The Issue The issue is whether Respondent properly denied Petitioner's request for exemption from disqualification from owning/operating a family day care home.
Findings Of Fact On December 12, 1971, Petitioner and her husband began fighting. Petitioner stabbed her husband on his upper left arm with a knife after he hit her in the head with a bottle. There is no evidence that Petitioner or her husband required hospitalization as a result of this incident. Based upon the above-referenced incident Petitioner and her husband were both charged with aggravated assault. Subsequently, they pled guilty and were convicted of assault and battery, a misdemeanor offense. They both received a suspended sentence of 10 days in jail and a fine of $30. In November 1974, someone at her grandmother's home whipped Petitioner's son with a belt. Petitioner went to her grandmother's house to find out who was responsible for the beating. While she was there, she threatened to get her gun if her aunt's boyfriend hit her son again.1 The gun was in Petitioner's car. As a result of this incident, Petitioner was arrested for aggravated assault. She subsequently pled guilty to assault, a misdemeanor offense, and paid a $50 fine. In 1975, Petitioner separated from her husband. They were divorced in 1985. Petitioner raised two children from this marriage as a single mother. These children are adults now and no longer live with Petitioner. In 1978, Petitioner was arrested for retail theft. The charge for stealing a can of motor oil was not prosecuted. However, Petitioner was convicted of "opposing the police" and of possession of less than 500 grams of marijuana. She paid a fine and court costs. In 1986, Petitioner was involved in a loud argument with her boyfriend. She was arrested and charged with breach of the peace and resisting arrest without violence. Petitioner subsequently pled guilty to a breach of the peace for which she paid a fine. In 1990, Petitioner pled guilty to retail theft for shop lifting a dress. Her 30-day jail sentence was suspended. She paid a $500 fine. The record does not indicate whether Petitioner ever remarried. However, she has two additional children, ages 7 and 11, who currently live with her. Petitioner has never had any problems with any of her children. Petitioner earned a high school diploma. She has worked as a certified key punch operator and a certified home health aide. She has completed the training to become a certified child care worker. Petitioner is remorseful for her criminal record. She does not want her family or her preacher to know about her record.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that Respondent enter an Final Order denying Petitioner an exemption from disqualification pursuant to Section 435.07, Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of April, 1999, 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 28th day of April, 1999.
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding is whether Petitioner, a family day care center owner/operator, committed violations of the Florida Statutes and the Florida Administrative Code, as alleged by Respondent, sufficient to justify Respondent's refusal to renew Petitioner's license.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Linda Stewart, on behalf of Stewart Family Day Care (Petitioner), received the business’ first license to operate a family day care center for no more than 10 children on December 20, 1996. Annual renewals of the license followed until January 2002, following Stewart Family Day Care’s renewal application filed the first of that month. On January 22, 2002, Petitioner was notified that the Department of Children and Family Services (Respondent) had declined to renew Stewart Family Day Care’s license to operate as a family day care. Denial was based on Petitioner’s September 24, 2000, arrest and subsequent conviction for Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol (DUI). License denial was also based on a report made to Respondent of domestic violence (Report No. 2000-075894) in the home in which Petitioner operated the Stewart Family Day Care. An additional report, Report No. 2001-04761, which made allegations that Petitioner was intoxicated while caring for children was closed as unfounded. At the time of both occurrences for which Respondent had concerns, there were no children in the care of Petitioner Stewart with the exception of her son, who was at the time of the alleged domestic violence 16 years of age. As established by the evidence, Petitioner was not the first aggressor and did not initiate the altercation that occurred in her home when a guest, not a live-in as alleged in the report, with too much to drink became violent, hitting Petitioner. Petitioner’s son went next door at his mother’s request and called law enforcement. Following Respondent’s refusal to renew Petitioner’s license, Petitioner has become actively involved with Alcoholics Anonymous (AA). Petitioner’s sponsor in AA testified that Petitioner attends meetings and is sincere in her commitment to AA. Petitioner, it is specifically found, has effectively rebutted through clear and convincing evidence, the allegations of domestic violence upon which Respondent relied for denial of re-licensure. Additionally, the evidence convincingly establishes that the DUI offense committed by Petitioner, at night, was unrelated in any way to her day care business. Further, as established by testimony of parents at the final hearing, Petitioner enjoys their full confidence with regard to the care afforded their children. Licensure renewal has never been denied to Petitioner in the past. Additionally, she has attended, through the years, numerous seminars and short courses to compliment and increase her proficiency in the area of child care.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is Recommended that a final order be entered granting renewal of Petitioner’s license to operate a day care center. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of June, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. 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 4th day of June, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Ralph J. McMurphy, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 1601 West Gulf Atlantic Highway Wildwood, Florida 34785 R. Eric Rubio, Esquire 2407 East Bloomingdale Avenue Valrico, Florida 33594-6404 Paul Flounlacker, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204B Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Josie Tomayo, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent properly denied Petitioner's application for renewal of her family child care home license.