The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the acts charged in the Department of Children and Family Services' (Department's) letter of November 21, 2006, and if so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Pearl Wright holds Family Day Care Home License No. F03PU0037, issued by the Department on April 26, 2006, for the year ending April 26, 2007. Ms. Wright has worked with children for approximately 27 years. On September 22, 2006, Ms. Wright had five children in her care. Three of those children are her grandchildren, who were 9, 11, and 13 years old. In addition to her grandchildren, Ms. Wright was caring for a 22-month-old named Talia and a 14- year-old named Jahlisa. Jahlisa is deaf and has some behavioral problems. She previously attended the Florida School for the Deaf and Blind. However, when Jahlisa's mother, E.M. was notified that the school could not accommodate her any longer, Ms. M. was forced to place Jahlisa in public school and find child care for her after school. According to Ms. M., Ms. Wright opened her doors when no one else would. On the day in question, Ms. Wright's vehicle was at the dealership for repairs and had to be picked up before the shop closed. Ms. Wright arranged for the dealership to send a courtesy van to her home so that she could take all five children with her to pick up the car at the end of the day and return home with them. When the van arrived at Ms. Wright's home, Jahlisa refused to board it. Her mother was expected any minute and Jahlisa wanted to wait for her. When Jahlisa refused to get in the van, Ms. Wright instructed her grandsons to go to their rooms and stay there. She instructed her 13-year-old granddaughter Quashonda to watch Jahlisa and Talia until their parents came, which she anticipated to be no more than a few minutes. Ms. Wright took the courtesy van to the dealership, picked up her car and came straight back. She was gone approximately fifteen minutes. During her absence, Ms. M. came to pick up Jahlisa. She saw her standing approximately one half block from the Ms. Wright's house, waiting for Ms. M. to pick her up. Jahlisa was not harmed. Ms. M. was not upset with Ms. Wright and "understood that she had to do what she did." She appreciated the care that Ms. Wright gave her daughter, but did not want Jahlisa to be alone. She was more upset that her daughter was no longer attending the Florida School for the Deaf and Blind, and reported the events in this case because she wanted the school to be investigated. T.P. is Talia's mother. Talia was 22 months old in September 2006. When Ms. P. came to pick her daughter up on September 22, Ms. Wright was in the front yard with Jahlisa, Jahlisa's mother and a policeman. Ms. P. picked up her child and left. She is aware of what occurred September 22, but remains steadfast in her support of Ms. Wright, who she refers to as "Miss Pearl." She does not feel Ms. Wright would ever put her child in danger, and considers Ms. Wright to be a blessing. Talia considers Miss Pearl to be like grandmother to her and has thrived under her care. Ms. Wright accepts responsibility for her actions and states that it will never happen again. No evidence was presented at hearing to indicate that there have been any subsequent events with respect to appropriate supervision. The undersigned is persuaded that her remorse is genuine. Ms. Wright has worked with local teachers in the public school system trying to make sure that the children in her care keep their grades up. Her testimony in that regard is consistent with the letter supplied by Gladys Wade, a kindergarten teacher who indicated that Ms. Wright has been the day care provider for children in her classes for over five years. According to Ms. Wade, Ms. Wright calls to check on her students regularly, gives them "pep-talks" when needed and makes sure their homework is completed. Ms. Wright works with the children on skills identified by Ms. Wade to reinforce those skills in the daycare setting. The Department presented testimony indicating that there had been past disciplinary actions for which Ms. Wright paid fines. However, no prior final orders were submitted with respect to any prior disciplinary history.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered which finds that Respondent violated the provisions of Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C- 20.009(4)(a), for which violation Respondent is fined $100 and her license is placed on probation status. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of May, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of May, 2007.