The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent properly revoked Petitioner's license to operate a family day care home.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner is the owner and operator of a family day care home and, until the revocation which is the subject of this action, held license number 07C696L. In response to a parent's complaint that she had arrived at the family day care home to find her child crying in a room in which an unidentified man was sleeping, the Department's investigator, Brandi Blanchard, made an unscheduled visit to Petitioner's family day care home immediately following receipt of the complaint. The only evidence that this event occurred as portrayed by the complaining parent is contained in the Department reports and testimony by Department employees who were not present when the event occurred. When questioned regarding the parent's complaint, Petitioner advised that she had left the children for about 15 to 20 minutes in the care of Sibyl Dexter, an authorized substitute caregiver. In addition, there was some discussion about the identity of an adult male sleeping in the family day care home who had been reported by the complaining parent. Other than the hearsay report of the complaining parent, no corroborative evidence was received regarding the identify of this adult male, nor did any witness testify as to having seen this adult male. It was suggested that the "adult male" was Petitioner's husband; this was denied by Petitioner. In her investigative report, Ms. Blanchard indicates that the substitute caregiver stated that she had not been at the family day care home on the particular day in question; however, Mrs. Dexter, the substitute caregiver, did not testify, and, therefore, this hearsay statement by Ms. Blanchard is not being considered. In her testimony, as in her letter contesting the license revocation and requesting this hearing, Petitioner maintained that the substitute caregiver, Mrs. Dexter, was present. In the absence of testimony by the complaining parent or the substitute caregiver, Petitioner's testimony is credible.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered reinstating Petitioner's license to operate a family day care home. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of April, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JEFF B. CLARK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of April, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Kozette King 3914 Travati Street Orlando, Florida 32839 Beryl Thompson-McClary, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 400 West Robinson Street, S-1106 Orlando, Florida 32801 Gregory D. Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204B 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Josie Tomayo, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Whether Petitioner, the holder of a family day care home registration, has violated Respondent's minimum standards for child care providers by failing to directly supervise an infant in her care on March 22, 2006, and whether her registration should be revoked, pursuant to Section 402.310(1), Florida Statutes.1
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Jacqueline Bizzell, has been operating a child care facility in her home, at the same location, since 1992. She has been a registered family day care home with Respondent since January 30, 2001. As a part of her application to be a registered family day care home provider, Petitioner sent Respondent verification that she completed the required training for child care providers, which includes knowledge of Respondent's rules and regulations in the area governing child care. On January 26, 2006, Petitioner was informed that her family day care home was again registered for one year, effective January 30, 2006. In the letter, Petitioner was informed that she must maintain her registration in accordance with Section 402.313, Florida Statutes (2005). On March 24, 2006, Respondent received an allegation of neglect or abuse that took place at Petitioner's family day care home on March 22, 2006. Rivers Lewis (Lewis) was a child protective investigator for Respondent on the date of the allegation. He conducted an investigation of the allegation and completed a report. As a part of the investigation, Lewis spoke directly with Petitioner who stated that on March 22, 2006, the child was the only child in her care the day of the incident, and that she left him sleeping on her bed and went into the hallway in front of another room to do laundry or to do something else. Petitioner told Lewis that as soon as she heard the child cry, she stepped back into the room to find that he had fallen from the bed. Petitioner said, first, that the child had fallen off the bed, but later stated that the child had been on the side of the bed and was hanging onto the covers. Lewis submitted his investigative report on April 27, 2006, concluding that the case could be closed with verified indicators of "inadequate supervision" by Petitioner. Shortly after Lewis submitted his report, Ivette Garcia, Child Care Licensing Administrator, received a copy and reviewed it with another worker. She sent Petitioner a letter, dated May 10, 2006, stating that: "The purpose of this letter is to advise you that effective immediately, your family day care home is closed and that your registration is no longer valid." The closure was based upon the incident that occurred on March 22, 2006, wherein the investigative report, submitted by Lewis, confirmed indicators of inadequate supervision. No further investigation or other action was conducted by the child care licensing section in DCF's District 7 before the letter was sent. Although Garcia testified at the hearing that inadequate supervision of a child is a Class I violation, the highest violation, Petitioner was not specifically advised of such classification in the May 10, 2006, letter, nor was a finding made of an immediate serious danger to the health, safety, or welfare of the children who are enrolled in Petitioner's home. Respondent's District 7 Child Care Licensing office did not go to Petitioner's home to inspect or verify the report. It had no further communication with Petitioner after said date. Petitioner was not charged with causing injury to a child under her supervision. Garcia testified that due to the limitations of the registration statute (§ 402.313, Fla. Stat.), Respondent had only one option to deal with a Class I violation: immediately close the home and invalidate the registration. Petitioner's family day care home operated under the name: Hi Granny Day Care. She had only one child in her home on March 22, 2006, the eight-month-old boy, Markel. The child had been fussy and throwing up all day. At about 4:00 p.m., she put the child in the middle of her bed when he finally went to sleep. The bed was by the door. She stepped across the hall to do some chores and while standing at the door, in front of the playroom for about 14 or 15 minutes. When she heard a noise, she immediately stepped back into the room. She admits that she said to the investigator that he fell out of the bed, but that he really did not fall to the floor, but slid off of the bed and was dangling from the bed when she came back into the room; and a blanket broke his fall. She provided a handwritten diagram of her home as it appeared on the date of the incident. Petitioner had been taking care of Sherina Clemons' eight-month-old son, Markel, for over two months when the incident occurred. On March 22, 2006, Petitioner called her between 4:45 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. asking Clemons to not be mad at her. Petitioner told her that the child had been asleep when she placed him on her bed, but that when she walked out of the room, he must have awakened and fallen off of the bed landing on a pallet of covers. According to Latoya Marion, Children's Home Society, the Petitioner's reputation in the community was very good as a child care provider. Latisha Rashawn Bell has known Petitioner for about three years and Petitioner cared for her daughter in 2006. She came to Petitioner's home on March 22, 2006, later in the evening, and knocked on the door. Petitioner came to the door, holding the child, who was whining or crying. Petitioner told her that the child had fallen out of the bed, but had not landed on the floor. Chakera Angelette Faniel is a child care provider, who is not employed by Petitioner. Petitioner cared for Ms. Faniel's daughter for the first three years of her daughter's life, but no longer does. She has known Petitioner for about five years and knows her to be a caring and loving person. Petitioner has a very good reputation in the community as a child care provider. The clear and convincing evidence demonstrates that late in the afternoon of March 22, 2006, Petitioner placed a sleeping eight-month-old boy in the middle of her king-size bed, which was located in her bedroom near the door. Petitioner stepped across the hall and did some chores, while standing in front of the playroom for about 14 or 15 minutes. Although she was only three or four feet from the child, Petitioner could not see the child from where she was standing. When she heard the child cry, she immediately stepped back into the room and found the child lying on some covers on the floor. She picked the child up, who did not appear to be injured. Shortly thereafter, Petitioner contacted the child's parents and reported the incident to them. The child's mother arrived later and took the child home. The evidence is clear and convincing that Petitioner failed to provide direct supervision of the child while he was napping, in the late afternoon, on March 22, 2006. The evidence is clear and convincing that Petitioner is a long-term child care provider, who obviously gives compassionate care to the children in her care. There have been no prior reported incidents of neglect or abuse filed against Petitioner, nor were prior deficiencies listed. Petitioner enjoys a good reputation as a child care provider in her community. Except for the incident on March 22, 2006, no evidence was presented that Petitioner presented an immediate serious danger to the public health, safety, or welfare to the children who are enrolled in her family day care home.