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, the Department of Children and Family Services (Department), issued a family child care home license to Vernetta Rossi (Petitioner) on January 15, 2001. The license was effective for a year, and automatically expired one year later. The maximum number of children for which Petitioner was licensed was ten. On or about November 11, 2001, Petitioner submitted an application for renewal of her family child care home license. On December 4, 2001, Donna Richey, an inspector with the Department went to Petitioner's home to conduct a re- licensing inspection. The purpose of the inspection was to determine if Petitioner was complying with the licensing rules and to make a recommendation on Petitioner’s application for renewal. Ms. Richey arrived at Petitioner’s house at about 1:30 p.m. Through a pane glass window, Ms. Richey observed a child sleeping on a mat in the dining room hall area. She also heard a child whimpering. Because Ms. Richey knew that there were children in the house and it was naptime, she knocked softly on the door for a few minutes. After getting no answer, Ms. Richey rang the doorbell twice, but still received no answer. After there was no response to Ms. Richey’s knocking on the door and ringing the doorbell, she walked to the back of Petitioner’s house, thinking that Petitioner may have been out in the back of the house. Finding no one there, Ms. Richey then returned to the front of the house and rang the doorbell again. When Ms. Richey returned to the front of the house, she observed that the child on a mat in the dining room hall area was still asleep. Upon returning to the front of the house, Ms. Richey tried the front door handle and discovered that it was unlocked. Ms. Richey then entered the house where she observed Petitioner asleep on the couch in the family room. Ms. Richey then called Petitioner, who woke up and appeared startled. Petitioner had dozed off and advised Ms. Richey that the reason she may not have heard the doorbell ring or the knock on the door was that she had a hearing loss and was lying on her “good” ear. Ms. Richey and Petitioner then toured the areas of Petitioner’s house where the five children, in Petitioner's care that day, were down for their naps. At the time of the tour, all five of the children, who were ages three and four, were in their designated napping areas and on their mats. One child was asleep on a mat in the dining room hall area; two children were on separate mats in one bedroom; one child was on a mat in the hallway; and another child was sleeping in the classroom area. During the time Ms. Richey was at Petitioner’s house for the re-licensure inspection, none of the children were crying, all the children were clean, and Petitioner’s house was neat and clean. There was a fence around the children’s playground in Petitioner's backyard. The fence had been approved by the Department as part of the licensure process. Also, there was a lock on the back door of Petitioner's house that was placed at a height that was not within the children's reach. There was a canal behind Petitioner’s house, which was about 60 yards from the house. In addition there was a five- foot high chain link fence that extended across the back of Petitioner’s property that served as a barrier between Petitioner’s yard and the canal. The fence provided a barrier that made it impossible for the children to easily access the canal. However, the Department determined that the canal was a potential hazard for the children in Petitioner’s care, when she was asleep and the front door of the house was unlocked. There was a main road within the subdivision in which Petitioner's house was located that was about 100 yards from her house. The Department was concerned that because Petitioner’s front door was unlocked and Petitioner had dozed off, the main road could have been a possible hazard to the pre-school children. During the approximately ten minutes that Petitioner was asleep, the children in her care were not being supervised. The Department requires that individuals licensed to provide child care supervise the children in their care. Following the Department’s re-licensing inspection on December 4, 2001, a report of neglect was made and an investigation was conducted. The results of that investigation and the findings and conclusions thereof are summarized in Abuse Report 2001-194692 (abuse report), which was completed on or about December 21, 2001. The abuse report found that on December 4, 2001, Petitioner fell asleep for a few minutes after she had put the five children in her care down for their afternoon nap and that during the time Petitioner was asleep, the children were not supervised. With regard to observations of Petitioner's “day care center,” the investigator noted in the abuse report that Petitioner’s home was “very clean and well kept” and “hazard free” and that there were no hazards observed in the home. Based on the findings of the investigator, relative to Petitioner’s falling asleep, the case was “closed with verified findings of neglect due to inadequate supervision with caretaker present.” The abuse report notes that officials closed Petitioner's facility on or about December 5, 2001. In addition to the incident that occurred on December 4, 2001, the abuse report referred to alleged incidents that took place prior to Petitioner’s being licensed in January 2001. These alleged incidents are not relevant or material to this proceeding in that they were not stated in the January 9, 2001, denial letter to Petitioner as the basis for the Department’s decision to deny Petitioner’s application for renewal of her family child care home license.1 The Department’s January 9, 2002, letter denying Petitioner’s application for renewal of her family child care home license stated in relevant part the following: This letter is to advise you that your application to renew your family day care license, dated November 11, 2001, is denied. In accordance with Section 402.310(10)(a), Florida Statutes, the department may deny a license for the violation of any provision of Sections 402.301-402.319, Florida Statutes, or rules adopted thereunder. The decision is based on the fact that abuse report number 2001-194692 indicates you have a verified report of child neglect for inadequate supervision-caretaker present. On December 4, 2001, during a re-licensing inspection, you were found to be asleep while five children ages, 3 years to 4 years, were in your care. This is in violation of Section 65C-20.009(3)(a), Supervision by Staff, Florida Administrative Code. This states[,] “At all times which includes when children are sleeping, the operator shall remain responsible for the supervision of children in care and capable of responding to the emergencies and needs of children. During the daytime hours of operation, children shall have adult supervision which means watching and directing children’s activities, both indoors and outdoors, and responding to each child’s needs.” Additionally, your actions were in violation of Section 402.301, Florida Statutes, which express [sic] the intent of the Florida Legislature to protect the health, safety, and well being of the children of the state and to promote their emotional and intellectual development and care. Petitioner does not dispute that she dozed off a few minutes on December 4, 2001, but testified credibily that this was an isolated incident. This is substantiated in a letter of support from Cynthia Ray, a former employee of Petitioner who worked at the center. Ms. Ray also served as a substitute for Petitioner and was listed on Petitioner's family child care home license as such. The letter from Ms. Cheryl Ray states that Petitioner has a high energy level, seldom sits down for any length of time, and is always "preparing, cleaning, organizing and doing book work." According to Ms. Ray's letter, it "was out of character for [Petitioner] to fall asleep" while the children were napping or at the center. With regard to the front door being unlocked, Petitioner explained that over the years, the policy or practice of the Department has changed. Petitioner was aware that at one time, the Department required that the door of a child care facility be unlocked so that parents could come in