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner should be granted an exemption from employment disqualification pursuant to Section 435.07(3), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is forty-three years old. His wife, Margaret Bryant, has applied for a license to operate a family day care home. In March 1987, a law enforcement officer detained Petitioner on suspicion of robbery, placed Petitioner in the backseat of a patrol car, and transported him to the police station. Petitioner was the last person to ride in the patrol car before the law enforcement officer found cocaine in a matchbox in the back seat of the patrol car. Subsequently, Petitioner was arrested and charged with robbery and possession of cocaine. In April 1987, Petitioner pled guilty to aggravated assault pursuant to Section 784.021, Florida Statutes, and possession of cocaine pursuant to Section 893.13, Florida Statutes. He was adjudicated guilty of a third-degree felony for aggravated assault and a second-degree felony for possession of cocaine. The court sentenced Petitioner to 24 days, time served. In January 1992, Petitioner was living with a former girlfriend, Gloria Sanderford. Petitioner and Ms. Sanderford had an argument over some marijuana. During the argument, Petitioner hit the wall then left the residence. When he returned to the residence, Petitioner broke a window in an attempt to gain entry. In February 1992, Petitioner was charged with assault pursuant to Section 784.011, Florida Statutes, and with criminal mischief pursuant to Section 806.13, Florida Statutes. After pleading no contest to these charges, Petitioner was adjudicated guilty of a second-degree misdemeanor on both counts. Petitioner was sentenced to 16 days, time served, and 90 days' probation. The court ordered Petitioner to make restitution to Ms. Sanderford in an amount not to exceed $250. During the hearing, Petitioner admitted that he was convicted of burglary in 1994. Petitioner testified that he was sentenced to three years in jail and was eventually released on parole. The record does not reflect any additional details about this conviction. In September 1996, Petitioner and a former girlfriend, Janet McClendon, fought over some money resulting in a bruised lip and eye for Ms. McClendon and a cut on Petitioner's wrist. Petitioner and Ms. McClendon were using drugs at the time of the incident. In October 1996, Petitioner pled no contest and was adjudicated guilty of a first-degree misdemeanor battery pursuant to Section 784.03, Florida Statutes. The court sentenced Petitioner to 45 days in jail with credit for 18 days, time served. Subsequently, Petitioner returned to jail for violation of parole. On August 8, 1998, Petitioner and Margaret Bryant were not married, but were living together; they had an argument during which Petitioner pushed her. Ms. Bryant called the police resulting in Petitioner's arrest for battery pursuant to Section 784.03(1), Florida Statutes. On August 28, 1998, the court adjudicated Petitioner guilty of a first-degree misdemeanor battery for violating Section 784.03(1), Florida Statutes. Based on this conviction, the court sentenced Petitioner to five months' incarceration with credit for 21 days, time served. The court also ordered Petitioner to complete the Door Program and to participate in family counseling. After Petitioner was released from jail the last time, he began attending church. Petitioner continues to be active in his church, serving as the camera person and participating in the on-going family enrichment and marriage counseling program. Petitioner's pastor considers Petitioner to be a church leader, a loving husband, and devoted stepfather to Ms. Bryant's two children. The pastor's opinion of Petitioner is supported by many of the church members. Petitioner's mother confirms that Petitioner has turned his life around since he stopped abusing drugs and alcohol, and he often helps his mother with household chores. According to Petitioner's mother, Petitioner is a good husband and father to his stepchildren and his goddaughter. Ms. Bryant and Petitioner have been married for almost three years, but they have lived together for several years longer. She testified that Petitioner is a loving husband and stepfather. She asserts that as a couple, they have learned how to deal with the challenges of married life. According to Ms. Bryant, she and Petitioner now have the skills to keep their marriage healthy. Petitioner has a general education diploma and is an electrician by trade. He worked for one electric company for about 14 years; he has been employed as an electrician with his current employer for over two years. Petitioner's employer regards him as a hard worker who is trusted with jobsite responsibilities and recommends Petitioner as a person of character. Petitioner admits that his drug and alcohol abuse caused him problems in the past, and he does not deny his criminal history. However, Petitioner stopped using drugs and alcohol after his last incarceration in August 1998. He now has a strong marriage to Ms. Bryant and a commitment to his church and has accepted the responsibility for helping Ms. Bryant raise her children. Petitioner serves as a mentor for other young children. Petitioner's church and family provide him with a solid support system.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent enter a final order granting Petitioner an exemption from disqualification. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of April, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of April, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Anthony Bryant 960 Ontario Street Jacksonville, Florida 32254 Robin Whipple-Hunter, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services Post Office Box 2417 Jacksonville, Florida 32231-0083 Peggy Sanford, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204B Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Josie Tomayo, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Whether the Department of Children and Family Services (DCF) may revoke Respondent's Family Day Care Home License for cause.
