunity to correct the areas of noncompliance, and because such homes are inspected more frequently, the Department has an opportunity to monitor the licensee's progress. On October 29, 2002, Respondent was assessed an administrative fine of $100.00 based upon deficiencies identified during the May 28 and June 14, 2002, inspections. The fine was based primarily upon the incident described above involving inadequate supervision of the children at the home. Respondent apparently did not contest the administrative fine or the issuance of the provisional license rather than a standard license. Despite the provisional license and the administrative fine, the Department's inspections continued to identify areas of noncompliance at Respondent's facility. For example, the November 14, 2002, inspection identified "evidence of rodents/vermin in the home" as well as incomplete enrollment and immunization records for the children in the home. The December 18, 2002, inspection identified these same deficiencies, including "live roaches in the children's area and the kitchen," as well as the storage of plastic shopping bags and chemicals which can pose dangers to children in an unlocked cabinet accessible to the children. These violations were the same as or similar to those for which Respondent had been previously cited and which led to the imposition of the administrative fine and issuance of the provisional license. The Department did not take immediate action to suspend or revoke Respondent's license based upon the results of the November 14 and December 18, 2002, inspections. Instead, the Department continued to give Respondent an opportunity to bring her home into compliance with the minimum standards in the Department's licensing rules and statutes. Inspection of Respondent's Facility on February 27, 2003 The Department next inspected Respondent's facility on February 27, 2003. That inspection was conducted by Department employee Brandi Blanchard. Ms. Blanchard had been responsible for inspecting Respondent's facility since at least September 2002, so she was familiar with the layout of the facility and its history of noncompliance. Respondent testified that Ms. Blanchard, unlike the prior inspector, had been "very good to her." Ms. Blanchard arrived at Respondent's facility by car between 8:30 a.m. and 8:45 a.m. As she arrived, Respondent was pulling her car into the driveway/carport at the facility. Ms. Blanchard parked her car directly behind Respondent's car. Ms. Blanchard got out of her car as Respondent was getting out of hers, and she said, "Hello, Ms. Alli," to Respondent. Upon seeing Ms. Blanchard, Respondent quickly went into the house through the carport door. Ms. Blanchard followed Respondent into the facility. Ms. Blanchard lost sight of Respondent as she went down a hallway towards the back of the house where the children were located. The backdoor of the house was open, and by the time that Ms. Blanchard caught up with Respondent, Respondent was directing the children through the facility's backyard towards the back gate connecting Respondent's yard to Ms. Rodgers' yard. Several of the children, led by Ms. Rodgers' 14-year-old son carrying an infant in a car seat and Ms. Rodgers' 13-year-old son carrying a toddler had already reached Ms. Rodgers' yard. Ms. Blanchard told Respondent to stop and return to the facility with the children, which she did. Ms. Blanchard went through the open gate onto Ms. Rodgers' property and directed Ms. Rodgers' sons to return to Respondent's facility with the children, which they did. While on Ms. Rodgers' property, Ms. Blanchard saw a partially-filled swimming pool and other ongoing construction. Ms. Blanchard did not notice any fencing around the pool and saw one of the children, which she estimated to be three or four years old, walking in the construction area close to the edge of the pool. After the children had been returned, Ms. Blanchard assessed the situation and commenced her inspection of the remainder of Respondent's facility. Ms. Blanchard found roach droppings in the bathtub and in other locations in the facility. Respondent acknowledged a roach problem, but claimed that she had an exterminator working on the problem and that he was due to come out and treat the facility. Respondent did not present any documentation to Ms. Blanchard to corroborate her claims regarding the exterminator, nor did she introduce such documentation at the hearing. Ms. Blanchard found plastic bags in an unlocked cabinet accessible to the children. Respondent acknowledged at the hearing that the bags were in the cabinet and further acknowledged the suffocation danger that they posed to young children. Ms. Blanchard's review of the facility's records identified missing enrollment and immunization records for the children in the home. However, Ms. Blanchard did not document the children whose records were missing and she did not determine whether, as Respondent claimed at the time and in her testimony at the hearing, any of the missing records were for students who had enrolled in Respondent's facility within the prior two weeks. Ms. Blanchard documented the results of her inspection, including the events surrounding the movement of the children to Ms. Rodgers' yard on her inspection report. The inspection report identified each of the violations that she observed, including inadequate supervision based upon Respondent's absence from the facility, unsafe storage of materials dangerous to children (i.e., plastic bags) in a location accessible to the children, evidence of roaches, incomplete enrollment and immunization records, and more than the allowed number of children in the home. Ms. Blanchard also cited Respondent's facility for the dangers posed by Ms. Rodgers' pool since the children were being taken onto Ms. Rodgers' property. With respect to the citation for having too many children, Ms. Blanchard's inspection report did not include any detailed information about the children such as their names (or initials), ages, or descriptions. The report simply stated that Ms. Blanchard counted seven children at the facility -- i.e., "3 infants, 3 preschool and 1 school age child." Ms. Blanchard's