The Issue The issue in this matter is whether the Department of Children and Families should deny Respondent’s application for registration as a family day care home.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with regulating providers that are licensed or registered as family day care homes. Family day care homes must register annually with the Department. See § 402.313(1)(a), Fla. Stat. Respondent is owned and operated by Cherrie Scally. Ms. Scally has registered Respondent as a family day care home since 1997. In or about August 2015, Ms. Scally filed an application with the Department to renew Respondent’s registration as a family day care home for 2016. Respondent's registration for 2015 expired on October 30, 2015. Upon receiving Ms. Scally’s application, the Department reviewed whether to renew Respondent’s registration as a family day care home. As part of its determination, the Department examined the Florida Central Abuse Hotline Records Search (“CAHRS”). In CAHRS, the Department identified an Investigative Summary involving Respondent that verified a finding of “inadequate supervision” in March 2015. Based on the CAHRS Investigative Summary, the Department issued an Administrative Complaint in November 2015, revoking Respondent’s registration as a family day care home.2/ The Department determined that it could no longer approve Respondent’s registration “based on the verified finding of inadequate supervision.” The CAHRS resulted from an incident that allegedly occurred on March 5, 2015. On March 6, 2015, the Central Abuse Hotline received an anonymous phone call reporting an injury to a child at Respondent’s family day care home. A four-year-old girl who attended Respondent’s family day care home reported to her mother that another child had hurt her.3/ Jessica Baloy, a child protective investigator with the Department, was assigned to investigate the incident. Her duties include investigating facilities regarding complaints of child abuse and neglect. Ms. Baloy prepared the CAHRS Investigative Summary. Ms. Baloy visited Respondent's family day care home on March 9, 2015, to investigate the allegation. Ms. Scally informed Ms. Baloy that she had no knowledge of how or when the child was injured. Ms. Scally did not learn of the incident until the child’s mother called her the evening after the child was picked up. Ms. Scally thought that the incident may have occurred in her “playroom” while she was in her kitchen either cleaning up another child or preparing snacks.4/ During her visit, Ms. Baloy found that the part of Ms. Scally’s home used for childcare consists of two rooms, a “playroom” and a kitchen. The rooms are located next to each other, but a wall separates them. Ms. Baloy observed that the wall obstructs the view between the playroom (where the injury allegedly occurred) and the kitchen where Ms. Scally believes she was located at the time of the incident. Ms. Scally admitted to Ms. Baloy that, while she is able to hear the children in the playroom from the kitchen, she is unable to see directly from the kitchen into the playroom. In her investigation, Ms. Baloy reported that the child had “no indicator” of physical injury. In other words, Ms. Baloy did not find evidence to suggest the child had sustained an injury. Ms. Baloy personally interviewed the child and did not observe any discomfort or physical injuries. Ms. Baloy also received information from the child’s mother that a doctor had examined the child and determined that she had not suffered any trauma, just “some irritation.” The child’s mother decided that no further medical treatment or examination was needed. In her Investigative Summary, Ms. Baloy reported that “[o]bservations of the home daycare were positive that it was not hazardous for the children.” Ms. Baloy also declared that Ms. Scally “once notified by a parent completed the proper notifications needed in regards to this incident.” However, Ms. Baloy did have “some concerns in regards to supervision.” She found that when Ms. Scally was working/standing in her kitchen, she could not view the children in the playroom. Consequently, if something bad happened, she would not be able to see it. Also during her visit to Respondent, Ms. Baloy observed 11 children in Respondent’s facility. Consequently, Respondent was over capacity by one child. (As discussed below, family day care homes are restricted to a maximum of ten children at one time.) After her visit, Ms. Baloy closed her investigation with “verified findings for inadequate supervision.” Ms. Baloy was not aware of any prior investigations involving Respondent. Dinah Davis is the policy supervisor for the Department’s Office of Childcare Regulation. Her responsibilities include approving applications for family day care home registrations with Samantha Wass de Czege, the Department’s Director for the Office of Childcare Regulation. Ms. Davis expressed that the Department was concerned with Ms. Baloy’s Investigative Summary because the finding of “inadequate supervision” indicated that Ms. Scally left the children unattended