unannounced. Apparently, the Department’s current policy or procedures require that the doors of a child care facility be locked. In light of the policy, Petitioner stated that she would ensure that the doors of her family child care home would be locked. Petitioner has a combined 30 years of experience as a teacher and a principal in Montessori schools. At the time she was licensed by the Department, Petitioner used the Montessori method of instruction and had her home set up consistent with this approach. Parents of children who have been cared for by Petitioner expressed satisfaction, trust, and confidence in Petitioner’s ability to care for their children. They also believe that she has had a positive influence on the children's intellectual and emotional well-being. Many of the parents who testified had several years of experience working with Petitioner as the child care provider for their children. The parents believe that the educational program provided to their children while they were in Petitioner’s care is exceptional. Those parents whose children have left Petitioner’s program to attend kindergarten believe that the educational program provided by Petitioner prepared the children for kindergarten and made the transition to school easier for them. Parents who have had children in Petitioner’s care over the years and up until December 2001, have “dropped in” Petitioner’s home during the day when children were in her care and have never seen anything “amiss” or of concern to them. Parents who have had children in Petitioner's care testified credibly that Petitioner never neglected their children and that they felt their children were safe at Petitioner’s home and not in any danger. Despite the incident that occurred on December 4, 2001, the parents who testified at hearing continue to trust Petitioner to care for their children. The four-year-old daughter of Kevin and Rachel Walsh attended Petitioner's center from the time she was four weeks old, until the center closed in December 2001. The Walshes also have an older son who attended Petitioner's center for four years. During the time Petitioner has been caregiver for their children, the Walshes have been very pleased and satisfied with the care and the education that Petitioner provided to the children. For the past six years, Mrs. Walsh has dropped in unannounced at Petitioner's center and has been satisfied with what she has observed. According the to the Walshes, when in Petitioner's care, their children were in a "clean, safe, happy and learning environment" and learned "not only reading, writing, and math, but also manners and respect." The Walshes indicated that "those qualities make it comfortable for us to relax at our jobs knowing our kids are comfortable and happy." The Walshes live in the same neighborhood as Petitioner and, like Petitioner, they also have a canal behind their house. Because there is a fence which serves as a barrier between Petitioner's yard and the canal, the Walshes do not believe the canal was a hazard for children at Petitioner's center on December 4, 2001, or at any other time. On the day of the re-licensure inspection, the Walsh's daughter was not at the center. Nonetheless, the Walshes expressed utmost confidence in Petitioner to care for their daughter. Since Petitioner's center has been closed, the Walshes have not placed their daughter in another center. It is their desire to return their daughter to the care of Petitioner. Keith and Sharon Delafield's daughter was in the care of Petitioner on the day of the re-licensure inspection and had been in Petitioner's care for about three years. Mr. Delafield testified that during the time that his daughter attended the center, he visited the center, was satisfied with the care his daughter received, and always found the home to be neat and clean. Mr. Delafield believes that his daughter was the child who was whimpering on the day of the re-licensure inspection because she does not like to take naps. However, Mr. Delafield does not believe that she would have gone out of the house without permission of Petitioner. Moreover, despite the events of December 4, 2001, the Delafields trust Petitioner "whole heartedly" with the care of their daughter. According to the Delafields, during the time that their daughter was in the care of Petitioner, there was not a day that she "came home unfed, unclean, untaught, or unloved." Mr. and Mrs. Delafield, are planning to have another child and when they do, it is their desire to place the child with Petitioner. Valerie Senden has had two children attend Petitioner's center even though it is a 30 to 40 minute drive from her house. Ms. Senden's decision to place her children with Petitioner was made after she visited six other centers, all of which she found unsatisfactory. The basis of her dissatisfaction was her observation of the way that children were treated at those centers. During the time that Ms. Senden's children attended Petitioner's center, Ms. Senden made unannounced visits to the center and also spent the day and various parts of the day at the center helping Petitioner. During these visits, Ms. Senden never saw anything that caused her to be concerned about Petitioner's care of the children. Had Ms. Senden seen anything she didn't like or that she believed to be improper, she would have "pulled her children out of the center." Since Petitioner's center was closed, Ms. Senden has not placed her children in another center. Diann Myrick has a son who attended Petitioner's center from about August 2001 until it was closed in December 2001. Ms. Myrick does not believe that her child was ever neglected by Petitioner and is completely satisfied with the care that he has received from her. Moreover, Ms. Myrick testified that every time that she has come to the center to pick up her son, the door is always locked. According to Ms. Myrick, with Petitioner's guidance, her son is learning discipline as well as receiving an education. Ms. Myrick believes that these are things that she has been unable to find in private day care centers. With regard to Petitioner, Ms. Myrick testified that Petitioner is a good caregiver, and that both the children and the parents love Petitioner. Ms. Myrick testified that she wants to put her son in Petitioner's center when and if it is re-opened. Eight letters of support for Petitioner substantiate the testimony at hearing. In these letters, parents whose children have been in the care of Petitioner describe her as "a wonderful teacher and caregiver," an individual who is "honest, competent, and genuine," and a "teacher with compassion, care, and respect for others." Petitioner's center is described as being "not just clean, but immaculate." The parents expressed satisfaction with the education and care that Petitioner provided to their children; indicated that they trust Petitioner to care for their children; and believe it would be a disservice to the children, the parents, and the community to refuse to allow Petitioner to re-open her center.
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 that denies Petitioner's application for renewal of her family child care home license without prejudice to her right to re-apply for such license in the future. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of July, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of July, 2002.
The Issue The issue for disposition in this proceeding is whether Petitioner is entitled to relicensure as a family day-care home.