testimony at the hearing referred to only two infants, which was consistent with Respondent's testimony on that issue. As a result, the evidence is not clear and convincing that there were seven children in Respondent's care at the facility rather than the authorized six children. During the course of her inspection, Ms. Blanchard did not see any adults (other than Respondent, who arrived as Ms. Blanchard was arriving) at the facility. It is undisputed that Respondent's husband, who is the designated substitute caregiver, was not at the facility that morning. There is no credible evidence that Respondent's 22- year-old son, Abdel, was at the facility that morning. He did not testify at the hearing, and, if as Respondent claims, Abdel was at the facility that morning, Ms. Blanchard would have seen him at some point during the commotion surrounding Respondent's rushing the children out the back door or during her subsequent inspection of the facility. In any event, Abdel was not the substitute caregiver designated by Respondent. He was not even authorized to watch the children because, although he had been background screened by the Department, he had not taken the Department's mandatory child care training program and was not certified in cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). It is more likely than not that Ms. Rodgers' teenage sons were actually left to supervise the children at Respondent's facility during the time that Respondent was gone on the morning of February 27, 2003. Indeed, that is the most likely explanation of their presence at the facility and their involvement in the movement of the children to Ms. Rodgers' yard. However, the evidence on this issue is not clear and convincing. Respondent's explanation of her actions on the morning of the inspection -- i.e., that she hurried into the house upon her arrival and directed all of the children to Ms. Rodgers' yard so she could convey an important message to Ms. Rodgers -- is not credible. Her explanation of the roach droppings that Ms. Blanchard found in the bathtub -- i.e., that it was actually dirt from washing one of the children's feet -- is also not credible. By contrast, Respondent's explanation of the incomplete records -- i.e., that the missing records were for those children who had enrolled in the facility within the prior two weeks -- is reasonable. Because Ms. Blanchard's inspection report did not identify the children whose records were missing and did not document the date of their enrollment, the evidence is insufficient to prove this violation. Respondent admitted at the hearing that she "was taking a chance" by leaving the children at the facility without her husband, the designated substitute caregiver, being present. Respondent testified that she was gone only 15 minutes to drop one of her children off at school, and that she follows that same routine every day although her husband is usually at the facility while she is gone. After Ms. Blanchard completed her inspection, she discussed the results with Respondent and provided Respondent a copy of the inspection report. Ms. Blanchard then went back to her office and discussed the results of the inspection with her supervisor, Patricia Richardson. Based upon the results of the February 27, 2003, inspection and the history of noncompliance at Respondent's facility (both before and after the provisional license), Ms. Richardson determined that Respondent's license should be revoked. Thereafter, on February 28, 2003, Ms. Richardson 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.
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 revoking Respondent's license to operate a family day care home. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of June, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of June, 2003.
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether the Department of Children and Family Services should revoke the family day care license of Respondents.
Findings Of Fact Respondent has been registered with the Department as a family home day care provider since September of 2001. A registered family home day care does not have to meet all of the requirements that a licensed day care home must meet. However, the same background screening and training requirements must be met. Registered family day care homes are not inspected as often as licensed homes. Each year, the registered provider must complete a renewal application that, among other things, identifies household members and substitute care-givers. The operator of the home and all household members are required to pass a Level 2 background screening. Additionally, registered family home applicants must pass a 30-hour family day care home training, a five-hour early literacy course, and each year, complete 10 hours of in-service of continuing education. Operators of the registered homes must designate a substitute care provider who is also required to go through the background screening. Ms. Huewitt designated Teresa Clary as her substitute care provider on her 2007, 2008, and 2009 applications. Previous Disciplinary Action On three occasions in the fall of 2008 and on one occasion in February 2009, Respondent was found to be out of compliance with ratio requirements, i.e., caring for more children than allowed. Additionally, in November 2008, the Family Services Counselor from the Department called the home and the phone was answered by one of Ms. Huewitt’s adult daughters. That daughter informed the Family Services Counselor that Ms. Huewitt was not home and would be back shortly. The Department then determined that this violated the substitute care requirement as Teresa Clary was designated as the substitute care provider. As a result, the Department issued an Administrative Complaint on January 12, 2009, regarding two incidents of being out-of-ratio and for violation of “listed substitute requirements.” A $300 fine was imposed and the registration was placed on probationary status in February 2009. In a letter dated August 27, 2009, the Department informed Ms. Huewitt that the Probationary Registration was lifted effective August 9, 2009, because “the Operator has been in compliance