outside of her direct supervision. The Department’s “rule of thumb” regarding supervision is that a caregiver must be within “sight and sound of the children and [be] able to respond to emergency situations.” Ms. Davis expressed that a constant sightline is crucial to allow the caregiver to respond to and prevent an emergency or potentially harmful situation. Adequate “sight” supervision means that children should be at least within the caregiver’s peripheral vision. In addition, Ms. Davis explained that, by statute, no family day care home is allowed to care for more than ten children at one given time. Ms. Davis referred to section 402.310 as the Department’s authority to deny Ms. Scally’s application. Although section 402.310 allows the Department to place a family day care home registration on probation status, Ms. Davis stated that the Department did not consider the option to place Respondent on probation. Ms. Wass de Czege also testified regarding the Department’s decision to revoke (deny) Respondent’s application for registration. Ms. Wass de Czege stated that the Department’s action was based on the child protective investigator’s findings of “inadequate supervision” and overcapacity. Ms. Wass de Czege agreed with Ms. Davis that supervision in a family day care home requires “direct sight and hearing of the children at all times” so that the caregiver is “able to respond to meet the needs of the children.” Ms. Wass de Czege explained that based on the floor design of Ms. Scally’s home, “she could not have the children in her sight. So, she was not meeting that parameter of the definition of supervision.” Ms. Wass de Czege explained that the Department’s definition of “inadequate supervision” for family day care homes is found in Florida Administrative Code Chapters 65C-22 and 65C-20.5/ Ms. Wass de Czege also remarked that having more than ten children in care at a family day care home is considered overcapacity. Therefore, having 11 children present in the home at the time of Ms. Baloy’s visit caused Respondent to be out of compliance with the governing regulation. Ms. Wass de Czege also conveyed that registration of a family day care home is basically a paper process. The applicant submits the paperwork. The Department checks off the information listed in section 402.313(1)(a). If approved, the applicant can care for children. Ms. Wass de Czege commented that, because of a lack of manpower and resources, a registered family day care home is not subject to routine inspections by the Department. Consequently, the Department has little regulatory oversight of Ms. Scally’s home. Based on its review of the CAHRS, the Department determined that Respondent failed the background check necessary to register as a family day care home for 2016. Ms. Scally testified on behalf of Respondent at the final hearing. Ms. Scally has operated her family day care home since 1997. She has successfully registered with the state every year since then. She cares greatly for the children entrusted to her. This current matter is the first issue she has encountered regarding her registration. Regarding the incident on March 5, 2015, Ms. Scally did not learn that a child may have been harmed at her home until the child’s parent called her that evening to report an injury. The parent relayed that her daughter told her that another child had poked her in a sensitive area, drawing blood. Upon learning of the injury, Ms. Scally immediately took action. That evening, she spoke with the parents of both children involved to make sure all parties were aware of the situation. The next morning, Ms. Scally called the injured child’s parent back to inquire of her well-being. Ms. Scally also contacted her own pediatrician seeking advice on the situation. Ms. Scally offered to arrange for her pediatrician to examine the child. Ms. Scally herself was the anonymous caller reporting the incident to the Central Abuse Hotline.6/ She called the abuse hotline on the next morning. (The CAHRS Investigative Summary notes that the call was received on March 6, 2015, at 10:38 a.m.) Ms. Scally called the abuse hotline because she knew reporting the injury was the proper and legally required step to take. Ms. Scally commented that the Department would not have learned of the incident but for her phone call. Ms. Scally conceded that, when she is standing in her kitchen, she does not have a direct line of sight with the children in her playroom. Consequently, Ms. Scally admitted that if the child was injured in the playroom while she was in the kitchen, the child was out of her sight for a short period of time. On the other hand, Ms. Scally asserts that she can always hear her children from the kitchen. Furthermore, no child is ever out of her eyesight for more than a couple of moments. Ms. Scally also represented that she has taken steps to ensure that she can maintain “sight and sound” supervision over her children in the future. She has purchased a mirror to place in the hallway between the playroom and the kitchen. This mirror allows her to see into either room