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: The Secretary of the Department of Children and Family Services issue a final order as follows: Finding Petitioner guilty of a single violation of the provisions of Florida Administration Code Rule 65C-22.001(5)(a) and (b) on March 22, 2006; Imposing an administrative fine of $100; and Immediately reinstating Petitioner's family day care home registration for a period of 264 days and permitting Petitioner the opportunity to submit an application for renewal of her family day care home registration at the appropriate time. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of April, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of April, 2007.
The Issue Should Respondent’s annual renewal of her family day care home registration be denied?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: The Department is the agency of the State of Florida with whom a family day care home must register annually if that family day care home is not required to be licensed by the Department or the county within which the family day care home is located. Annie P. Smith owns and operates Smith Family Day Care Home, which is located in Highlands County, Florida. Respondent is not required to be licensed by the Department or Highlands County but must register annually with the Department. On or about October 28, 1999, Respondent applied to renew her annual family day care home registration. On or about November 10, 1999, the Department screened Florida Abuse Hotline Information System (FAHIS) which revealed report number 1998-094609, an alleged report of child abuse or neglect filed against Respondent. FAHIS report number 1998-094609 alleges that while the child D.W.H., aged 6 months, was under the care of Respondent the child received a large bruise on his upper, inside left thigh. The report characterizes Respondent's role as an alleged perpetrator of child abuse. On or about March 29, 2000, the Department received FAHIS report number 2000-050228, alleging that the child, K.L.B. was picked up from Respondent's day family care home with a broken arm. By an Amended Administrative Complaint dated April 28, 2000, the Department advised Respondent that it was denying her application for annual renewal of her family day care home registration. The Department's denial of Respondent's application for renewal of her registration for her family day care home was based on Respondent's: (a) failure to provide satisfactory proof of screening in accordance with Section 402.313(1)(a)5., Florida Statutes; (b) failure to protect and maintain the safety of the child, D.W.H. while the child was in her care; and (c) failure to protect and maintain the safety of the child, K.L.B. while the child was in her care. The Department presented no evidence concerning FAHIS report number 2000-050228 or the alleged abuse of the child, K.L.B. In fact, the Department announced at the hearing that it was dropping Count III of the Administrative Complaint concerning the alleged abuse of the child, K.L.B. After picking D.W.H. up from Respondent's family day care home on August 25, 1998, T.W., the child's mother, transported the child to Heartland Pediatrics of Avon Park for a scheduled appointment with Dr. Deshipande for the child's regular check-up. During the child's examination, Dr. Deshipande, discovered bruises on the inner thigh of the child's left leg. Dr. Deshipande described the bruises as a "large area on (l) inner thigh of bruising in various stages -- dark purple to pink. No tenderness. No other bruises elsewhere." (Emphasis furnished). Dr. Deshipande suspected possible child abuse and instructed one of his staff to notify the Department's abuse hotline. Subsequently, the Department conducted an investigation into the allegations of abuse. Ray Starr, a former Child Protective Investigator (CPI), with the Department, was the person primarily responsible for the Department's investigation and preparation of the abuse report. Starr's testimony that he contacted Respondent during his investigation by telephone concerning the alleged abuse is inconsistent with the abuse report and with Respondent's testimony. The abuse report indicates that Starr talked with Respondent in person concerning the alleged abuse. Respondent testified that neither Starr nor anyone else from the Department talked to her by telephone or in person concerning the alleged abuse during the time of the investigation. After discussing the background of the child's parents with local law enforcement and Department personnel, including one Department employee who was a "good friend" of the child's father, Starr determined that the child's parents were not responsible for the bruises. Without any further investigation (except possibly one telephone call to Respondent) Starr determined that the bruises were either the direct result of Respondent's action with the child or her inattention to the child which resulted in the bruises by whatever means. Starr made no effort to discuss Respondent's reputation as a caregiver with any of Respondent's present or past clients or to determine if there had been any problems with Respondent's care of other children. Based on the testimony of several of Respondent's present and past clients, Respondent enjoys a reputation of being an excellent caregiver for children, particularly younger children. On August 25, 1998, the child's mother, while giving the child's medical history to Dr. Deshipande, indicated that the child had been going to Respondent's family day care home for a period of 12 days and that bruising had been noted once before. However, at the hearing the child's mother testified that she could not recall how long the child went to Respondent's family day care home and that there had been no problem with the child's suffering any bruising at Respondent's day care home prior to the day of the alleged incident. The child's mother could not recall what time she left the child at Respondent's home or picked him up from Respondent's home on the day of the alleged incident or any other day. The child's mother could not recall virtually anything about the incident other than her assertion that she checked her child thoroughly before she took him anywhere and checked him thoroughly after picking him up, which she described as "a mother's thing." Based on this assertion, the mother concluded that the child must have been bruised between the time she left him in Respondent's care on August 25, 1998, and the time she picked him up from Respondent's day care home on August 25, 1998. Karen Babcock, a Licensed Practical Nurse, employed by Heartland Pediatrics of Avon Park saw the bruises on the child on August 25, 1998, while he was being examined by Dr. Deshipande. Babcock testified that although she was not present when the photographs were taken by a Department employee on August 26, 1998, the bruises on the child's leg as shown by the photographs depict a fair and accurate representation of the bruises as they appeared on August 25, 1998. Ray Starr was present when the photographs were taken on August 26, 1998, and testified that the bruises on the child's leg as shown by the photographs depict a fair and accurate representation of the bruises as they appeared on August 26,1998. Dr. Deshipande did not testify at the hearing and, other than his description of the bruises, did not state in his notes an opinion as to when he considered the bruises may have occurred. The fact that he noted bruises "in various stages" indicates that the bruises occurred at various times. Nothing in Ray Starr's testimony or the abuse report indicates that Ray Starr talked with Dr. Deshipande concerning the timing of the bruising. Likewise, none of the other witnesses talked with Dr. Deshipande concerning the timing of the bruising. Dr. Deshipande's description of child's bruises does not describe bruises that are alleged to have occurred earlier in the day on August 25, 1998, during the time the child was in the care of the Respondent. Likewise, the photographs, when viewed in light of Dr. Deshipande's description of the bruising as it appeared to him on August 25, 1998, do not depict bruising that is alleged to have occurred earlier in the day on August 25, 1998, during the time the child was under the care of Respondent. Therefore, although it is clear that the child was bruised, it is not at all clear that the child was bruised during the time he was under the care of Respondent on August 25, 1998, either by Respondent directly or as a result of Respondent's inattention, notwithstanding the testimony of the child's mother to the contrary, which I find lacks credibility.