with ratio and capacity requirements during periodic monitoring/inspections while on probationary registration.”2/ Facts concerning the Amended Notice of Administrative Action Ms. Huewitt has three adult children: Jennifer Oliver, Stephanie Oliver, and Anthony Oliver. Jennifer Oliver was listed as an “other family/household member” on the 2007, 2008, and 2009 applications. As a result, a background screening was conducted on Jennifer. The background screening revealed a disqualifying offense. Jennifer requested an exemption from disqualification, but was denied. Consequently, Jennifer Oliver was not permitted to be in the home during the operational hours of the day care. On February 2, 2009, Ms. Huewitt entered into a safety plan in which she agreed not to allow her daughter, Jennifer, to supervise the children while in her care, or even to allow Jennifer to be in the residence while children are in her care during business hours. Despite this, on August 11, 2009, at approximately 9:25 a.m., the Family Services Counselor, Miatta Jalaber, went to Ms. Huewitt’s home and saw Jennifer in the home. Jennifer exited the home as Ms. Jalaber did her walk-through. As a result, Ms. Jalaber called her supervisor, who instructed Ms. Jalaber to write another safety plan for Ms. Huewitt. The August 11, 2009, safety plan was hand-written by Ms. Jalaber while at Ms. Huewitt’s home day care and states, “I Alisa Huewitt understand that my daughter, Jennifer Oliver, must not be present in my residence [address] during operating hours 7:30 a.m.-6:00 p.m. M-F while I have children in care.” The safety plan was signed by both Ms. Jalaber and Ms. Huewitt. Ms. Jalaber made subsequent visits to Ms. Huewitt’s home on October 30, 2009, December 29, 2009, January 29, 2010, February 5, 2010, February 19, 2010, and March 30, 2010. No other persons were present and Ms. Huewitt’s home was in ratio during those visits. She did observe Jennifer in the home on April 16, 2010, but the day care was closed that day. Stephanie Oliver is not listed on any of the applications as a person residing in the home, but has been seen at Ms. Huewitt’s during hours when the day care is open. While there was some testimony that both Stephanie and Ms. Huewitt’s son Anthony have some sort of criminal background and that they have been seen at the day care during business hours, the record is insufficient to establish that their criminal records contain disqualifying offenses, or that they actually live in the home. What is clear is that Ms. Huewitt is of the belief that it is not necessary to list persons who do not actually reside in the home, but who frequently visit the home, on her applications under the category “Other Family/Household Members.” There were instances in which Ms. Jalaber went to the day care home and was led to believe that Jennifer Oliver was Stephanie Oliver. Ms. Jalaber only learned that the daughter she saw and spoke to at the home was Jennifer, who was not supposed to be there during working hours, when she attended Jennifer’s exemption from disqualifying fact-finding meeting. While the record is insufficient to clearly support a finding that Ms. Huewitt lied to Ms. Jalaber about her daughter’s identity, she was not forthcoming with clarifying the confusion. In July 2009, the Department received an abuse report that Ms. Huewitt’s grandson, Kory Hill, Jr., sustained a skull fracture in her residence during business hours. Ms. Jalaber went to Ms. Huewitt’s home, not to investigate the abuse report, but because there was concern that Kory Hill, Sr., who reportedly was taking care of Kory Hill, Jr., on the day of the incident, was residing in the home. Kory Hill, Jr., is Jennifer’s son. Ms. Jalaber addressed her concerns with Ms. Huewitt.3/ During this visit, Ms. Jalaber learned that there was a separate structure in back of Ms. Huewitt’s house. Ms. Jalaber describes it as being just three steps in back of the main house. The structure contains a large room, a closet, and a bathroom and will hereinafter be referred to as “the apartment.” Ms. Jalaber observed clothes in the apartment’s closet and throughout the apartment, and sofa cushions on the floor. It appeared to Ms. Jalaber that someone was residing in the apartment. Ms. Huewitt denies that Mr. Hill, Sr., resided in her home. However, Ms. Huewitt acknowledges that her infant grandson, Kory Hill, Jr., was injured while in the care of his father, Kory Hill, Sr., and that the injury took place in the apartment in back of her house. The injury took place during the day while children were in her care in the main part of her house. Jhaismen Collins is a Child Protective Investigator with the Department. She was assigned to investigate the abuse report regarding this incident. Her investigation began July 1, 2009, at the emergency room where Kory Hill, Jr., had been taken. While there, she spoke to Ms. Huewitt and other family members present in the emergency room. She then made several visits to Ms. Huewitt’s home to follow-up, after the baby was discharged from the hospital. During the follow-up visits, Ms. Collins observed Stephanie in the home and observed Kory Hill, Sr., packing his belongings to leave the home. While the evidence is inconclusive as to whether Mr. Hill actually resided in the apartment behind Ms. Huewitt’s home, it is clear that he frequented the home and the apartment behind the home to visit his son. His son, Kory, Jr., and another son, Kentavious, who is also Ms. Huewitt's grandson, are now attending Ms. Huewitt’s day care. Ayuana Hale is a Dependency Case manager for the Department. Her job is to provide needed services to the child and family in the case of a verified finding of abuse, neglect, or abandonment. She was assigned to the case involving Kory Hill, Jr., after the abuse investigation was closed as verified. Ms. Hale testified that Mr. Hill is currently incarcerated. She has knowledge of this because she is obligated to try to offer Mr. Hill services while he is incarcerated. Parents of children who attend Ms. Huewitt’s home day care are extremely complimentary of the care their children receive, and are not concerned with the safety of their children while there.