Findings Of Fact Since approximately September 3, 2001, Respondent has held a license from DCF to operate a Family Day Care Home for up to ten children in her residence Mondays through Fridays. DCF seeks to revoke her current license due to her allowing her ex-husband, Eddie Morand, to have access to her home and the children entrusted to her care there. Mr. Morand's name was submitted for background clearance as a resident in the home in connection with a different application to authorize Respondent to provide 24-hour per day care, which she submitted to DCF in 1997. DCF notified Mr. Morand by a notice dated January 16, 1998, that he was ineligible to have contact with children in a Family Day Care Home due to two prior felony convictions for crimes addressed in Section 435.04, Florida Statutes: aggravated battery and possession of crack cocaine. Respondent was sent a copy of this notice. On April 13, 1999, Mr. Morand pled guilty to two felony counts for the sale and possession of cocaine and was sentenced to 23.8 months of incarceration with the Department of Corrections. These crimes are also disqualifying under Section 435.04, Florida Statutes. Respondent was still married to Mr. Morand in November 1998, when these charges arose. Sometime in 1999, Respondent divorced Mr. Morand. Sometime thereafter, Respondent changed her residence and secured a permanent injunction against Mr. Morand for protection against domestic violence. After about a year, Respondent believed that Mr. Morand had changed, and she lifted the injunction. DCF's Abuse Hotline received a call alleging that on March 9, 2002, Mr. Morand had sexually molested a female day-care registrant in Respondent's Family Day Care Home. March 9, 2002, was a Saturday, a day not authorized for day-care by Respondent's current license. The child had reported to her foster mother that she had been fondled while at Respondent's Family Day Care Home. The Ocala Police Department was notified. After interviewing the child, the police went to Respondent's home. Mr. Morand was present, and he was arrested. Respondent told police officers that while she was outside watching the other children in care, Mr. Morand was alone in the house with the accusing child for about ten minutes, getting something to eat. Respondent confirmed this at the disputed-fact hearing, but also maintained that she could see inside the house from the porch and observed nothing amiss. She believes the child's accusations were untruthful. Child Protective Investigator Steve Davis was assigned to investigate the abuse report received by DCF. On the morning of March 10, 2002, Mr. Davis happened to be in court in connection with another case. Mr. Morand also was brought up for first appearance at that time and was allowed to bond out. In court, Mr. Morand gave his address of residence as that of Respondent's Family Day Care Home. At about 3:15 p.m., the afternoon of March 10, 2002, Mr. Davis went to Respondent's Family Day Care Home to investigate the abuse report. When he arrived, he saw Mr. Morand about to exit the front door of the home. Mr. Morand acknowledged that it was Respondent's home and held the door open for Mr. Davis to enter. Mr. Davis entered the home where he found Respondent caring for other children registered in her Family Day Care Home. This was Sunday, also a day not authorized for day-care by Respondent's current license. Respondent acknowledged that the man Mr. Davis had met at the door was Mr. Morand. Respondent told Mr. Davis that Mr. Morand got his mail at her home and stayed there occasionally. At the hearing, Respondent testified that she had no control over where Mr. Morand had his mail sent and that "he was not a man you say, 'no,' to." Respondent's DCF Day Care Licensing Counselor was Cathy White. On March 16, 2002, Ms. White, accompanied by a law enforcement officer, went to Respondent's home to deliver the Notice of Revocation of Respondent's license. Mr. Morand was the only person at the home when Ms. White and the officer arrived. Mr. Morand told the officer and Ms. White that Respondent had taken the children to the park. He first said that Respondent had told him she was going to the park and then said she left him a note to that effect. Later on March 16, 2002, Ms. White returned to the residence where she found Respondent and several day-care children. This was also a Saturday, not covered by Respondent's license. Ms. White explained why DCF was moving to close the day care home and that Ms. White could not leave until all the children had been picked up by their parents. On March 28, 2002, Respondent executed another sworn petition for protection from domestic violence, seeking an injunction against Mr. Morand. In this, her second petition, Respondent stated that Mr. Morand had threatened her and was very violent when he was drinking. On April 4, 2002, Mr. Morand was arrested for sexual battery, false imprisonment, battery on a person over the age of 65, and violation of a domestic violence injunction. The charges stemmed from an attack on Respondent. Respondent's testimony at the disputed-fact hearing and documentary evidence leaves the impression that Mr. Morand had overpowered, beaten, and raped Respondent on or about April 4, 2002. After the incident of April 4, 2002, Respondent moved to a new address in order to get away from Mr. Morand.