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department enter a final order granting Respondent's application for renewal of her annual family day care home registration. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th of January, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ WILLIAM R. CAVE 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) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of January, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack Emory Farley, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 4720 Old Highway 37 Lakeland, Florida 33813-2030 Sidney M. Crawford, Esquire Sidney M. Crawford, P.A. Post Office Box 5947 Lakeland, Florida 33807 Virginia A. Daire, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204B Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Josie Tomayo, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Whether the Department of Children and Family Services ("Department") properly revoked the Petitioner's, Elena Highland's, family child care home registration because her husband, a member of the household, has a verified abuse of report of sexual abuse of a child.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Elena Highland, is registered to operate a family day care home, located at her home. She has been so registered since March 1, 2002. W.H., the husband of Mrs. Highland, lives with her in their home where she operates the family day care home. W.H. also works outside the home. W.H. is the designated substitute for the family day care home. In March 1992, the Union County Sheriff's Department investigated the circumstances of an attempted suicide and sexual battery of a 15-year-old female victim in Case No. 92-46- CFA. During the investigation W.H. admitted to John Dempsey that he had sexual relations with the girl on one occasion, but it was consensual. W.H. was 21 years old at the time. W.H. was later arrested. The Department also investigated the case and verified Abuse Report No. 92-035063, against W.H. for the March 1992, sexual molestation of the 15 year-old victim for the following reasons: W.H. admitted to Deputy Dempsey that he had consensual sexual relations with the girl on one occasion. The victim was not dating W.H., was not "sweet" on him, and he was dating her aunt. The victim denied that the sex was consensual. The victim's suicide note and subsequent statements indicated that her suicide attempt was because W.H. had been forcing her to have sex over a three-year period. The victim's statements were consistent throughout the investigation, and she was severely depressed because of the abuse. The victim remained hospitalized for two months. The victim's mother had found her daughter's dresser blocking the door on one occasion, which was consistent with the girl's statement. The victim told her mother her brothers were bothering her. Another household member had seen W.H. supposedly ironing in the dark at the home on one occasion. W.H. stayed at the victim's home and at her grandmother's home on occasion. His family lived in the same projects complex as the victim's family. The prosecution of W.H. was dropped because the victim was to fragile and did not want to testify. Sandy Looney, day care licensing supervisor, testified that the Department's policy is never to register or license and/or revoke the registration or license of family day care homes with a household member who has a verified abuse report for sexual abuse in order to protect the children. Ms. Looney stated that Mrs. Highland's receipt of a family day care registration in March 2002 was a Department error. W.H. denied at hearing that he ever had sex with the victim and that he ever stated to Deputy Dempsey that he had consensual sex with the girl.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Administrative Complaint be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of April, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of April, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Elena Highland 1823 Southwest Judy Lane Lake City, Florida 32025 Lucy Goddard-Teel, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services Post Office Box 390, Mail Sort 3 Gainesville, Florida 32602-0390 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 is whether Petitioner's application for licensure to operate a family day care home should be denied.
Findings Of Fact On June 6, 2008, Petitioner applied for a license to operate a family day care home in Bartow, Florida. As part of the licensure process, the Department is required to conduct an inspection of the home where Petitioner's proposed family day care would be operated. The inspections are conducted by the Department's family safety counselors. Patricia Step was the family safety counselor initially responsible for conducting the licensure inspection of Petitioner's home. On February 20, 2009, prior to conducting the actual inspection, Ms. Step completed a preliminary walk-through of Petitioner's home. The purpose of the walk-through was to advise Petitioner of areas of her home and property that were not in compliance with required standards and needed to be corrected or addressed prior to the licensure inspection. After completing the initial walk-through, Ms. Step listed the areas that needed to be corrected or addressed prior to the licensure inspection in preliminary review notes, which she gave to Petitioner. Those areas were as follows: (1) a fence at least four feet high was needed around the playground area in the backyard; (2) the alarm on one of the two doors in the master bedroom, specifically, the master bathroom door leading to the pool, needed to be repaired; (3) the screen door needed to be locked from the inside so that a child playing outside could not access the swimming pool5; and (4) locks needed to be placed on kitchen cabinets containing cleaning supplies and other harmful items, and knives needed to be placed in upper cabinets. On February 27, 2009, a week after the initial walk-through, Ms. Step conducted a licensure inspection of Petitioner's home. This date was mutually agreed upon by Petitioner and Ms. Step on February 20, 2009, after Petitioner indicated that she could have the four areas of non-compliance corrected or addressed in a week. During the licensure inspection, Ms. Step determined that Petitioner had addressed and/or corrected three of the four items listed in the preliminary review. The one item that had not been addressed was the "pool alarm on the [master bathroom] door" leading to the swimming pool. The alarm on the master bathroom door was part of Brinks' alarm system that included all the other doors in the house which led outside or to the pool area. Petitioner and her husband had this "high tech" alarm system installed after the April 23, 2006, incident discussed below. The alarm system could be programmed to allow each interior door to cause either the alarm to sound or a "chiming sound" when anyone opened the interior door to exit the house. At the time of the inspection, all the interior doors leading to the pool were programmed so that when the alarm system was turned on, the alarm would sound if anyone opened those doors.6 Except for the master bathroom door, the alarm on all the other doors leading to the pool were working properly. Ms. Step recorded the results of the February 27, 2009, inspection on the Department's Inspection Checklist form ("Inspection Checklist"). Of the 38 areas listed on the Inspection Checklist, Ms. Step indicated that Petitioner's application and/or home were non-compliant in two areas-- background screening and swimming pools. In the area of background screening, Ms. Step noted that there was no local criminal background check on file for Carlos Granados, Petitioner's cousin who was temporarily living in Petitioner's household. In the area of swimming pools, Ms. Step noted two areas of non-compliance: (1) the swimming pool at Petitioner's home was not properly maintained; and (2) the "pool alarm" was inoperable. Although the Inspection Checklist noted that the "pool alarm" was inoperable, Ms. Step never told Petitioner that a "pool alarm" needed to be in the swimming pool. Rather, Ms. Step spoke to Petitioner only about the need to repair the alarm on the master bathroom door that led to the pool.7 Based