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 placing the license on probation, requiring Respondent to attend further training in the requirements of applicable statutes and rules regarding who must be listed on her applications, requiring those listed to undergo background screening, and requiring successful completion of such training, with no further incidents, prior to approval of Respondent's application for renewal of her registration. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of June, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BARBARA J. STAROS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of June, 2010
The Issue Whether Respondent's registration to operate a family day care home should be revoked.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the allegations of this case, Respondent, Kathy Stone, d/b/a Stone Family Day Care, was registered by the Department to operate a day care facility in her home located at 272 Southwest Fairchild Avenue, Port St. Lucie, Florida. As part of the registration for such day care home, Respondent was required to complete forms on which Respondent was to identify all members of the household residing at the registered location. Specifically, Respondent was to disclose any person over twelve years of age residing at the home. None of the registration forms completed by Respondent disclosed that an individual named Kevin Schaffer resided at the registered home. On more than one occasion law enforcement authorities were called to Respondent's residence in order to intervene in domestic disputes between Respondent and an individual named Kevin Schaffer. On all such occasions, Mr. Schaffer listed his residence as that of the Respondent's day care home. Mr. Schaffer is a convicted felon. Respondent failed to disclose that Mr. Schaffer was a resident over the age of twelve years residing at the registered day care facility.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Family Services enter a Final Order revoking Respondent's registration as a home day care facility. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of May, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. Parrish Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of May, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Gregory D. Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Richard A. Doran, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Sydney L. Schwartz, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 1436-C Old Dixie Highway Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Katherine Stone, pro se 272 Southwest Fairchild Avenue Port St. Lucie, Florida 34984
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner's application for licensure to operate a family day care home should be denied.
Findings Of Fact On June 6, 2008, Petitioner applied for a license to operate a family day care home in Bartow, Florida. As part of the licensure process, the Department is required to conduct an inspection of the home where Petitioner's proposed family day care would be operated. The inspections are conducted by the Department's family safety counselors. Patricia Step was the family safety counselor initially responsible for conducting the licensure inspection of Petitioner's home. On February 20, 2009, prior to conducting the actual inspection, Ms. Step completed a preliminary walk-through of Petitioner's home. The purpose of the walk-through was to advise Petitioner of areas of her home and property that were not in compliance with required standards and needed to be corrected or addressed prior to the licensure inspection. After completing the initial walk-through, Ms. Step listed the areas that needed to be corrected or addressed prior to the licensure inspection in preliminary review notes, which she gave to Petitioner. Those areas were as follows: (1) a fence at least four feet high was needed around the playground area in the backyard; (2) the alarm on one of the two doors in the master bedroom, specifically, the master bathroom door leading to the pool, needed to be repaired; (3) the screen door needed to be locked from the inside so that a child playing outside could not access the swimming pool5; and (4) locks needed to be placed on kitchen cabinets containing cleaning supplies and other harmful items, and knives needed to be placed in upper cabinets. On February 27, 2009, a week after the initial walk-through, Ms. Step conducted a licensure inspection of Petitioner's home. This date was mutually agreed upon by Petitioner and Ms. Step on February 20, 2009, after Petitioner indicated that she could have the four areas of non-compliance corrected or addressed in a week. During the licensure inspection, Ms. Step determined that Petitioner had addressed and/or corrected three of the four items listed in the preliminary review. The one item that had not been addressed was the "pool alarm on the [master bathroom] door" leading to the swimming pool. The alarm on the master bathroom door was part of Brinks' alarm system that included all the other doors in the house which led outside or to the pool area. Petitioner and her husband had this "high tech" alarm system installed after the April 23, 2006, incident discussed below. The alarm system could be programmed to allow each interior door to cause either the alarm to sound or a "chiming sound" when anyone opened the interior door to exit the house. At the time of the inspection, all the interior doors leading to the pool were programmed so that when the alarm system was turned on, the alarm would sound if anyone opened those doors.6 Except for the master bathroom door, the alarm on all the other doors leading to the pool were working properly. Ms. Step recorded the results of the February 27, 2009, inspection on the Department's Inspection Checklist form ("Inspection Checklist"). Of the 38 areas listed on the Inspection Checklist, Ms. Step indicated that Petitioner's application and/or home were non-compliant in two areas-- background screening and swimming pools. In the area of background screening, Ms. Step noted that there was no local criminal background