Findings Of Fact Sherill Gomez resides in Kissimmee, Osceola County, Florida, and had a provisional license to operate a family day- care home at her residence. The license was issued on April 13, 1998, and expired six months later on October 13, 1998. In 1989, Ms. Gomez was involved in an incident of child neglect. She had been babysitting in her home and left two children under the age of 3 sleeping but unattended when she went out shopping. In her absence a 2 1/2-year-old, Andre, got out the door and was picked up by the police. When Ms. Gomez returned she called the police and learned that they had Andre. Apparently all she knew about the child's mother was that she worked at Disney Village. Ms. Gomez took a three-hour course for family day-care and received explicit instructions regarding her duty to provide adult supervision at all times, both inside and outside the house. When she applied for licensure and assured DCFS that the 1989 incident never would occur again, the licensing supervisor, Kathy Swaggerty, agreed to a six-month provisional license with close agency scrutiny of the home during that period. During the provisional license period, Barbara Ivey inspected Ms. Gomez's home several times, both announced and unannounced. She found several violations in July 1998 regarding record-keeping, bedding for the children, and access to unsafe items such as bleach, kitty litter, a weed-wacker, bicycles, and barbeque grills. Concerned that Ms. Gomez did not understand her obligation, Ms. Ivey spent about two and one-half hours with her on that visit explaining the rules. Ms. Ivey also explained the importance of adequate supervision. Ms. Ivey returned on August 5, 1998, and found some violations had been corrected, but there were still problems with two of the children's records; the bicycles were still accessible, and the carpet was dirty. On a subsequent visit in August everything but a nutrition card for one infant had been corrected. Ms. Ivey and Ms. Gomez discussed supervision again and Ms. Ivey emphasized that with one adult caregiver all of the children needed to be in the house or out in the play yard together. Ms. Gomez applied for relicensure and Ms. Ivey scheduled another inspection visit on September 30, 1998, shortly before the provisional license was due to expire. Ms. Ivey arrived at the home and was admitted by Ms. Gomez, who led her into the kitchen area where there was a round table with chairs in front of a large picture window looking onto the backyard. Through the window Ms. Ivey could see two children, ages 3 and 4 years, playing in the yard. A 5-month old infant was in a carry-all near the table in the kitchen. Ms. Ivey told Ms. Gomez that the children needed to come in. Ms. Gomez said that the children were all right, that they could be watched through the window, but Ms. Ivey insisted that the children should come in. When Ms. Ivey went out the backdoor she found another child, an infant, sitting alone on the patio out of view of the window and unable to be observed from inside the house. The backyard is not fenced and leads into a wooded area. The infant could have crawled away into that area. After the children were brought inside Ms. Ivey continued with her inspection but explained that the lack of supervision was a problem. Ms. Gomez also had six children enrolled, a number which was in excess of her approved capacity when her own child was home from school. In the October 13, 1998, license denial letter, inadequate supervision was the specific basis for DCFS' finding that Ms. Gomez's home failed to meet minimum standards. At the hearing Ms. Gomez explained that the reason the children were left alone is that she had to go the door when Ms. Ivey arrived. This explanation does not justify her leaving the infant alone unobserved on the patio nor does it justify Ms. Gomez's delay in retrieving the children after Ms. Ivey's arrival. Moreover, under DCFS standards, she should have brought all of the children inside when she went into the house.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: that the Department of Children and Family Services enter its final order denying Sherill Gomez' application for family day-care home licensure. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of May, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of May, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Sherill Gomez 3689 Penshurst Place Kissimmee, Florida 34758 Carmen M. Sierra, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 400 West Robinson Street Suite S-1106 Orlando, Florida 32801 Gregory D. Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John S. Slye, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Should the Petitioner, Nikki Henderson, d/b/a Henderson Family Day Care Home, be granted a license to operate a family day care home pursuant to section 402.313(3), Florida Statutes (2015)1/ because she does not satisfy the screening provisions of sections 402.305(2) and 402.3055?
Findings Of Fact Ms. Henderson is the mother of four children. She has been a good parent, seeing to their education. She volunteers as the minister of music in a church. She has also taken college courses. Ms. Henderson wants to start a family day care center. On September 12, 2014, the Department granted Ms. Henderson an exemption from disqualification from working with children and other vulnerable populations due to a criminal conviction. This means that just over a year before the hearing, the Department determined that Ms. Henderson proved by clear and convincing evidence that she was rehabilitated and should not be disqualified from employment. § 435.07, Fla. Stat. In the exemption process, the Department could consider the person’s history since the disqualifying criminal offense and “any other evidence or circumstances indicating that the employee will not present a danger if employment or continued employment is allowed.” § 435.07(3)(a) Fla. Stat. A family day care home is an occupied residence, in which child care is regularly provided for payment. The children served under the age of 13 and from at least two unrelated families. § 402.302(8), Fla. Stat. The Department is the licensing authority for family day care homes. It considers an applicant’s criminal history, as well as any reports concerning abuse or neglect maintained in the Department’s statewide database, Florida Safe Families Network (FSFN), formerly known as HomeSafeNet, in licensing decisions. The Department received Ms. Henderson’s completed application to operate a family day care home on June 25, 2015. By letter dated September 2, 2015, and served September 4, 2015, the Department announced its intent to deny the application based upon two verified reports of inadequate supervision of her children and three reports of complaints all closed with “no indicators” or “not substantiated” conclusions. The reports named Ms. Henderson