on Ms. Step's statements to Petitioner about the "alarm" and her preliminary review notes, both Ms. Step and Petitioner understood the reference to "pool alarm" on the Inspection Checklist to mean the alarm on the master bathroom door. The Inspection Checklist completed on February 27, 2009, specified that the "due date" to correct the non-compliant areas was April 3, 2009. After completing the licensure inspection on February 27, 2009, Ms. Step intended to return to Petitioner's home to determine if the non-compliant areas had been brought into compliance. However, Ms. Step never returned to Petitioner's home. Instead, Vicki Richmond, a family safety counselor, followed up on Petitioner's progress in addressing the non-compliant areas8 while she was at Petitioner's home conducting a complaint investigation.9 On March 13, 2009, nine months after Petitioner submitted her licensure application, Ms. Richmond conducted a Central Abuse Hotline search on Petitioner and her husband as part of the application review process. The Department is required to search the records of the Central Abuse Hotline for reports of abuse, neglect, or abandonment. This search provides information as to whether Petitioner's name appears in those records, and, if so, whether there were "verified" indicators of maltreatment of children. Both Petitioner and her husband consented to this search. The Central Abuse Hotline search revealed a verified report for inadequate supervision by Petitioner and her husband and some indicators of maltreatment, asphyxiation. The report involved an incident that occurred on April 23, 2006, in which Petitioner and her husband's then three-year-old daughter almost drowned. On or about March 13, 2009, Ms. Richmond notified Ms. Step of the report and advised her that the verified findings needed to be addressed prior to proceeding with the license. On March 20, 2009, while driving across Highway 60 in the Bartow area, Ms. Richmond saw a sign with the name of Petitioner's prospective family day care home and her address and telephone number. Concerned that the sign did not include a license number, Ms. Richmond contacted the licensing office to verify whether Petitioner's home was a licensed family day care home. She was advised that Petitioner's licensure application was "pending" and had not been approved. Ms. Richmond then called Ms. Step to check the status of Petitioner's licensure application. During that conversation, Ms. Step reminded Ms. Richmond that this was the applicant for whom she (Richmond) had recently done the Central Abuse Hotline search. On March 23, 2009, as part of the complaint investigation about Petitioner's sign, Ms. Richmond made an unannounced visit to Petitioner's home. Ms. Richmond advised Petitioner that it was illegal for her to post a sign advertising her home as a family day care home before it was licensed. In response, Petitioner informed Ms. Richmond that after the February 27, 2009, licensure inspection, she (Petitioner) had been told that she could put a sign up and start a waiting list of people interested in day care services. After hearing Petitioner's explanation, Ms. Richmond then told Petitioner that "if" she put up a sign prior to licensure, the sign had to "at least" include in bold letters, "License Pending." On March 23, 2009, immediately after addressing the "sign" issue, Ms. Richmond conducted an unannounced or inspection walk-through of Petitioner's home and discussed issues with Petitioner that Ms. Richmond believed were of concern to the Department. During the walk-through, Petitioner advised Ms. Richmond that the "door alarm" had not yet been repaired. Among the issues Ms. Richmond raised and discussed with Petitioner were: (1) the need to install either a pool alarm or portable pool barriers; (2) the pool was not clean and was only partially filled with water; (3) the spa in the backyard needed a cover; (4) the local criminal background check for Petitioner's cousin had not been received. Ms. Richmond described to Petitioner and her husband two options related to the swimming pool--the "portable pool barriers" and a "pool alarm." In describing the "pool alarm," Ms. Richmond indicated that it was a device that was placed in the pool. She further explained that with this type of "pool alarm," if a child fell in the swimming pool, the alarm would sound. Although the alarm on the master bathroom door was not working on March 23, 2009, Petitioner's husband was making efforts to get the door alarm repaired. However, that day, Ms. Richmond told Petitioner and her husband that even if the alarm on the master bathroom door was repaired, they still needed to have an alarm in the pool. In response to this directive, Petitioner agreed that they would install a "pool alarm" in the swimming pool. After completing the March 23, 2009, walk-through, Ms. Richmond informed Petitioner that the items she had discussed needed to be corrected prior to a license being granted. However, no written documentation was provided to Petitioner regarding the areas of non-compliance discussed during the walk-through or inspection. Ms. Richmond returned to Petitioner's home on March 27, 2009, for her second unannounced visit, which was described as a follow-up to her "complaint investigation." Once there, Ms. Richmond observed that the sign advertising the family day care home was still displayed. However, Petitioner's husband came home while Ms. Richmond was there and immediately took down the sign. During the March 27, 2009, unannounced complaint investigation visit, Petitioner told Ms. Richmond that the alarm on the master bathroom door was not working. About that time, Petitioner's husband arrived and told Ms. Richmond that he had purchased a pool alarm and even showed her the alarm. The "pool alarm" was purchased in response to Ms. Richmond's directive during the March 23, 2009, walk-through but had not been put in the pool, because the pool had not yet been cleaned.10 At the end of the March 27, 2009, unannounced visit, Ms. Richmond talked to Petitioner and her husband about the verified abuse/neglect report regarding the April 23, 2006, incident in which their daughter almost drowned. The findings in the report were "verified" for inadequate supervision by Petitioner and her husband. Given the implications of the abuse/neglect report, Ms. Richmond explained that although Petitioner needed to address the areas of non-compliance, the most pressing and immediate concern was the abuse/neglect report. Petitioner's husband testified credibly that during the conversation described in paragraph 23, Ms. Richmond told him and Petitioner that because of the abuse/neglect report, there was "no way" Petitioner would get a family day care home license. Based on that comment, Petitioner and her husband reasonably believed that Petitioner's application would be denied because of the abuse/neglect report. On March 27, 2009, after being told about the abuse/neglect report and the ramifications of that report, Petitioner and her husband "stopped moving forward" on the areas of non-compliance related to the swimming pool (i.e., cleaning the pool and installing the pool alarm).11 Believing the abuse/neglect report would result in denial of her licensure application, Petitioner and her husband began to focus on issues related to the report. They were also concerned and had questions about the Department's licensing process as it related to the abuse/neglect report. Ms. Richmond's third visit to Petitioner's home was on April 7, 2009. The sole purpose of that visit was to answer the "real" questions that Petitioner and her husband had about the abuse/neglect report and the licensing process. Ms. Richmond answered their questions as best she could, but recommended that they schedule an appointment with the licensing supervisor at the licensing office.12 That same day, Petitioner and her husband scheduled a meeting and met with Sheila Nobles, administrator and supervisor for child care licensing, to discuss, ask questions about, and review the abuse/neglect report. On April 8, 2009, Ms. Richmond finalized her "report" on the complaint investigation regarding the sign. Ms. Richmond's notes in the "comment" section of the pre-printed "Notice to Cease and Desist" form described the events of March 20, 23 and 27, 2009, as they related to the sign issue.13 Decision to Deny Application As the family safety counselor responsible for reviewing Petitioner's application and conducting the licensure inspections, Ms. Step recommended to Ms. Nobles that Petitioner's license be denied. Ms. Step's recommendation was based on the verbal reports provided to her by Ms. Richmond, which indicated that the areas of non-compliance on the Inspection Checklist had not been corrected. Prior to making a decision about Petitioner's application, Ms. Nobles reviewed the application file, the abuse/neglect report, the Inspection Checklist and the preliminary review notes. Ms. Nobles testified that she considered the "five different inspections"14 of Petitioner's home and property by the two licensing counselors, the areas of non-compliance that had not been corrected, and the abuse/neglect report with a "verified" finding of inadequate supervision. The Central Abuse Hotline Report Applicants seeking licensure to operate a family day care home are required to undergo a Level II screening. That screening included a check to determine if the applicant had a report in the Central Abuse Hotline. Due to concern for the safety of children, the Department is authorized to deny a family day care home license if the applicant has a verified abuse/neglect report. Because of its concern about the safety of children in Petitioner's care, the Department alleges that the abuse/neglect report revealed during a Central Abuse Hotline search is ground for denying Petitioner's license. As it relates to the abuse/neglect report, the denial letter states in relevant part: The Department has documented a verified abuse neglect report whereby your then 3-year-old daughter was not supervised correctly on June 21, 2006.