check on file for Carlos Granados, Petitioner's cousin who was temporarily living in Petitioner's household. In the area of swimming pools, Ms. Step noted two areas of non-compliance: (1) the swimming pool at Petitioner's home was not properly maintained; and (2) the "pool alarm" was inoperable. Although the Inspection Checklist noted that the "pool alarm" was inoperable, Ms. Step never told Petitioner that a "pool alarm" needed to be in the swimming pool. Rather, Ms. Step spoke to Petitioner only about the need to repair the alarm on the master bathroom door that led to the pool.7 Based on Ms. Step's statements to Petitioner about the "alarm" and her preliminary review notes, both Ms. Step and Petitioner understood the reference to "pool alarm" on the Inspection Checklist to mean the alarm on the master bathroom door. The Inspection Checklist completed on February 27, 2009, specified that the "due date" to correct the non-compliant areas was April 3, 2009. After completing the licensure inspection on February 27, 2009, Ms. Step intended to return to Petitioner's home to determine if the non-compliant areas had been brought into compliance. However, Ms. Step never returned to Petitioner's home. Instead, Vicki Richmond, a family safety counselor, followed up on Petitioner's progress in addressing the non-compliant areas8 while she was at Petitioner's home conducting a complaint investigation.9 On March 13, 2009, nine months after Petitioner submitted her licensure application, Ms. Richmond conducted a Central Abuse Hotline search on Petitioner and her husband as part of the application review process. The Department is required to search the records of the Central Abuse Hotline for reports of abuse, neglect, or abandonment. This search provides information as to whether Petitioner's name appears in those records, and, if so, whether there were "verified" indicators of maltreatment of children. Both Petitioner and her husband consented to this search. The Central Abuse Hotline search revealed a verified report for inadequate supervision by Petitioner and her husband and some indicators of maltreatment, asphyxiation. The report involved an incident that occurred on April 23, 2006, in which Petitioner and her husband's then three-year-old daughter almost drowned. On or about March 13, 2009, Ms. Richmond notified Ms. Step of the report and advised her that the verified findings needed to be addressed prior to proceeding with the license. On March 20, 2009, while driving across Highway 60 in the Bartow area, Ms. Richmond saw a sign with the name of Petitioner's prospective family day care home and her address and telephone number. Concerned that the sign did not include a license number, Ms. Richmond contacted the licensing office to verify whether Petitioner's home was a licensed family day care home. She was advised that Petitioner's licensure application was "pending" and had not been approved. Ms. Richmond then called Ms. Step to check the status of Petitioner's licensure application. During that conversation, Ms. Step reminded Ms. Richmond that this was the applicant for whom she (Richmond) had recently done the Central Abuse Hotline search. On March 23, 2009, as part of the complaint investigation about Petitioner's sign, Ms. Richmond made an unannounced visit to Petitioner's home. Ms. Richmond advised Petitioner that it was illegal for her to post a sign advertising her home as a family day care home before it was licensed. In response, Petitioner informed Ms. Richmond that after the February 27, 2009, licensure inspection, she (Petitioner) had been told that she could put a sign up and start a waiting list of people interested in day care services. After hearing Petitioner's explanation, Ms. Richmond then told Petitioner that "if" she put up a sign prior to licensure, the sign had to "at least" include in bold letters, "License Pending." On March 23, 2009, immediately after addressing the "sign" issue, Ms. Richmond conducted an unannounced or inspection walk-through of Petitioner's home and discussed issues with Petitioner that Ms. Richmond believed were of concern to the Department. During the walk-through, Petitioner advised Ms. Richmond that the "door alarm" had not yet been repaired. Among the issues Ms. Richmond raised and discussed with Petitioner were: (1) the need to install either a pool alarm or portable pool barriers; (2) the pool was not clean and was only partially filled with water; (3) the spa in the backyard needed a cover; (4) the local criminal background check for Petitioner's cousin had not been received. Ms. Richmond described to Petitioner and her husband two options related to the swimming pool--the "portable pool barriers" and a "pool alarm." In describing the "pool alarm," Ms. Richmond indicated that it was a device that was placed in the pool. She further explained that with this type of "pool alarm," if a child fell in the swimming pool, the alarm would sound. Although the alarm on the master bathroom door was not working on March 23, 2009, Petitioner's husband was making efforts to get the door alarm repaired. However, that day, Ms. Richmond told Petitioner and her husband that even if the alarm on the master bathroom door was repaired, they still needed to have an alarm in the pool. In response to this directive, Petitioner agreed that they would install a "pool alarm" in the swimming pool. After completing the March 23, 2009, walk-through, Ms. Richmond informed Petitioner that the items she had discussed needed to be corrected prior to a license being granted. However, no written documentation was provided to Petitioner regarding the areas of non-compliance discussed during the walk-through or inspection. Ms. Richmond returned to Petitioner's home on March 27, 2009, for her second unannounced visit, which was described as a follow-up to her "complaint investigation." Once there, Ms. Richmond observed that the sign advertising the family day care home was still displayed. However, Petitioner's husband came home while Ms. Richmond was there and immediately took down the sign. During the March 27, 2009, unannounced complaint investigation