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Family Services enter a final order ratifying the past immediate revocation of the Respondent's current license for a Family Day Care Home. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of August, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of August, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Ralph J. McMurphy, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 1601 West Gulf Atlantic Highway Wildwood, Florida 34785-8158 Dorothy Dempsey 1633 Northwest 14th Street Ocala, Florida 34475 Paul F. Flounlacker, Jr., Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204B Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Josie Tomayo, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204B 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment action by discriminating against Petitioner based on her race contrary to Section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2005).
Findings Of Fact Respondent is an employer as defined in Section 760.027, Florida Statutes (2005). Petitioner is an African-American female. At all times relevant here, Petitioner worked full-time as a floor technician (floor tech) at Respondent's nursing home facility. As a floor tech, Petitioner was responsible for dusting, mopping and buffing the floors. At all relevant times, Cheryl Johnson was Respondent's facility administrator. Ms. Johnson has held that position since December 2002. In May 2003, Petitioner asked Ms. Johnson if she could receive her paycheck early. Petitioner was aware that Ms. Johnson had given an early paycheck to a nurse. The record does not reveal the nurse's race. Ms. Johnson refused to give Petitioner the early paycheck. Ms. Johnson admitted that she had made a mistake in giving the nurse an early paycheck. Ms. Johnson stated that she would not violate Respondent's policy against early paychecks again. Petitioner filed a grievance, claiming that Ms. Johnson was not being fair. Sometime thereafter, Ms. Johnson gave an early paycheck to a dietary employee. The dietary employee was an African- American. With regard to early paychecks, there is no evidence that Ms. Johnson ever gave preferential treatment to employees who were not members of a protected group. In October 2003, Sue Goldfarb was Petitioner's supervisor. Ms. Goldfarb criticized Petitioner because Petitioner was spending too much time in the Activities Room. Petitioner complained to Ms. Johnson and filed two grievances, claiming that she was being treated unfairly. According to Petitioner, Ms. Goldfarb and a medical records clerk, Pam Brock, did not get into trouble for spending time in the Activities Room. Ms. Johnson explained that Petitioner could assist in the Activities Room, but only after she completed her floor tech duties. There is no evidence that Respondent ever allowed employees to assist in the Activities Room before they completed their regularly assigned duties. Petitioner did not suffer any adverse consequences as a result of Ms. Goldfarb's criticism. At some point in time, Respondent informed all housekeepers, including Petitioner, that their hours were being cut from seven-and-a-half hours per day to six-and-a-half hours per day. Respondent also informed the housekeepers that they would not be eligible for overtime hours. Respondent took these actions because the facility's "census" (number of residents) was low. In February 2004, Ms. Johnson decided to redecorate the Activity Room as a special weekend project. Ms. Johnson requested Gary Brock, Pam Brock's husband and a maintenance man for the facility, to work over the weekend to complete project. Ms. Johnson also requested Ms. Brock to assist with the project because Ms. Brock recently had been short on hours. Thereafter, Petitioner impermissibly reviewed a document on a supervisor's desk. The document indicated that Ms. Brock, the medical records clerk, received three hours of overtime on the weekend of the special project. Petitioner copied the document and returned the original to the supervisor's desk. Petitioner admitted during the hearing that she was not supposed to be looking at documents on the supervisor's desk. In February 2004, Petitioner filed a grievance, complaining that Ms. Brock had received overtime. Petitioner thought it was unfair for Ms. Brock, a medical records clerk, to receive overtime hours, while the housekeepers had their hours reduced. There is no evidence that Petitioner was treated any differently than any other housekeeper. At some point in time, Petitioner complained to Ms. Johnson and filed a grievance that Ms. Goldfarb was not doing her job. After receiving Petitioner's complaint, Ms. Johnson decided to obtain a statement from each housekeeper as to whether they had any concerns regarding Ms. Goldfarb. In March 2004, Ms. Johnson temporarily held all of the housekeepers' paychecks. She requested the housekeepers to visit her office, render their opinions about the housekeeping supervisor, and collect their checks. Petitioner, like all of the housekeepers had to visit Ms. Johnson's office to pick up her paycheck. While she was there, Petitioner signed a statement, indicating that Ms. Goldfarb did not treat