[sic][15] These actions allowed your child to wonder [sic] outside the family swimming pool were [sic] she was found after an undetermined time under water and not breathing. During the investigation it was determined that the lock to get access [presumably to the pool] had been broken for a few days. The abuse/neglect report was initiated when a call was received by the Central Abuse Hotline on April 23, 2006. According to the intake-report, an incident occurred at Petitioner's and her husband's home in which their then three- year-old daughter ("child") almost drowned. Jermaine Turner, a child protective investigator ("CPI"), was assigned to investigate the incident. As the investigator, CPI Turner was responsible for making contact with the family of the child and other appropriate individuals. During the investigation, CPI Turner worked under the supervision and direction of Terry Lynn Reinhardt, a child protective supervisor. As CPI Turner's supervisor, Ms. Reinhardt had contact with CPI Turner and gave him directives related to follow-up activities on case-related matters. The abuse/neglect report includes a summary of notes which purport to summarize interviews CPI Turner conducted with Petitioner and her husband on May 18, 2006, about a month after the subject incident. Petitioner's husband recalled that this interview was conducted by telephone. Ms. Reinhardt testified that CPI Turner interviewed the child's parents and also made telephone contact with them to follow-up on an issue involving a "broken door." Ms. Reinhardt was not present at the interviews that CPI Turner conducted with Petitioner and her husband. Thus, she had no first-hand knowledge of what, if anything, they said to CPI Turner. Rather, Ms. Reinhardt relied on CPI Turner's verbal reports to her and the notes and summaries in the abuse/neglect report attributed to him. CPI Turner did not testify at this proceeding. Moreover, no competent evidence was presented regarding any entries (i.e., notes, comments, and/or interview summaries) in the abuse/neglect report attributed to CPI Turner. The case was closed on June 21, 2006, and the findings and conclusions in the matter were summarized in a two-page document titled, Investigative Summary. The Investigative Summary includes an "updated" note dated June 6, 2006, that provided: "The child . . . was left to watch cartoons; however, she was found face down in a swimming pool. The lock to get access from the pool to the house had been broke [sic] for approximately two day [sic]. They stated they planned to fix the lock but never got around to it." No evidence was presented as to who made the "updated" note or the source of the information in that note. After the investigation was complete, Ms. Reinhardt concluded that there were "some indicators" of maltreatment, asphyxiation, and verified findings of inadequate supervision as to both parents. In reaching that conclusion, Ms. Reinhardt relied on information provided by Mr. Turner and then applied the Department's CFOP 175-28 in reaching those conclusions. Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C-30.001(6) incorporates by reference the "Allegation Matrix" set forth in the Department's CFOP 175-28. Pursuant to that rule, the "Allegation Matrix" is a document that defines specific types of abuse, neglect or abandonment; guides staff in determining whether abuse, neglect or abandonment has occurred; and assists in ensuring that all factors are considered when assessing each type of maltreatment. The Department's CFOP 175-28 was not offered into evidence during this proceeding. Based on the conclusion reached by Ms. Reinhardt, the abuse/neglect report was closed on June 21, 2006, with the finding of some indicators of maltreatment, asphyxiation, and verified findings of inadequate supervision. Notwithstanding those findings, the Investigative Summary reflects that there was no prior history of abuse or neglect and no criminal history. Moreover, the Investigative Summary indicated that no intervention services were needed, no placement outside the home was required, and no judicial action was required. Finally, Petitioner and her husband were not given any safety plan to implement. The April 23, 2006, incident was also investigated by the Polk County Sheriff's Office ("Sheriff's Office"). That investigation included at least two or three detectives and/or officers taking and tape recording sworn statements from Petitioner, her husband, and her father-in-law. All of these sworn statements were "in-person" interviews taken within 24 hours of the incident. Petitioner's husband testified credibly that the written summaries of the sworn statements taken by the Sheriff's Office detectives, particularly that of Detective Wharton, accurately reflect not only the substance of the interviews, but also what actually occurred on April 23, 2006. Petitioner's husband testified credibly about the facts related to the April 23, 2006, incident and the accuracy of written summaries of the tape-recorded sworn statements taken by detectives as set forth below in paragraphs 51 through 60. On April 23, 2006, Petitioner was in the family pool with her then three-year-old daughter. While Petitioner and her daughter were in the pool, Petitioner's husband and his father arrived at the house. Petitioner then went into the house to prepare dinner and her husband stayed at the pool with the child. Shortly thereafter, Petitioner's husband removed the child from the pool, took off the floatation device the child was wearing while in the pool, took her into the house, and then closed and locked the bottom lock of the door. Once in the house, Mr. Best put on a movie for his daughter in her bedroom and then told his wife that the child was in the room watching a movie. The child left the bedroom and went to the kitchen where her mother was preparing dinner. For some time, the child went back and forth between the kitchen, playing near her mother and/or "helping" her mother, and the living room where she (the child) was sitting on the floor watching cartoons on television. The kitchen and living room were adjacent rooms with a large opening between them which allowed a person in one room to see into the other room. When Mr. Best and his daughter went into the house, his father (the child's grandfather) was taking a shower. A few minutes later, after taking his shower and getting dressed, the child's paternal grandfather got out his new video camera and went to the kitchen/living room area to videotape his granddaughter while she was playing. He videotaped her playing for several minutes and then went to the bedroom to put away the video camera. It took the child's grandfather about two or three minutes to put away his video camera and return to the kitchen area. When the grandfather returned to the kitchen/living room area, he asked Petitioner where the child was. Believing the child was in the living room, Petitioner told her father-in-law that the child was in the living room looking at television. Petitioner then went into the living room to look for the child and discovered she was not there. Petitioner then immediately went outside to the patio and saw the child laying face down in the pool. Petitioner screamed for help, jumped in the pool and lifted the child from the water. Petitioner's husband was close enough to the kitchen/living room area that he heard the exchange between his father and Petitioner about the child's whereabouts and Petitioner's subsequent scream. Within a few seconds, Petitioner's husband ran from the house, jumped in the pool, removed his daughter from the pool, and placed her on the pool deck. Once the child was on the pool deck, the child's father and her grandfather immediately began administering CPR while Petitioner called 911. They continued performing CPR on the child until the emergency medical services and the fire department arrived on the scene. Both parents reported to detectives investigating the incident that the child knew how to open and unlock doors. Based on the facts established at or near the time of the incident, it was concluded that