visit, Petitioner told Ms. Richmond that the alarm on the master bathroom door was not working. About that time, Petitioner's husband arrived and told Ms. Richmond that he had purchased a pool alarm and even showed her the alarm. The "pool alarm" was purchased in response to Ms. Richmond's directive during the March 23, 2009, walk-through but had not been put in the pool, because the pool had not yet been cleaned.10 At the end of the March 27, 2009, unannounced visit, Ms. Richmond talked to Petitioner and her husband about the verified abuse/neglect report regarding the April 23, 2006, incident in which their daughter almost drowned. The findings in the report were "verified" for inadequate supervision by Petitioner and her husband. Given the implications of the abuse/neglect report, Ms. Richmond explained that although Petitioner needed to address the areas of non-compliance, the most pressing and immediate concern was the abuse/neglect report. Petitioner's husband testified credibly that during the conversation described in paragraph 23, Ms. Richmond told him and Petitioner that because of the abuse/neglect report, there was "no way" Petitioner would get a family day care home license. Based on that comment, Petitioner and her husband reasonably believed that Petitioner's application would be denied because of the abuse/neglect report. On March 27, 2009, after being told about the abuse/neglect report and the ramifications of that report, Petitioner and her husband "stopped moving forward" on the areas of non-compliance related to the swimming pool (i.e., cleaning the pool and installing the pool alarm).11 Believing the abuse/neglect report would result in denial of her licensure application, Petitioner and her husband began to focus on issues related to the report. They were also concerned and had questions about the Department's licensing process as it related to the abuse/neglect report. Ms. Richmond's third visit to Petitioner's home was on April 7, 2009. The sole purpose of that visit was to answer the "real" questions that Petitioner and her husband had about the abuse/neglect report and the licensing process. Ms. Richmond answered their questions as best she could, but recommended that they schedule an appointment with the licensing supervisor at the licensing office.12 That same day, Petitioner and her husband scheduled a meeting and met with Sheila Nobles, administrator and supervisor for child care licensing, to discuss, ask questions about, and review the abuse/neglect report. On April 8, 2009, Ms. Richmond finalized her "report" on the complaint investigation regarding the sign. Ms. Richmond's notes in the "comment" section of the pre-printed "Notice to Cease and Desist" form described the events of March 20, 23 and 27, 2009, as they related to the sign issue.13 Decision to Deny Application As the family safety counselor responsible for reviewing Petitioner's application and conducting the licensure inspections, Ms. Step recommended to Ms. Nobles that Petitioner's license be denied. Ms. Step's recommendation was based on the verbal reports provided to her by Ms. Richmond, which indicated that the areas of non-compliance on the Inspection Checklist had not been corrected. Prior to making a decision about Petitioner's application, Ms. Nobles reviewed the application file, the abuse/neglect report, the Inspection Checklist and the preliminary review notes. Ms. Nobles testified that she considered the "five different inspections"14 of Petitioner's home and property by the two licensing counselors, the areas of non-compliance that had not been corrected, and the abuse/neglect report with a "verified" finding of inadequate supervision. The Central Abuse Hotline Report Applicants seeking licensure to operate a family day care home are required to undergo a Level II screening. That screening included a check to determine if the applicant had a report in the Central Abuse Hotline. Due to concern for the safety of children, the Department is authorized to deny a family day care home license if the applicant has a verified abuse/neglect report. Because of its concern about the safety of children in Petitioner's care, the Department alleges that the abuse/neglect report revealed during a Central Abuse Hotline search is ground for denying Petitioner's license. As it relates to the abuse/neglect report, the denial letter states in relevant part: The Department has documented a verified abuse neglect report whereby your then 3-year-old daughter was not supervised correctly on June 21, 2006.[sic][15] These actions allowed your child to wonder [sic] outside the family swimming pool were [sic] she was found after an undetermined time under water and not breathing. During the investigation it was determined that the lock to get access [presumably to the pool] had been broken for a few days. The abuse/neglect report was initiated when a call was received by the Central Abuse Hotline on April 23, 2006. According to the intake-report, an incident occurred at Petitioner's and her husband's home in which their then three- year-old daughter ("child") almost drowned. Jermaine Turner, a child protective investigator ("CPI"), was assigned to investigate the incident. As the investigator, CPI Turner was responsible for making contact with the family of the child and other appropriate individuals. During the investigation, CPI Turner worked under the supervision and direction of Terry Lynn Reinhardt, a child protective supervisor. As CPI Turner's supervisor, Ms. Reinhardt had contact with CPI Turner and gave him directives related to follow-up activities on case-related matters. The abuse/neglect report includes a summary of notes which purport to summarize interviews CPI Turner conducted with Petitioner and her husband on May 18, 2006, about a month after the subject incident. Petitioner's husband recalled that this interview was conducted by telephone. Ms. Reinhardt testified that CPI Turner interviewed the child's parents and also made telephone contact with them to follow-up on an issue involving a "broken door." Ms. Reinhardt was not present at the interviews that CPI Turner conducted with