her fairly. Subsequently, Petitioner filed a grievance, complaining, in part, because Ms. Johnson held the paychecks for the entire housekeeping department. There is no evidence that Petitioner was treated any differently than any other housekeeper. At the end of March 2004, Petitioner had a confrontation with a co-worker, Robert Goldfarb. Mr. Goldfarb was Sue Goldfarb's husband. The altercation occurred after Mr. Goldfarb walked across a wet floor that Petitioner had just mopped. Mr. Goldfarb had to walk across the wet floor to get to the restroom. Petitioner and Mr. Goldfarb cursed at each other and engaged in a shouting match. Petitioner filed a grievance about the incident. Respondent did not discipline Petitioner or Mr. Goldfarb for getting into the argument. Petitioner and Mr. Goldfarb have not had a similar exchange since the March 2004 incident. In September 2004, Petitioner and her supervisor, Ms. Goldfarb, engaged in an argument outside Ms. Johnson's office. Ms. Johnson suspended both employees for three days. After an investigation, Ms. Johnson reinstated Petitioner and Ms. Goldfarb and gave them back pay to make them whole. Since September 2004, Petitioner has received pay raises. She has not received any write-ups, reprimands, or any other type of discipline. She has not filed any grievances since September 2004. At the time of the hearing, Ms. Goldfarb was still Petitioner's supervisor. Petitioner was serving as Respondent's Chairperson of the Safety Committee, a position of special trust and responsibility.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That FCHR enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of October, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of October, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Dorina Smith 1160 East Mays Street Monticello, Florida 32344 Alvin J. Taylor Delta Health Group 2 North Palafox Street Pensacola, Florida 32502 Mark E. Levitt, Esquire Allen, Norton & Blue, P.A. 324 South Hyde Park Avenue Suite 225 Tampa, Florida 33606 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in this case is whether imposition of a fine in the amount of $100 on Respondent, Kimberly Wright, d/b/a Little Feet Academy, by Petitioner, Department of Children and Families (the “Department” or “DCF”), was appropriate.
Findings Of Fact (The following Findings of Fact were established through evidence presented at final hearing.) The Department is responsible for licensing and monitoring, among other entities and facilities, “large family child care homes.” Little Feet Academy (“Little Feet”) is such a facility. Little Feet is operated by Kimberly Wright and is located, pursuant to its license, at 2135 Rothbury Drive, Jacksonville, Florida (the “Rothbury Site”). On May 11, 2016, DCF received a complaint from the parent of a child under Ms. Wright’s care at Little Feet. The complaint alleged that the Rothbury Site was extremely hot, causing the child to suffer. DCF sent a family service counselor, Mary Gil, to investigate the complaint allegation. Ms. Gil arrived at the home with the intention of using a thermometer to measure the temperature inside the home. By rule, large family childcare homes must keep the temperature between 65 degrees and 82 degrees Fahrenheit. When she walked into the front door, she found water on the floor in the living room and bedroom. A pipe had apparently burst, causing the flooding. (The temperature, incidentally, was 81 degrees Fahrenheit, within the prescribed range.) Ms. Gil advised Ms. Wright that the water on the floor constituted a hazard which put the children at risk. She told Ms. Wright that the children would have to leave the home until the problem was rectified. Ms. Wright began calling the parents of the children, explaining that the children could not remain at the facility until it had been repaired. Initially, Ms. Wright told the parents they could take the children to 8321 Santman Court (the “Santman Court Site”), a private residence owned by Ms. Wright. Her intent was to have her staff watch the children at that site until the leak was repaired. Ms. Gil heard her conversing with some of the parents and advised Ms. Wright that moving the children to a different site would not be allowed under her license. Ms. Wright then attempted to contact all the parents to tell them that they could not take their children to the Santman Court Site after all. Ms. Wright told the four employees working for her that they could not return to work until the plumbing repairs had been completed. She told them that the plan to use the Santman Court Site would violate licensure rules, so that was not an option. All of the employees, including Ms. Wise (who was already working another job), left the Rothbury Site at that time. Parents of the children staying at Little Feet were not given an option for temporary childcare by Ms. Wright. She simply told them they could return when Little Feet re-opened. On the next day, May 12, 2016, a parent of one of the children called DCF with another complaint. The parent said that apparently Ms. Wright was using the Santman Court Site to care for the Little Feet children. Again DCF sent Ms. Gil to investigate. Upon arrival at the Santman Court Site, Ms. Gil knocked on the door, but no one answered. She could hear the sound of children inside, but