the child slipped out of the house and went undetected for about two or three minutes. Petitioner and her husband described the child's "slipping out of the house" as unusual and something she had never done prior to April 23, 2006. Until that day, the child had never gone off on her own and had been fearful of and never gotten into the swimming pool at that house. (Petitioner and her family had moved to this house only two or three months before the incident.) Based on its investigation, which included sworn statements by Petitioner, her husband, and her father-in-law, the Sheriff's Office concluded that the April 23, 2006, incident was an accident. The Department does not disagree with the conclusion reached by the Sheriff's Office (i.e., the April 23, 2006, incident was an accident). Nevertheless, according to Ms. Reinhardt, irrespective of whether the incident was an accident or done on purpose, the Department still found "verified" indicators of inadequate supervision, because the child got out of the house and into the pool and almost drowned. The factual allegations in the report upon which the Department relied were not established by competent and substantial evidence. In absence of such evidence, the Department's verified finding of inadequate supervision has not been proven. The record in this case is devoid of any evidence to establish the Department's finding of any indicators of maltreatment. Therefore, the Department's findings that there were "some" indicators of maltreatment has not been proven. Alarm on the Master Bathroom Door The Department alleges that during the applicable time period, the swimming pool at Petitioner's home did not comply with the requirements in Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C-20.010(1)(i). That rule requires that swimming pools at least one-foot-deep have either a barrier at least four-feet- high around the pool, separating the pool from the house, or a pool alarm that is operable at all times when children are in their care. There was conflicting and inconsistent information provided to Petitioner as to whether a "pool alarm" that floats in the swimming pool was required instead of a door alarm, which is also apparently referred to as a pool alarm. Despite any confusion that may have been caused by the different representations made to Petitioner, it is undisputed that the preliminary review notes and the Inspection Checklist clearly indicate that Petitioner was required to repair the alarm on the master bathroom door which led to the pool. It appears that Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C-20.010(1)(i) refers to door alarms as pool alarms. Petitioner's husband testified credibly that he attempted to have the door repaired by service personnel of the alarm company that installed the alarm system, but has been unsuccessful in doing so. In light of these futile attempts, Petitioner's husband purchased a battery-operated door. However, it is unknown when the battery-operated door was purchased, whether it has been installed, and, if so, how it works. The alarm on the door of the master bathroom had not been repaired by the April 3, 2009, "due date" or any time thereafter, nor had any acceptable alternatives been installed. Maintenance of the Swimming Pool The Department alleges that the swimming pool at Petitioner's home was not clean and maintained as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C-20.010(1)(j). That Rule requires that if a family day care home uses a swimming pool, it shall be maintained by using chlorine and other suitable chemicals. Petitioner acknowledges that, at all times relevant hereto, the swimming pool at her home was not clean and properly maintained. Some time after the denial letter was issued, Petitioner's swimming pool was emptied, a full-processed cleaning was completed, and the pool was filled with water. However, a leak in a light in the pool was discovered. In order to repair that leak, the pool had to be emptied. At the time of this proceeding, the leak was being repaired. Once the leak is fixed, the pool can be filled with water and the "pool alarm" that floats in the pool can be installed. Local Law Enforcement Background Check The application process requires that each person living in the home that will serve as the family day care home have a background screening. Such background screening includes a check by the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI"), the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE"), and a local criminal history check. In February 2009, Petitioner's cousin, Carlos Granados, was living with Petitioner and her husband. Accordingly, Mr. Granados was required to have a local criminal history check, and a copy of that criminal history check was to be provided to the Department. Petitioner testified credibly that she submitted all the documents for completion of Mr. Granados' background checks and could not explain why the Department did not receive the local criminal history check for Mr. Granados.16 The evidence established that Mr. Granados no longer lives in Petitioner's home. Therefore, the Department does not need, and is not required to have, a local criminal history check for him.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Finding of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Department of Children and Family Services, enter a final order: (1) finding that Petitioner, Best Family Day Care Home, failed to meet the standards in Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C-20.010(1)(i) and (j); and (2) denying Petitioner's application for a family day care home on those grounds. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of February, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of February, 2010.
The Issue The issue for disposition in this proceeding is whether Petitioner is entitled to licensure as a family day care home.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner resides in Lakeland, Florida. In the fall of 2002, she applied for a license to operate a family day care home in her residence. In the course of discharging its statutory responsibility of investigating applicants seeking licensure for family day care homes, a representative of Respondent, Gloria Mathews, an experienced child care licensing inspector, visited Petitioner's residence and discovered numerous instances of non- compliance with requirements of Sections 402.301 through 402.319, Florida Statutes (2002), and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 65C-20. Ms. Mathews talked with Petitioner, pointed out the various instances of non-compliance, and made suggestions regarding correcting the various instances of non-compliance. Ms. Mathews anticipated that upon Petitioner’s correcting the areas of non-compliance, Petitioner would notify her and request a re-inspection. She was not contacted by Petitioner for several months. On May 20, 2003, Francis Williams, an employee of Youth and Family Alternatives, a private, not-for-profit agency that contracts with Respondent to provide assistance to individuals seeking family day care licensure, went to Petitioner's home to provide guidance and assistance to Petitioner in her effort to obtain licensure. Ms. Williams determined that several instances of non- compliance continued. In addition, Ms. Williams noted that Petitioner was caring for five non-related children without being licensed and later discovered that a sixth child had gone unsupervised for more that 15 minutes while Petitioner, Ms. Williams, and five children were in the yard noting various non-compliant conditions and discussing required improvements. On July 28, 2003, Ms. Williams again visited Petitioner's home, found discrepancies, noted that Petitioner was caring for non-related children, and, in Petitioner's absence, discovered a substitute caregiver who had not been screened. On August 27, 2003, Ms. Mathews revisited Petitioner's home and discovered that she was not in compliance; she did not have health examination forms for all of the children. Ms. Mathews and Ms. Williams, both having extensive experience in family day care facilities, testified that they did not believe that Petitioner should be licensed based on her continuing disregard for the rules provided for the safety and protection of children. Petitioner had little to offer regarding the failure of her home to qualify due to the various instances of non- compliance and her violation of the prohibition of caring for non-related children without being licensed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Family Services enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for a family day care home license. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of February, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JEFF B. CLARK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of February, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack Emory Farley, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 4720 Old Highway 37 Lakeland, Florida 33813-2030 Cassandra Napier 1535 Peavy Court Lakeland, Florida 33801 Paul Flounlacker, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204B Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Josie Tomayo, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue in the case is whether the registration of Thorpe Lindsay's family day care home should be revoked.