as the caregiver responsible for the children involved. When using either HomeSafeNet or FSN, investigators input information as they collect it. But they do not input all of the information immediately. The information is much more than what the investigators have observed. Most of the information is recitations of statements of others about what the others observed. The FSFN and HomeSafeNet databases contain records of the following reports involving Ms. Henderson: 1999-089863-01 (Ex. C), 2002-136612-01 (Ex. D), 2004-420815-01 (Ex. E), 2005- 323618-01 (Ex. F), and 2012-126218-01 (Ex. G). These are the reports that the Department relies upon to support denying Ms. Henderson a license. The reports set forth activities of the agency’s investigators, stating what they did. What the investigators did was interview people and report what those people said or what they said someone else said. The reports contain very little directly observed by the reporters. The information contained in the reports that the Department relies upon is largely hearsay or hearsay reports of hearsay. The reports consist mostly of summaries of records reviewed by the reporter or summaries of statements by other individuals. They are not reports of information about which the reporter has direct knowledge. The reports do not identify who the investigator obtained the information from. In short all of the statements in Respondent’s Exhibits C through G about anything Ms. Henderson did or did not do are hearsay recitations of statements made to and summarized by the reporters or summaries of documents reviewed. §§ 90.801 & 90.802, Fla. Stat. Hearsay alone cannot support a finding of fact. § 120.57(1)(c), Fla. Stat. The reports also are not competent or persuasive evidence that the assertions in them are accurate. Ms. Henderson disputes the reports. Her live testimony, subject to cross examination, is more persuasive than the words of the reports. The reports do not satisfy the requirements for the business record hearsay exception of section 90.803(6), or the public record exception of section 90.803(8). See, e.g., Lee v. Dep't of HRS, 698 So. 2d 1194, 1200 (Fla. 1997) (investigative report of pregnancy of woman with a disability residing in a state facility not subject to the public record exception). See also, Brooks v. State, 918 So. 2d 181, 193 (Fla. 2005), cert. den., Brooks v. Fla., 547 U.S. 1151, 126 S. Ct. 2294, 164 L. Ed. 2d 820 (2006); M.S. v. Dep't Child. and Fams., 6 So. 3d 102 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). Application of the hearsay rule is no mere legal technicality. The hearsay rule is one of the oldest and most effective means of ensuring decisions that determine people's lives and fortunes are based on reliable information. Florida's Fifth District Court of Appeal described the importance of the rule as follows: Rules governing the admissibility of hearsay may cause inconvenience and complication in the presentment of evidence[,] but the essence of the hearsay rule is the requirement that testimonial assertions shall be subjected to the test of cross examination. 5 Wigmore on Evidence, § 1362 (Chadbourne Rev. 1974). As stated by Professor Wigmore, the hearsay rule is "that most characteristic rule of the Anglo- American law of evidence -- a rule which may be esteemed, next to jury trial, the greatest contribution of that eminently practical legal system to the world's methods of procedure." 5 Wigmore on Evidence, at § 1364. Dollar v. State, 685 So. 2d 901, 903 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). A complaint on July 18, 1999, triggered the investigation resulting in Report 1999-089863-01 (update date November 16, 2000). (Dept. Ex. C). The report summarizes the investigation of an allegation that Ms. Henderson (then Nikki Stanley) “left [her child] Deuteronomy in his carrier sear [sic] on the steps of the alleged Dad’s home,” knocked on the door and drove away. The allegations continue that the adults were inside and that the alleged father’s mother found the child on the steps. Ms. Stanley, who testified and was cross-examined at the hearing, went with Ms. Henderson to leave the child at the father’s home. Ms. Stanley personally placed the child in the hands of an adult at the house. Ms. Stanley and Ms. Henderson also delivered Pampers and milk. Ms. Henderson’s credible and consistent position has always been that she did not leave the child unattended at the house where the child’s father lived. The testimony of Ms. Stanley and Ms. Henderson is consistent with some statements in the report and more credible and persuasive than the allegations recited in the report. The Department closed the investigation with verified findings of inadequate supervision and no indicators of physical injury. The Department did not provide Ms. Henderson an opportunity for a hearing to contest the findings. The Department filed a dependency petition against Ms. Henderson because of the report. It gave her a case plan, requiring the provision of protective services supervision by the Department. The Department did not remove the child from Ms. Henderson’s care. The Department did not prove by the preponderance of the evidence that Ms. Henderson left Deuteronomy alone on the steps on July 18, 1995. She did not. Report number 2002-136612-01 chronicles the investigation of allegations received on August 23, 2002, described as “Physical Injury,” Substance Exposed Child,” “Inadequate Supervision,” and “Environmental Hazards.” (Dept. Ex. D). The report is a confusing document and contains no information about environmental hazards or a child being exposed to a substance. It is not a credible report of anything involving alleged harmful conduct by Ms. Henderson or conduct endangering a child. In fact although the case started as an investigation of her, it ended with the suspected father of the child identified as the possible perpetrator, not Ms. Henderson. Representative paragraphs are reproduced here. ALLEGATION NARRATIVE: ON A RECENT NIGHT, THE MOTHER BROKE WINDOWS AND CAUSED PROBLEMS AT THE HOME OF THE ALLEGED PATERNAL GRANDMOTHER, BARBARA BROWN, WHERE GEORGE [the child apparently involved] WAS AT THE TIME. THIS OCCURRED ABOUT 3:00 A.M. MOTHER HAD CALLED THE ALLEGED FATHER, ALVIN WALLACE (MS. BROWN’S SON/NO DNA TEST DONE YET TO DETERMINE PATERNITY), EARLIER IN THE EVENING. SHE TOLD HIM SHE WAS GOING TO JAIL, AND SHE TOLD HIM TO GET GEORGE, WHICH HE DID AT 3:00 A.M., MOTHER SHOWED UP WANTING GEORGE. LAW ENFORCEMENT WERE CALLED. THEY ADVISED THE MATERNAL GRANDMOTHER, SHARON STANLEY, TO LET MR WALLCE AND MS. BROWN KEEP GEORGE. MOTHER AND GEORGE LIVE AT ADDRESS A WITH THE MATERNAL GRANDMOTHER, ABOUT WHOM CONCERN WAS EXPRESSED BECAUSE SHE HAS SEIZURES. PATERNAL GRANDMOTHER HAS NOW GOTTEN AN INJUNCTION AGAINST MOTHER. MOTHER DID NOT HAVE TO GO TO JAIL. ITS UNKNOWN WHY SHE THOUGHT SHE HAD TO GO. MOTHER’S LIFESTYLE AND BEHAVIOR