from the other. Ms. Scally stated that in her 19 years of childcare, she has never had any incidents in her family day care home. Ms. Scally acknowledged that she might have had 11 children in her care on the occasion of Ms. Baloy’s visit to her home on March 9, 2015. Ms. Scally explained that it was likely during a “transition” period as her children were being picked up and dropped off and was not a regular occurrence or for an extended period of time. Based on this incident, Ms. Scally asserts that she will be extra cautious about the interactions between the children in her care. Ms. Scally presented testimony from several parents whom she serves. They each asserted that Respondent provides a valuable service, and they trust her with their children in her home. Mia Carla Hagins placed her daughter with Respondent from 2009 through 2014. Ms. Hagins testified that Ms. Scally ensures safety, nurturing, and care for the children she supervises. Thomas Breck placed two children with Ms. Scally from 1996 through 2000. Mr. Breck testified that Ms. Scally provided excellent care and demonstrated complete professionalism. Mizanne Brown placed her child with Ms. Scally for ten years. Ms. Brown testified that Ms. Scally was fabulous, nice, and wonderful. Ms. Scally also produced 26 letters of recommendation from parents and teachers of children for whom she has cared. Ms. Scally asserted that these letters show how positively her community views her, her home, and her childcare services. Based on the competent substantial evidence presented at the final hearing, the Department failed to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, sufficient grounds to deny Respondent’s application for registration as a family day care home under the provisions of section 402.310. Accordingly, the Department should approve Respondent’s application to register as a family day care home.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Families enter a final order approving Respondent’s application for registration as a family day care home. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of August, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. BRUCE CULPEPPER 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 August, 2016.
The Issue Whether Respondent proved by clear and convincing evidence the allegations contained in its August 27, 2004, letter denying Petitioner's licensure renewal application.
Findings Of Fact Based upon observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying; exhibits admitted into evidence; stipulations and arguments of the parties; evidentiary rulings made pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes (2004); and the record complied herein, the following relevant and material facts are determined: The Parties Respondent is the state agency responsible for licensing, inspecting, and regulating child care facilities, including family day care homes. Respondent is authorized to inspect a family day care home at any time. Regular and routine inspections, as well as inspections resulting from complaints received, are conducted of licensed family day care homes to ascertain whether the home is in compliance with applicable statutes and promulgated rules. Violations (or "non-compliances") of statutes and rules and/or other problematic situations found during inspections are noted on a hand-written inspection report. The inspector takes those noted non-compliance items back to the office and transfers them to Respondent's "Family Child Care Home Inspection Checklist" (Inspection Checklist).1 Inspectors may or may not discuss each non-compliance item with the home operator at the time of the inspection. On those occasions non- compliance items are discussed with the home operator, those items capable of instant correction are corrected before the inspector departs the premises. When appropriate, the Inspection Checklist provides a time frame within which the operator must correct the cited non-compliance item(s) indicated on the Inspection Checklist. The Family Day Care Home Facility Ms. Lanier is the provider and licensed owner of Lanier Family Day Care Home ("the care facility") located at 1039 Madison Avenue, Lakeland, Florida. Ms. Lanier is a tenant at this location, and Angela Lisbon and/or her relatives are the landlord. The Inspections and Cited Violations Tim Graddy conducted a re-licensure inspection of the care facility on August 7, 2003. Re-licensure inspections are conducted when the family child care owner's current license is about to expire, and the owner's application for re-licensure has been filed. The non-compliance items recorded on the Inspection Checklist were: operator's training in first aid not current, operator's CPR training not current, litter (foam cups) in the children play area, access to a road and a four-foot fence was "not provided"--the gate needed repair, floor mats not covered with impermeable surface, evidence of rodents/vermin in the home, one broken window needs replacement, no operative landline telephone available-only cellular telephone