Findings Of Fact The Department is responsible for the registration and supervision of family day care homes, pursuant to Section 402.313, Florida Statutes (2007). Respondent, Thorpe Lindsey, has been registered to operate a family day care home at 2306 Savoy Drive, Orlando, Florida, since December 18, 2006. 3. On June 27, 2007; July 13, 2007; and July 26, 2007, Respondent allowed an unscreened and unapproved substitute, Sheneka Henderson, to be alone with and supervise children in the family day care home. Respondent was not present in the home on at least two of these occasions. On all three occasions, Respondent appeared after the Department's protective investigator or child care licensing supervisor noted his absence and the presence of Ms. Henderson as the caregiver.2 On July 13, 2007, Respondent was cautioned in person about the repercussions of allowing unscreened personnel to supervise children. On September 14, 2007, the Department issued an Administrative Complaint against Respondent, seeking to impose a civil penalty in the amount of $500.00 for the three instances of using an unscreened and unapproved substitute caregiver. Respondent refused to accept service of the Department's certified letter. The copy of the Administrative Complaint sent by regular U.S. Mail was not returned to the Department, and Respondent never sought a hearing or otherwise contested the allegations of the Administrative Complaint. Aside from the problem of unscreened personnel, Respondent also had a recurring problem of caring for a number of children greatly in excess of the ratios allowed by statute in his family day care home. Under any circumstances, a family day care home may provide care for no more than ten children. See § 402.302(7), Florida Statutes (2007). On June 27, 2007, the Department sent a certified letter to Respondent noting that on the previous day, the Department had received a report that Respondent was caring for between 30 and 40 children. The letter cautioned Respondent that he must immediately reduce enrollment and submit a written plan to the Department by July 10, 2007, identifying the names and birth dates of the children for whom Respondent would continue to provide care, as well as the names and birth dates of the children whom Respondent eliminated from his roster. Respondent never provided the required documentation to the Department. The Early Learning Coalition of Orange County is a public/private partnership established to ensure that children enter school ready to learn. In coordination with the Department, the Early Learning Coalition provides health and safety inspections for anyone receiving school readiness funding. Because Respondent received such funding, Eric Allen, an inspector for the Early Learning Coalition, made regular visits to the family day care home. On July 6, 2007, Mr. Allen made a routine visit to Respondent's home and found several violations, including a ratio violation, the presence of unscreened volunteers caring for children, chemicals under kitchen and bathroom sinks without door locks on the cabinets, and uncapped electrical outlets. On July 9, 2007, the Early Learning Coalition sent a letter to Respondent outlining the violations and requiring their correction pending a re-inspection of the family day care home. On July 20, 2007, Mr. Allen conducted a routine visit to Respondent's home and again found the home to be out of ratio. On July 26, 2007, the Early Learning Coalition sent a letter, signed by Donna J. Williams, director of quality services, to Respondent that stated the following, in relevant part: This letter will clear up any confusion as to the number of children you are legally allowed to care for. As a family home provider, six (6) is the maximum number of children under the age of five you are allowed to have in care at one time. If an infant is present, the maximum number of children allowable at one time is five (5). I am enclosing the state ratio chart so you may be clear on the number and age of children you are legally allowed to have in your care at one time. Since this falls under our Non-compliance Policy, you are hereby on notice that if there is any other incident where you are found in non-compliance with any Level I violation, the parents of school readiness funded children will be contacted and given the opportunity to transfer as you will be ineligible to receive school readiness funds for a period of one year. On September 7, 2007, at approximately 3:45 p.m., Mr. Allen again visited Respondent's registered family day care home. Mr. Allen found a note on the front door stating, "We are on a field trip," with contact information for parents at the bottom. Mr. Allen noted that the contact numbers on the note did not match the contact information on file at the Early Learning Coalition. He also noted that all of the windows of the house were covered with blinds or cardboard. Mr. Allen testified that he had made several prior attempts to visit the home in recent days, but that on each occasion was met with a note claiming the children were out on a "field trip." He was about to walk away from the house when he heard a baby crying inside. He rang the doorbell and knocked on the door but received no response. He called out to whomever was inside the house, "This is Eric from the Early Learning Coalition. I can hear a baby crying. You need to open the door or you are violating your provider agreement and you are in danger of being de-funded." There was still no response from inside the house. Mr. Allen walked around to the back door. He knocked on the window of the rear childcare area and repeated his warning. After several minutes, a car pulled up to the home. A woman got out of the car and approached the front door. Mr. Allen asked if she was there to pick up a child, and she answered affirmatively. She rang the doorbell but no one answered. Mr. Allen offered to call the contact number, but the woman just turned and drove away. Mr. Allen called the Early Learning Coalition's office and asked the administrative assistant to verify and call the contact number for Respondent's home. When the assistant called the number, a woman who identified herself as Respondent's sister answered and stated that the children were out on a field trip. Mr. Allen then called the contact number and asked Respondent's sister where the children were. She stated they were on a field trip to Pizza Hut. Mr. Allen told her he could hear a baby crying inside and that if the door was not opened he would call the police. Respondent's sister hung up the phone. Just as Mr. Allen's phone conversation concluded, approximately 25 minutes after he first arrived at the house, the woman in the car returned. As the woman walked up to the front door, the door was opened by Toshiba Lindsey, another of Respondent's sisters, who was holding a baby she said was her son. Mr. Allen showed Ms. Lindsey his identification and asked her why he had been left outside trying to get someone to open the door for nearly a half hour. Ms. Lindsey claimed to have been sleeping and not to have heard the knocking. Mr. Allen entered the home and started down the hallway, but Ms. Lindsey forbade him from entering one of the rooms. Mr. Allen could hear a child crying inside the room. He demanded to know whose child was behind the door. Ms. Lindsey denied there was anyone in the room. For several minutes, Mr. Allen attempted to convince Ms. Lindsey to open the door, but she continued to say that she could not open it. Mr. Allen told her to call Respondent, who was not in the house. Mr. Allen spoke to Respondent and told him that he would call the police if Ms. Lindsey did not open the door. Respondent hung up on him. Mr. Allen called 911 and requested an officer to come to the house and open the door. A moment later, the door to the room opened and another woman, Sheneka Henderson, emerged with 13 children. Neither Ms. Lindsey nor Ms. Henderson had been background screened or trained to act as caregivers. Mr. Allen recorded the names and ages of the children, then left the home. Respondent never showed up at the house while Mr. Allen was there. On September 10, 2007, the Early Learning Coalition sent Respondent a letter notifying him that he would be ineligible to receive school readiness funds for a period of one year, based on Respondent's repeated violations of mandatory state ratio requirements.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Family Services enter a final order revoking the registration of Thorpe Lindsey to operate a family day care home. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of April, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of April, 2008.