Petitioner and her husband. Thus, she had no first-hand knowledge of what, if anything, they said to CPI Turner. Rather, Ms. Reinhardt relied on CPI Turner's verbal reports to her and the notes and summaries in the abuse/neglect report attributed to him. CPI Turner did not testify at this proceeding. Moreover, no competent evidence was presented regarding any entries (i.e., notes, comments, and/or interview summaries) in the abuse/neglect report attributed to CPI Turner. The case was closed on June 21, 2006, and the findings and conclusions in the matter were summarized in a two-page document titled, Investigative Summary. The Investigative Summary includes an "updated" note dated June 6, 2006, that provided: "The child . . . was left to watch cartoons; however, she was found face down in a swimming pool. The lock to get access from the pool to the house had been broke [sic] for approximately two day [sic]. They stated they planned to fix the lock but never got around to it." No evidence was presented as to who made the "updated" note or the source of the information in that note. After the investigation was complete, Ms. Reinhardt concluded that there were "some indicators" of maltreatment, asphyxiation, and verified findings of inadequate supervision as to both parents. In reaching that conclusion, Ms. Reinhardt relied on information provided by Mr. Turner and then applied the Department's CFOP 175-28 in reaching those conclusions. Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C-30.001(6) incorporates by reference the "Allegation Matrix" set forth in the Department's CFOP 175-28. Pursuant to that rule, the "Allegation Matrix" is a document that defines specific types of abuse, neglect or abandonment; guides staff in determining whether abuse, neglect or abandonment has occurred; and assists in ensuring that all factors are considered when assessing each type of maltreatment. The Department's CFOP 175-28 was not offered into evidence during this proceeding. Based on the conclusion reached by Ms. Reinhardt, the abuse/neglect report was closed on June 21, 2006, with the finding of some indicators of maltreatment, asphyxiation, and verified findings of inadequate supervision. Notwithstanding those findings, the Investigative Summary reflects that there was no prior history of abuse or neglect and no criminal history. Moreover, the Investigative Summary indicated that no intervention services were needed, no placement outside the home was required, and no judicial action was required. Finally, Petitioner and her husband were not given any safety plan to implement. The April 23, 2006, incident was also investigated by the Polk County Sheriff's Office ("Sheriff's Office"). That investigation included at least two or three detectives and/or officers taking and tape recording sworn statements from Petitioner, her husband, and her father-in-law. All of these sworn statements were "in-person" interviews taken within 24 hours of the incident. Petitioner's husband testified credibly that the written summaries of the sworn statements taken by the Sheriff's Office detectives, particularly that of Detective Wharton, accurately reflect not only the substance of the interviews, but also what actually occurred on April 23, 2006. Petitioner's husband testified credibly about the facts related to the April 23, 2006, incident and the accuracy of written summaries of the tape-recorded sworn statements taken by detectives as set forth below in paragraphs 51 through 60. On April 23, 2006, Petitioner was in the family pool with her then three-year-old daughter. While Petitioner and her daughter were in the pool, Petitioner's husband and his father arrived at the house. Petitioner then went into the house to prepare dinner and her husband stayed at the pool with the child. Shortly thereafter, Petitioner's husband removed the child from the pool, took off the floatation device the child was wearing while in the pool, took her into the house, and then closed and locked the bottom lock of the door. Once in the house, Mr. Best put on a movie for his daughter in her bedroom and then told his wife that the child was in the room watching a movie. The child left the bedroom and went to the kitchen where her mother was preparing dinner. For some time, the child went back and forth between the kitchen, playing near her mother and/or "helping" her mother, and the living room where she (the child) was sitting on the floor watching cartoons on television. The kitchen and living room were adjacent rooms with a large opening between them which allowed a person in one room to see into the other room. When Mr. Best and his daughter went into the house, his father (the child's grandfather) was taking a shower. A few minutes later, after taking his shower and getting dressed, the child's paternal grandfather got out his new video camera and went to the kitchen/living room area to videotape his granddaughter while she was playing. He videotaped her playing for several minutes and then went to the bedroom to put away the video camera. It took the child's grandfather about two or three minutes to put away his video camera and return to the kitchen area. When the grandfather returned to the kitchen/living room area, he asked Petitioner where the child was. Believing the child was in the living room, Petitioner told her father-in-law that the child was in the living room looking at television. Petitioner then went into the living room to look for the child and discovered she was not there. Petitioner then immediately went outside to the patio and saw the child laying face down in the pool. Petitioner screamed for help, jumped in the pool and lifted the child from the water. Petitioner's husband was close enough to the kitchen/living room area that he heard the exchange between his father and Petitioner about the child's whereabouts and Petitioner's subsequent scream. Within a few seconds, Petitioner's husband ran from the house, jumped in the pool, removed his daughter from the pool, and placed her on the pool deck. Once the child was on the pool deck, the child's father and her grandfather immediately began