ARE SAID TO BE ““QUESTIONABLE.”” MS. BROWN AND MR. WALLACE LIVE AT ADDRESS B. 24 HOUR. ALLEGATION NARRATIVE: RIGHT NOW, GEORGE IS AT THE HOME OF THE ALLEGED PATERNAL GRANDMOTHER, BARBARA BROWN, ADDRESS B. NO DNA TEST HAS BEEN DONE. SO IT HAS NOT BEEN DETERMINED TH[A]T MS. BROWN’S SON IS GEORGE’S FATHER. GEORGE SPENT THE WEEKEND AT MS. BROWN’S HOME, AND MS. BROWN NOW REFUSES TO GIVE GEORGE BACK TO THE MATERNAL GRANDMOTHER. ALLEGATION NARRATIVE: MR. WALLACE SHOOK GEORGE TODAY AROUND 7 PM. MR. WALLACE WAS OUTSIDE WITH GEORGE. GEORGE WAS CRYING. MR. WALLACE THREW GEORGE INO THE HAIR [SIC] AND SHOOK HIM. IT IS UNKNOWN IF GEORGE SUFFERED ANY INJURIES AFTER BEING SHOOK. MR. WALLACE HAS A HISTORY OF SELLING AND USING COCAINE AND MARIJUANA. HE WILL SELL THE DRUGS FROM HIS HOME AND ON THE STREETS. IMMEDIATE. INVESTIGATIVE DECISION SUMMARY: BACKGROUND INFORMATI0N: THE FAMILY HAS ONE PRIOR FROM 1999 WHERE PROTECTIVE SERVICES WERE INVOLVED DUE TO VERIFIED INADEQUATE SUPERVISION. ADJUDICATION WAS WITHELD [sic]. THE MOTHER AND HER TWO CHILDREN INVOLVED IN THE PRIOR LIVE WITH THE GRANDPARENTS AND THE NEW BABY IN LAKELAND. PS CLOSED IN 2001. THE MOTHER HAS A CRIMINAL HISTORY THAT INCLUDES A BATTERY CHARGE FROM 2002. CONCERNS OVER THE ALLEGED FATHER ALVIN WALLACE. DUALING [sic] INJUNCTIONS SUBJECT INFORMATION: THE CASE APPEARS TO BE CUSTODY RELATED. THERE WERE CONCERNS OVER THE ALLEGED FATHER ALVIN WALLACE. DUALING [sic] INJUNCTIONS BETWEEN MOM AND PROSPECTIVE FATHER WERE FILED AND BOTH DISPUTED OVER THE CUSTODY OF THE CHILD. JUDGE SMITH GRANTED AN INJUNCTION AGAINST THE ALLEGED FATHER AND GAVE CUSTODY TO THE MOTHER. LATER, THE RESULTS OF THE DNA SCREEN SHOWED THAT MR. WALLACE WAS NOT THE FATHER. HE IS NO LONGER A THREAT AND DOES NOT HAVE CONTACT WITH THE BABY. SHAKING OF CHILD ALLEGATION WAS BOGUS. LEGAL CONTACT: JUDGE SMITH OF D/V COURT GAVE CUSTODY TO MOM AND GRANTED INJUNCTION AGAINT MR. WALLACE WHO TURNED OUT NOT TO BE THE FATHER AFTER A DNA TEST. FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SUPPORT: MOM HAS DV INJUNCTION AND FAMILY SUPPORTS. SERVICES AND REFERRALS: I.E NOTIFIED. CASE APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN CUSTODY RELATED. MR. WALLACE WAS LATER PROVED NOT TO BE THE FATHER AND NO LONGER HAS ANY CONTACT OR RIGHTS TO THE CHILD WHO LIVES WITH THE MOTHER, GP’S AND OTHER SIBLINGS. HE IS NO LONGER A POSSIBLE THREAT TO THE CHILD. CLOSE CASE AS BACKLOG. CONVERTED ICSA SAFETY ASSESSMENT 06/15/2006 *ICSA INITIAL OVERALL SAFETY ASSESSMENT* RISK IS LOW. ALLEGED PERP [Mr. Wallace] WAS DETERMINED NOT TO BE THE DAD AND IS NO LONGER HAVING CONTACT WITH CHLD. *ICSA UPDATED OVERALL SAFETY ASSESSMENT* RISK IS LOW: ALLEGED PERP WAS DETERMINED NOT TO BE THE DAD AND IS NO LONGER HAVING CONTACT WITH CHILD. The Department closed the investigation with no indicators for any of the alleged mistreatment. The report did not conclude that Ms. Henderson acted improperly or did not act when she should have. The Department initiated case number 2004-420815-01 on September 29, 2004, in response to an allegation that Ms. Henderson was leaving her four children at home alone at night. (Dept. Ex. E). At the conclusion of the investigation, the Department determined that there were no indicators of inadequate supervision. The summary concluded: “The Mother has made adequate arrangements for the children while she works thus not causing a concern for safety and/or permanency.” On February 8, 2005, the Department received a complaint alleging that Ms. Henderson was leaving the children at home alone and coaching them to tell people that she was home, but asleep. The Department started an investigation resulting in report number 2005-323618-01 (Dept. Ex. F). The Department closed this investigation with verified findings of inadequate supervision. It filed another dependency petition to obtain court-ordered protective services supervision. The court ordered a case plan that included a requirement to complete a parenting program. During this open case, Ms. Henderson demonstrated some lack of responsiveness to the Department’s preferred eight-week in-home parenting program. She took a one-day program at the Polk County Courthouse instead. The court, whose order Ms. Henderson was to comply with, accepted this class as satisfying the parenting program, over the Department’s objection. Basically the Department is second-guessing the court’s ruling and treating Ms. Henderson as if she had not met the court’s requirements when she did. On May 31, 2012, Ms. Henderson reported to the Department that a school intern inappropriately touched the breasts of Ms. Henderson’s 14-year old daughter. This initiated report number 2012-126218-01. (Dept. Ex. G). Ms. Henderson was not the subject of the investigation. The intern was. Ms. Ebrahimi was the child protective investigator supervisor at the time of this report. She has personal knowledge of some of the facts in that report and testified about them. Ms. Henderson was very upset about the incident. She acted vigorously and promptly to protect her daughter. Ms. Henderson immediately picked up her daughter and reported the incident to the Department and the school. She insisted that the school remove her daughter from the intern’s class. She also arranged for her daughter to attend a different school the next year. Only one week was left in the current school year. She obtained a temporary injunction against the intern. Ms. Henderson also sought to obtain a permanent injunction to protect her daughter. Ms. Henderson did everything lawful that a loving protective parent could do for her child. The day after the incident Ms. Henderson spoke to Detective Rose. He told Ms. Henderson that the authorities did not perceive sufficient evidence to take actions to protect her daughter, including obtaining an injunction. Even Ms. Ebrahimi concedes that Ms. Henderson was very cooperative with the Department and protective of her child. Ms. Ebrahimi faults Ms. Henderson for, in Ms. Ebrahimi’s view, not following through on the permanent injunction and failing to return phone calls from the Department’s investigator. Ms. Henderson did not receive calls or messages from the investigator. Ms. Ebrahimi does not have personal knowledge of whether the investigator called Ms. Henderson. Ms. Henderson’s testimony about not receiving calls from the investigator is more credible and persuasive than the cryptic notes in the report. Ms. Henderson’s actions were entirely reasonable and protective of her daughter. A person in authority told her that she could not obtain an injunction. So she took no further actions on that front. Ms. Henderson acted immediately to have the offender removed from contact with her child. She arranged for her child to be transferred to a different school. The Department’s investigative summary itself shows the reasonableness of Ms. Henderson’s actions and the difficult circumstances she faced, including