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondents violated provisions of Chapter 402, Florida Statutes,1 and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 65C-20, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Traceann Handy owns and operates Traceann Handy Family Day Care Home, a child care facility licensed by the Department. On May 26, 2009, the facility had been inspected by the Department and found to be in compliance with the rules of operation. Due to some missing documentation (CPR and first aid certificates), the facility was issued a Provisional License. As of the date the final hearing in this matter was concluded, the documentation had been submitted, and the facility had a valid license to operate.3 The Department is responsible for inspecting, licensing, and monitoring child care facilities such as the one operated by Handy. It is the Department's responsibility to ensure that all such facilities are safe and secure for the protection of children utilizing the facility. On Friday, June 5, 2009, the Department received a complaint concerning Handy's facility. The complaint alleged that two older children were asked to supervise a younger child without adult supervision and that transportation of the children had been provided without prior authorization. Based upon these complaints and in accordance with its rules, the Department commenced an investigation of the facility. Investigator Anderson (who was on call for the weekend) went to the facility the next day, Saturday, June 6, 2009. She knocked on the front door (although the entrance to the child care facility portion of the home was located on the side of the house). No one answered her knock, but a young man later came out of the house and advised Anderson that the facility was closed and that Handy was not home.4 Anderson called the investigator assigned to the case (Dayna Prevost) to report her findings. While Anderson was making the telephone call, the same young man came out to her car, banged on the car window and loudly repeated that Handy was not home. Anderson smelled an odor which she believed was marijuana while talking with the young man. (The young man was later identified as Handy's adult son, Trauquece Handy.) Anderson then left the premises. The investigation was recommenced on Monday, June 8, 2009. On that date, Investigators Wolbach and Prevost went to the Handy home and knocked on the side door of the home. When there was no answer to the knock, the investigators went to the front door and knocked. Again there was no answer, but they could hear what sounded like children inside the house. The investigators called Handy (who was not at home) and were told by Handy that she would have someone inside the house open the door. Despite the phone call and promise from Handy, no one opened the door, so the investigators called the police for assistance. When the police arrived, a man opened the front door, but the investigators were granted only limited access to the house. An adult female was seen inside the house, along with two small children. The female was questioned and said that she was a housekeeper and that the children inside the home at that time were her children. Upon receiving that information, the investigators again left the premises. On the next day, Tuesday, June 9, 2009, a team of investigators went back to the facility. This time Handy was present, and the team was allowed into the house. Handy's husband was also present at that time. While the team was inspecting the facility, Handy's son came into the house and went directly upstairs. The team reviewed Handy's records concerning attendance at the facility by various children. Handy was interviewed, and due to the previous suspicion of marijuana usage at the home, asked to provide a urine specimen for the purpose of conducting a drug screening test. (There was considerable discussion at final hearing as to how the urine specimen was taken, but that is not an issue in the present proceeding and will not be discussed further.) At one point during the investigative review at the home, a team member approached the inside stairwell and pushed open the gate located at the bottom of the stairs. The gate had been placed there by Handy in response to prior concerns by the Department about children having access to the upstairs portion of the house. The gate was apparently unlatched, although there were no children present at that time near the stairwell. (There was one child present in the home, but that child was in another part of the house.) As the investigator started up the stairs, Handy's husband said that Handy would likely not appreciate them going into her private quarters. As the investigator continued up the stairs, Handy came into the room and voiced her opposition to anyone going upstairs. Handy had been previously advised by the Department that if a gate was in place to keep children from going upstairs, it would be unnecessary for the Department to inspect that area during every regular inspection. It is unclear from the testimony whether Handy misunderstood the Department or whether the Department was only talking about its annual licensure inspection. No matter, Handy told the investigator that she did not want the investigator to go upstairs. The investigator took that remark as a direct order that she not go upstairs, so she did not do so. Instead, the Department sought injunctive relief in Circuit Court to gain access to the upstairs portion of the house. A hearing on the Department's motion was held the next day, Wednesday, June 10, 2009. Handy received notice of the hearing less than an hour before the hearing was scheduled to commence. She called the Circuit Court Judge's assistant to seek a continuance, but was told that the hearing must proceed. The court gave Handy the option of appearing via telephone, if she so desired. Handy wanted to attend the hearing in person, so she went to the courthouse. There was one child at the day care facility at that time. Handy could not find her approved substitute on such short notice, so she called the child's parent (who was Handy's cousin) and asked if it would be okay for Handy's husband to watch the child while Handy attended the hearing. The parent approved that arrangement. The Circuit Court entered an Order requiring Handy to allow the Department "a one[-]time inspection . . . of the private part of [the] home." Based upon that Order, the Department sent a team of investigators back to the facility on June 10, 2009, to complete its inspection. Upon completion of its investigation, the Department issued the Administrative Complaint relevant to this proceeding. The Administrative Complaint addresses two alleged violations by Handy: First, that Handy refused to allow the Department access to the entire home during the inspection. Second, that Handy allowed a person who was not currently screened to supervise a child in her care. An administrative fine of five hundred dollars ($500.00) was proposed for each of the two violations.5 Handy does not believe she instructed the investigator not to go upstairs during the June 9, 2009, inspection. She remembers only telling them she did not want them to go upstairs, that it was unnecessary, and that her understanding from prior discussions was that the upstairs would not be inspected. The investigator believes she was specifically and forcefully told not to go up the stairs. In either case, it is clear a court order was obtained to gain access. (At the hearing in Circuit Court, Handy had reiterated that she did not want the investigators to go upstairs.) The gate in question was put in place to prevent children from having access to the upstairs portion of the house. However, the gate was either broken or unlatched (the testimony on this issue is not clear) when there was a child present in the house. Handy's husband did not have a valid background screening in place on June 10, 2009, that would allow him to act as a provider of child care services in the facility. He had been previously screened, but had not had his background screening updated when it expired in June 2008. He had not been re-screened because he and Handy were separated, and he did not intend to be at her house to supervise children any longer. The two are still married, but he only visits the house to do maintenance and repairs as needed. It is clear that Handy's husband was watching the child only due to the exigent circumstances surrounding the court hearing and the unavailability of Handy's approved substitute. Further, the child's parent was made aware of the fact and had acquiesced to this arrangement. Nonetheless, Handy's husband was not technically qualified to watch children attending the child care center at that time.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Children and Family Services imposing an administrative fine of $200 against Respondent, Traceann Handy. It is further RECOMMENDED that Handy be ordered to attend remedial classes on the operation and management of a child care facility. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of January, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 13th day of January, 2010.