administering CPR while Petitioner called 911. They continued performing CPR on the child until the emergency medical services and the fire department arrived on the scene. Both parents reported to detectives investigating the incident that the child knew how to open and unlock doors. Based on the facts established at or near the time of the incident, it was concluded that the child slipped out of the house and went undetected for about two or three minutes. Petitioner and her husband described the child's "slipping out of the house" as unusual and something she had never done prior to April 23, 2006. Until that day, the child had never gone off on her own and had been fearful of and never gotten into the swimming pool at that house. (Petitioner and her family had moved to this house only two or three months before the incident.) Based on its investigation, which included sworn statements by Petitioner, her husband, and her father-in-law, the Sheriff's Office concluded that the April 23, 2006, incident was an accident. The Department does not disagree with the conclusion reached by the Sheriff's Office (i.e., the April 23, 2006, incident was an accident). Nevertheless, according to Ms. Reinhardt, irrespective of whether the incident was an accident or done on purpose, the Department still found "verified" indicators of inadequate supervision, because the child got out of the house and into the pool and almost drowned. The factual allegations in the report upon which the Department relied were not established by competent and substantial evidence. In absence of such evidence, the Department's verified finding of inadequate supervision has not been proven. The record in this case is devoid of any evidence to establish the Department's finding of any indicators of maltreatment. Therefore, the Department's findings that there were "some" indicators of maltreatment has not been proven. Alarm on the Master Bathroom Door The Department alleges that during the applicable time period, the swimming pool at Petitioner's home did not comply with the requirements in Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C-20.010(1)(i). That rule requires that swimming pools at least one-foot-deep have either a barrier at least four-feet- high around the pool, separating the pool from the house, or a pool alarm that is operable at all times when children are in their care. There was conflicting and inconsistent information provided to Petitioner as to whether a "pool alarm" that floats in the swimming pool was required instead of a door alarm, which is also apparently referred to as a pool alarm. Despite any confusion that may have been caused by the different representations made to Petitioner, it is undisputed that the preliminary review notes and the Inspection Checklist clearly indicate that Petitioner was required to repair the alarm on the master bathroom door which led to the pool. It appears that Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C-20.010(1)(i) refers to door alarms as pool alarms. Petitioner's husband testified credibly that he attempted to have the door repaired by service personnel of the alarm company that installed the alarm system, but has been unsuccessful in doing so. In light of these futile attempts, Petitioner's husband purchased a battery-operated door. However, it is unknown when the battery-operated door was purchased, whether it has been installed, and, if so, how it works. The alarm on the door of the master bathroom had not been repaired by the April 3, 2009, "due date" or any time thereafter, nor had any acceptable alternatives been installed. Maintenance of the Swimming Pool The Department alleges that the swimming pool at Petitioner's home was not clean and maintained as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C-20.010(1)(j). That Rule requires that if a family day care home uses a swimming pool, it shall be maintained by using chlorine and other suitable chemicals. Petitioner acknowledges that, at all times relevant hereto, the swimming pool at her home was not clean and properly maintained. Some time after the denial letter was issued, Petitioner's swimming pool was emptied, a full-processed cleaning was completed, and the pool was filled with water. However, a leak in a light in the pool was discovered. In order to repair that leak, the pool had to be emptied. At the time of this proceeding, the leak was being repaired. Once the leak is fixed, the pool can be filled with water and the "pool alarm" that floats in the pool can be installed. Local Law Enforcement Background Check The application process requires that each person living in the home that will serve as the family day care home have a background screening. Such background screening includes a check by the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI"), the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE"), and a local criminal history check. In February 2009, Petitioner's cousin, Carlos Granados, was living with Petitioner and her husband. Accordingly, Mr. Granados was required to have a local criminal history check, and a copy of that criminal history check was to be provided to the Department. Petitioner testified credibly that she submitted all the documents for completion of Mr. Granados' background checks and could not explain why the Department did not receive the local criminal history check for Mr. Granados.16 The evidence established that Mr. Granados no longer lives in Petitioner's home. Therefore, the Department does not need, and is not required to have, a local criminal history check for him.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Finding of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Department of Children and Family Services, enter a final order: (1) finding that Petitioner, Best Family Day Care Home, failed to meet the standards in Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C-20.010(1)(i) and (j); and (2) denying Petitioner's application for a family day care home on those grounds. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of February, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of February, 2010.