a lack of support from responsible authorities, when her 14-year-old daughter reported an intern fondling her breasts at school. The report says: The child states that the intern touched her breast. She disclosed that she told the teacher who did nothing about it. Stated she also told her mother who made a report to law enforcement. The intern is no longer in the child’s classroom but is still at the school per the mother. CPI to update as more information is received. UPDATE: Risk low. Several statements in the report substantiate Ms. Henderson’s recall of events and buttress the determination that she is more persuasive than the document. It also demonstrates that the alleged calls were for the bureaucratic process of closing the case, not furthering the investigation to protect Ms. Henderson’s daughter. In addition, it is difficult to imagine what additional information the DCF investigator could obtain from Ms. Henderson. She had already told DCF all she knew about the assault. The summary also supports Ms. Henderson’s testimony that a police officer told her the police would not pursue the case. It states: “Other children reportedly also reported witnessing, then recanted to Lakeland Police Detective. Lakeland Police not pursuing further, did not find alleged victim credible.”
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent, Department of Children and Families, enter a final order granting the application of Petitioner, Niki Henderson d/b/a Henderson Family Day Care Home, to operate a family day care home. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of May, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN D. C. NEWTON, II 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 2nd day of May, 2016.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent should grant Petitioner an exemption from disqualification to be licensed to operate a family day care home pursuant to Subsection 402.310(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2004).
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the agency responsible for licensing and regulating day care homes in the state. Petitioner seeks a license to operate a family day care home. Respondent is statutorily required to complete a background screening clearance for Petitioner as a condition of license approval. The background screening revealed an arrest on September 19, 1997, for a misdemeanor charge of simple battery defined in Section 784.03, Florida Statutes (1997). The arrest arose from an incident of domestic violence in which Petitioner struck her partner (spouse) with a wet floor mop. The solution included bleach. No serious injury resulted from the incident. The county court withheld adjudication and fined Petitioner $193. Petitioner eventually paid the fine.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order withdrawing the disqualification of Petitioner and proceed with the application for license. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of March, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of March, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack Emory Farley, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 4720 Old Highway 37 Lakeland, Florida 33813-2030 L. W. (Address of record) Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204B 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Josie Tamayo, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent was a licensed operator of a Family Day Care Home located at 2927 Monte Carlo, Orlando, Florida. Licenses to operate a Family Day Care Home are issued by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services for periods of one year. Respondent's license was first issued in 1991 and was last renewed on June 21, 1994. It was valid through June 21, 1995. Respondent's Family Day Care Home has been closed voluntarily since July 18, 1994. Respondent submitted an application to renew her license prior to its June 21, 1995 expiration date. Petitioner denied Respondent's license renewal application by letter dated June 21, 1995. Petitioner has not cited Respondent for any code violations in her home at the time of the renewal. At the time of Respondent's application for license renewal, she met all training requirements for an operator of a family day care. In November of 1993, while in the care of Respondent, a child had suffered burns while at Respondent's family day care home. No charges, criminal or administrative, were filed against Respondent and her license was renewed the following year. In mid-June, 1994, Vanecia McCree, a 24-month old child began attending Respondent's day care, along with her brother and sister. On July 18, 1994, the child had been dropped off at Respondent's family day care home by her mother, Michelle McCree, at approximately 10:30- 11:00 a.m. When the mother dropped off the child on July 18, 1994, she informed Respondent that she wanted the child to change from regular diapers to pull-ups. She requested that Respondent to start potty training the child. Respondent told Ms. McCree that the child was not ready for pull-ups yet because she displayed no signs of using the restroom on her own. When Respondent first attempted to have the child use the bathroom on the morning of July 18, 1994, the child appeared "hysterical" and "frantic" and appeared to be in pain. When Respondent asked the child if she was in pain, the child nodded her head in the affirmative. This caused Respondent to be very concerned about the child's condition. Respondent did not call the mother or Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services at that point because she had been informed by the child's grandmother that the child had "knots" in her genital area and that the child had an infection. Respondent had been informed by the child's brother that the child had been taken to the hospital the previous night. The child was under Respondent's constant supervision the entire day. The only time during the day that the child was not constantly in the same room as Respondent was while the child was sleeping. During the time the child was napping, Respondent was out of the room during certain periods, but constantly kept the child in her sight. Throughout the course of the day, the child never fell, never appeared to sustain any injury, and never had an outburst which would indicate she had been injured. At approximately 4:45 p.m., when Respondent took the child to the restroom, she discovered spots of blood in the child's pull-up diaper. Upon noticing the spots of blood in the child's pull-up diaper, Respondent immediately telephone the child's grandmother, Barbara McCree. Respondent telephoned the child's grandmother because the grandmother was the person who arranged for the children to attend her facility. Respondent told Barbara McCree that she had discovered "a little blood" in the child's diaper and that the child should be taken