available, and supplies missing from first aid kit. At the time of Mr. Graddy's re-inspection on August 18, 2003, all non-compliance items recorded on the Inspection Checklist dated August 7, 2003, had been addressed and corrected by Ms. Lanier, but for the vermin infestation. However, Ms. Lanier's request of her landlord to exterminate the property to address the reoccurring problem of vermin infestation had occurred. On March 31, 2004, Nianza Green, another inspector, completed a routine child care licensing inspection of the child care facility. The non-compliance items noted by Ms. Green on the Inspection Checklist were: unsafe storage of materials dangerous to children was observed in that cleaning supplies were in an unlocked cabinet and in the bathroom; water hose, dirty towels, and some mops on playground--play areas in home not clean; and evidence of rodents/vermin in home--"most [sic] have professional pest control before next visit. Copy of inspection to be faxed or mailed to licensing office"; all parts of the home and premises including furnishings and equipment were not kept clean and sanitary; all parts of the home and premises including equipment, furnishings and plumbing were not kept in orderly condition; meals and snacks supplied by the operator were not of a quantity and/or quality to meet the daily nutritional needs of the children; soiled items were not disposed of in a plastic lined, securely covered container; potty chairs were not cleaned and sanitized after each use; diaper changing surface was not cleaned with a sanitizing solution after each use--used as a storage, cords and other harmful items on shelves of changing table; first aid kit missing some supplies; monthly fire drills not conducted; written record of fire drills not completed; operator did not have record of drills for the past six months; and neither DH Form 680, Certification of Immunization, nor DH Form 681, Religious Exemption from Immunization, was on file for child(ren). On April 29, 2004, Mr. Graddy conducted a routine inspection of the care facility. Mr. Graddy listed the following non-compliance items on the Inspection Checklist: unsafe storage of materials dangerous to children was observed in that disinfectant was left on lower shelf of changing table, children in the outdoor play space had access to a trafficked road/street, and fencing a minimum of four feet in height was not provided--top rail of fence broken in front corner of fence, and evidence of rodents/vermin--live bugs observed in kitchen. On August 11, 2004, Mr. Graddy conducted a re-licensure inspection of the care facility and listed the following non- compliance items on the Inspection Checklist: front gate is not in good repair and does not close properly, live bugs seen in kitchen, loose pieces of ceramic title in kitchen, no operable smoke detector, up-to-date and age-appropriate immunization record missing, and DH Form 3040 not available. On May 6, 2004, by certified mail, Respondent issued an "Intent to Impose Administrative Action" letter, citing that repeated violations were revealed during four inspections conducted on August 7, 2003; August 18, 2003; March 31, 2004; and April 29, 2004. For those repeated violations, Respondent levied a $330 fine.2 Respondent's Cross-Examination re: Inspection Checklist Regarding his August 7, 2003, inspection, Mr. Graddy acknowledged that the inspection report indicated no children were present during the inspection, and, thus, no children were in any immediate danger as a result of the cited non- compliances. The cited non-compliance, fence was "not provided," was, in fact, the gate itself closed but the latch did not close properly. Therefore, no children were in immediate danger. Mr. Graddy acknowledged that the August 18, 2003, re- inspection Inspection Checklist listed a non-compliance item contained in the August 7, 2003, Inspection Checklist, and that the August 7, 2003, non-compliance items had been corrected, but for the vermin infestation. Mr. Graddy was informed by Ms. Lanier that the exterminator (landlord) had been contacted and that he/she would exterminate the care facility. No children were present at the care facility during the August 18, 2003, inspection and, therefore, were not subjected to any harm or immediate danger. Ms. Green acknowledged that her March 31, 2004, inspection did not accurately reflect the conditions of the daycare. Specifically, she described the non-compliance item as the property was "cluttered up"; yet, she failed to describe in the inspection report what she meant by that term. Ms. Green's report indicated that the potty chair was not cleaned after each use; however, upon cross-examination, Ms. Green admitted that she never saw the potty chair being used by the one child in the care facility at the time of her inspection. Likewise, she reported that the diaper changing table surface was not cleaned after each use although she never saw the diaper changing table being used and had no idea whether the allegation had a basis in fact. Ms. Green's Inspection Checklist noted, "[t]he