no one would come to the door. She knocked for a while, then called her supervisor, Ms. Rice, for advice and assistance. Ms. Rice told her to continue trying to get into the home while she, Ms. Rice, drove to the site. At some point, Ms. Rice contacted the Jacksonville Police Department, asking for assistance at the Santman Court Site. She and Officer Bryant from the Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office arrived at the site around the same time. About the time Ms. Rice arrived at Santman Court, someone inside the home finally answered the door. The person who answered was Sylvia Wise, an employee of Little Feet. Ms. Wise allowed Ms. Gil, Ms. Rice and Officer Bryant into the home. Inside, they found what appeared to be an abandoned home, i.e., no furniture for normal living. There were some items used for childcare inside the home, such as small tables and chairs, pack-n-play cribs, and other similar items. Ms. Gil thought she recognized some of the items being from Little Feet. Ms. Wright would later acknowledge that the items were from Little Feet, but that was because she had planned to use that home as an alternative to the Rothbury Site (until she found out she could not do so). Ms. Wise was watching eight children from six different families at the Santman Court Site. When questioned, Ms. Wise denied working for Ms. Wright or Little Feet. She said she had agreed to babysit the children at the Santman Court Site. She said she had rented the home from Ms. Wright as a place for her aunt to live when she moved to Jacksonville. Ms. Wright confirmed that Ms. Wise had rented the home, but the agreement to rent was made well before the leak occurred at the Rothbury Site. One of the DCF family counselors contacted Ms. Wright and advised her to come to the Santman Court Site as quickly as possible. Ms. Wright said there were plumbers working on the leak, but she would get there as soon as she could. She arrived a short time later. DCF informed Ms. Wise that she was in violation of rules concerning childcare and would have to call the parents to pick up their children. According to Ms. Rice, it is illegal to care for children from two or more families on a regular basis and receive compensation. Ms. Wright was told the same thing when she arrived. It was upon her arrival at the Santman Court Site that Ms. Wright first found out that some of the Little Feet children were there. DCF waited at the Santman Court Site until there were only two children remaining. Inasmuch as the two were siblings, Ms. Wise was allowed to babysit them without violating the aforementioned rules. While at the Santman Court Site, Ms. Rice attempted to convince the police officer to write up a report on the violation. However, because it was a civil, administrative matter, he declined to do so. Ms. Wright believed Ms. Rice’s behavior showed that she was overly aggressive and “had it in for her.” Ultimately, no report was written by Officer Bryant. Ms. Gil said Ms. Wise was receiving compensation from the parents for the care provided to children at the Santman Court Site. There is no competent evidence to support that allegation as Ms. Wise did not appear as a witness at final hearing. Ms. Wright credibly testified that she, personally, did not receive any compensation for care provided on that day, May 12, 2016. Ms. Wright produced 13 sworn statements from parents of the Little Feet children. (Counsel for DCF acknowledged the statements were hearsay, but did not object to their introduction into evidence at the final hearing.) The gist of the statements was that Ms. Wright advised the parents of the temporary closure of Little Feet and that she could not watch their children until the leak issue was resolved. The facts in those statements are corroborated by Ms. Wright’s testimony. There is no persuasive evidence that Ms. Wright attempted to circumvent licensure rules by having children stay at the Santman Court Site while the Rothbury Site was being repaired. In fact, the uncontroverted testimony was that Ms. Wright attempted to tell the children’s parents that the Santman Court Site could not be used. The Department seeks to impose a fine of $100 against Little Feet, representing one day of illegal childcare at the Santman Court Site by Ms. Wise. The fine was assessed against Ms. Wright and Little Feet because Ms. Wright owns the Santman Court Site. However, Ms. Wise apparently had a leasehold interest in the property on the day in question. Why she, rather than Ms. Wright, was not sanctioned is not clear.1/ It is clear that the possibly illegal childcare lasted a single day, i.e., it was not done on a “regular” basis. However, it is reasonable that DCF believed the illegal childcare could have continued absent their intervention.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the evidence and oral testimony presented at final hearing, and based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner, Department of Children and Families, finding that there is no basis for imposing a monetary sanction of $100 against Respondent, Kimberly Wright, d/b/a Little Feet Academy. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of October, 2016 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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 10th day of October, 2016.