to the hospital. Barbara McCree told Respondent that she would call the child's mother to pick up the child, and requested that Respondent save the pull-up diaper and give it to the mother. The mother arrived at Respondent's family day care home at approximately 5:10 p.m. to pick up her children. Upon her arrival, Ms. McCree did not examine the child to see where the blood in the diaper might be coming from. Respondent was upset but gave the pull-up diaper that contained the spots of blood to the mother upon her arrival. Ms. McCree took the child home prior to examining her. When she checked the child, her diaper was full of blood. Ms. McCree took the child to the hospital where she was examined, and on the following day had stitches to close a laceration in her vaginal area. Because of the nature of the injury, it was elected to take the child to the operating room for examination under anesthesia; however the child had eaten two bags of potato chips and some Coke during the extended stay in the emergency area causing the delay in performing the surgical procedure. There was no significant bleeding at the time of the initial examination on July 18, 1994. The injury was corrected surgically on the following morning. It has not been determined when the injury to the child occurred. After extensive examination of the genital area, the injury appeared to be most consistent with a traumatic injury. Following the completion of the investigation, no criminal charges were filed, nor any administrative action taken against Respondent's license. Petitioner's decision to deny Respondent's license renewal was based upon the Licensing Supervisor's belief that the injury to Venecia McCree occurred while the child was in Respondent's care. Respondent's license renewal application was not denied based on any other reason. There was no medical determination that the injury to the child had occurred while the child was in Respondent's care.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Respondent's application for renewal of her Family Day Care license be GRANTED. DONE and ORDERED this 14th day of August, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of August, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-4036 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. Petitioner did not file proposed findings. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38 (in part), 39 (in part), 40 (in part), 41, 42, and 43. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial or subsumed: paragraphs 7, 8, 38 (in part), 39 (in part), 40 (in part). COPIES FURNISHED: Laurie A. Lashomb, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services District 7 Legal Office 400 West Robinson Street, Suite S-827 Orlando, Florida 32801 Robert J. Crohan, Jr., Esquire Wade Coye and Associates 2511 Edgewater Drive Orlando, Florida 32804 Gregory D. Venz Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard, Room 204-X Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Richard Doran General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard, Room 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent should deny Petitioner's application to operate a registered family day care home on the grounds that two incidents of child neglect demonstrate Petitioner's inability to ensure the safety of children under Petitioner's care.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the state agency responsible for registering family day care homes in Florida. Respondent operated a registered family day care in her home from sometime before July 30, 2001, until the registration expired on July 29, 2002. In November 2002, Petitioner applied to operate a registered family day care home, Respondent proposes to deny that application. Respondent's licensing division conducted a background screening investigation of the applicant in accordance with applicable statutes and rules. The investigation revealed two reports in the Florida Abuse Hotline Information System (FAHIS) in which children under Petitioner's care suffered injuries. By letter dated January 27, 2002, Respondent notified Petitioner that Respondent proposed to deny Petitioner's application to operate a registered family day care home (Notice of Denial). The Notice of Denial provides that the two incidents of injuries to children under Petitioner's care demonstrate an inability to "ensure the safety of children to the level necessary to be registered as a family day care." On August 9, 2000, Respondent received a report alleging that a child in Petitioner's care received bite marks. Respondent investigated the report and closed the report in an untimely manner sometime in 2002 as verified for maltreatment. The final report named Petitioner as the perpetrator of maltreatment. On July 30, 2001, Respondent approved Petitioner's application to operate a registered day care home. Respondent approved the application after Respondent received the report of maltreatment on August 9, 2000, but before Respondent closed the report in 2002. The registration approved by Respondent on July 30, 2001, expired on July 29, 2002. On November 1, 2001, Respondent received a second report alleging that a child under Petitioner's care was injured. Respondent investigated the report and timely closed the report verified for inadequate supervision. The report found that a child in Petitioner's care received bite marks, bruising, scratches, and a swollen upper lip while in an unsupervised room with two other children. The report found that the cause of the injuries was unknown. Petitioner did not request a hearing to challenge either the report of maltreatment or the report of inadequate supervision. The time for contesting the content of the reports has expired. Petitioner's registration to operate a family day care home expired on July 29, 2002. Respondent should not grant Petitioner's application to operate a registered family day care home. The evidence is clear and convincing that Petitioner is unable to ensure the safety of children to the level necessary to operate a registered family day care home.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's application to operate a registered family day care home. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of July, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of July, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard Cato, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 400 West Robinson Street Suite S-1106 Orlando, Florida 32801-1782 Sheila D. Engum, Esquire Post Office Box 620837 Oviedo, Florida 32762-0837 Paul Flounlacker, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204B Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Josie Tomayo, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Jerry Regier, Secretary Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 1, Room 202 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