center was not stocked with adequate supplies of food," but she never checked the food cabinets and other storage areas. Ms. Green testified that a bucket was present outside the facility and presented a hazard to children, but she did not note this particular non-compliance on her Inspection Checklist. Ms. Green was unable to confirm that Ms. Lanier was even aware of the "bucket" non-compliance. Ms. Green's Inspection Checklist noted fire drills "had not" been conducted, when, in fact, she was fully aware that fire drills had been conducted on a monthly basis. Ms. Green knew the approved capacity of the care facility was ten children, but only one child was present during her inspection. She could not articulate whether the "missing" immunization records were missing for a particular child or children, if any. After her walk-through, Ms. Green spent little time in the care facility and chose instead to "work" (list her non- compliance items) in her car because she "was concerned about bugs" she believed to have been in the facility might adversely affect her computer. When asked if she advised or discussed with Ms. Lanier her problems and concerns, Ms. Green stated that her job was to "inform the supervisor of the inspecting." At the time of this inspection, Ms. Green had worked as an inspector for only three months. Regarding the April 29, 2004, inspection, Mr. Graddy noted one child present and that child "did not have access to disinfectant near the changing table." His notation, the "top rail of the fence broken in the far corner," was not a repeated violation of an existing problem previously noted. Mr. Graddy also testified that any gaps that existed in the fence were not in sections of the fence less than the required four feet height; therefore, no children were placed at risk or were endangered in any manner by the alleged condition of the fence. Regarding "vermin in the facility," Mr. Graddy acknowledged that he only saw "more than two," acknowledging more than two was not "infestation." Regarding the August 11, 2004, inspection, Mr. Graddy testified that his notation, "the fence [gate] would not lock," on the Inspection Checklist was made without him actually attempting to lock the gate, and, thus, he acknowledged his notation was speculation. He added that this particular problem was different from prior fence problems and did not constitute a repeat violation. The "broken tile" problem noted on this Inspection Checklist had not previously existed; likewise, this non-compliance was not a repeat violation. Mr. Gaddy's non-compliance notation, "smoke detector missing," was that in reality the smoke detector was "present," but the battery may have run down. Mr. Graddy gave Ms. Lanier until the next day to correct this problem, but he never checked back for compliance. Likewise, Ms. Lanier contacted the telephone company and had the landline telephone that was present in the care facility activated which corrected the "no landline telephone" non-compliance item. Regarding the medical records for children non- compliance items noted by Mr. Graddy, he did not check whether the missing medical records on file were for the four children present on the day he noted this item or other children who were not present. Thus, he was unable to identify any specific medical records that were missing. According to Mr. Graddy, "he always goes over the inspection report with the provider, gives them a date after which the noted infractions need be corrected." His above self- imposed inspection standard was later qualified by his admission that he did not provide Ms. Lanier an opportunity to correct/comply with non-compliances contained on his Inspection Checklist before declining renewal of her current license number F14PO0266. Immediately after the August 11, 2004, inspection, the Department determined to deny Ms. Lanier's license renewal application request. The $330 fine issued against Ms. Lanier by the Department on May 6, 2004, was based upon five facility inspections that had occurred on August 7, 2003; August 18, 2003; March 31, 2004; April 29, 2004; and August 11, 2004. Ms. Lanier paid the $330 fine on August 26, 2004. The Department accepted and deposited Ms. Lanier's $330 fine despite the obvious fact that the Department had decided to deny Ms. Lanier's pending license renewal application at the time it levied the fine and accepted her $330 payment of the fine. Ms. Lanier's testimony that she paid the $330 fine on August 26, 2004, with the understanding that her license renewal application would be granted, went unchallenged by the Department. On this particular point, the lack of challenge by the Department regarding this ambiguous statement, whether Ms. Lanier's understanding was induced by suggestion or silence or was assumed in the absence of explanation to the contrary by accepting the $330 fine, is resolved in favor of Ms. Lanier. Patricia Hamilton, child care licensing supervisor, did not personally perform inspections of this facility. She compiled the five inspection reports submitted by the inspectors, charted those inspections, and assumed each non- compliance item on each subsequent inspection was a repeated non-compliance item; when, in fact, they were not. Ms. Lanier testified that upon notice of vermin, she contacted her landlord who sprayed for bugs on regular monthly intervals. Ms. Lisbon, landlord's representative, confirmed that Ms. Lanier made more than one request for additional extermination of the property. Ms. Lanier testified that she addressed/corrected non- compliance items identified by the Department's inspector(s) during their several inspections of her facility. Many small items were corrected by the close of business on the day noticed. Items such as floor mats were replaced, foam cups and other debris in play area were removed, food supplies were available in storage in the house (during spring break the kitchen itself was not stocked as it would be during a normal school week), broken window was repaired, smoke detector battery was replaced, and first aid supplies were replenished. The continuous efforts demonstrated by Ms. Lanier evidenced a sincere intent and cooperative desire to comply with the Department's rules and regulations, noted and interpreted by the several inspectors at the time they inspected the facility, to provide a safe and necessary family day care home for working parents in her immediate community. The Department proved that the facility had a reoccurring bug problem. Without more, a "reoccurring bug problem," common in many areas, does not, ipso facto, equate to infestation.3 When noticed, Ms. Lanier did not fail or refuse to address this issue, she secured extermination and, from the property owner, requested monthly treatments thereafter. The Department did not allege nor introduce evidence of any probability that death, serious harm to the health or safety of any person would, could, or had resulted, nor evidence of the severity, the actual or potential harm, and the extent to which Sections 402.301 through 402.319, Florida Statutes (2004), had been violated. There is no evidence of record whatsoever that any child was harmed or evidence that a particular or a combination of specific non-compliance items, not timely corrected, presented a hazard to the children observed in the facility. The Department's post-hearing argument in vague terms such as "understandably concerned" and "were justified in expecting," "did not rehabilitate her or correct her propensity to violate," and "Department justifiably had enough" are statements open to more than one interpretation and does not constitute direct evidence of an objective standard by which to evaluate appropriate conduct or lack thereof.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order issuing to Petitioner a provisional license until the following conditions are met to the satisfaction of Respondent: Petitioner provides documentation that a licensed extermination service has serviced the facility for vermin. Petitioner provides documentation of a quarterly, semi- annually, or monthly service agreement between Petitioner and a licensed extermination service. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of April, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FRED L. BUCKINE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of April, 2005.
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Petitioner's registration to operate a registered family daycare home should be revoked.
Findings Of Fact The Department is an agency of the State of Florida charged with registering family daycare homes in Florida and regulating their practices and operations. The Petitioner has been registered to operate a family daycare home since 1998. That registration was conditional because of an incident which occurred on January 14, 1999, involving the Petitioner's daughter, Cleta Brantley, in which Ms. Brantley purportedly brandished a knife and threatened a neighbor in the daycare home in the presence of the children being kept there. The investigation of that incident (not directly involved in this proceeding) resulted in the Petitioner's registration being made conditional, based upon her ensuring that in the future Cleta Brantley would never be present in the home. James Farrar is a child protective investigator with the Department. He testified on behalf of the Department in this proceeding. He is personally engaged in three investigations regarding child abuse, abandonment or neglect involving the Petitioner's home, including one investigation which was still in progress as of the date of the hearing. The earliest investigation involved an incident of domestic violence which occurred on January 14, 1999. That incident was a violent altercation between the Petitioner's daughter, Cleta Brantley and the neighbor, during which Ms. Brantley brandished a knife in the daycare home in the presence of the clients' children. The investigation revealed that three of Ms. Parker's relatives, Cleta Brantley, Thomas Brantley, and William Ousley, were residing with Ms. Parker, at least part of the time. Mr. Farrar made findings of maltreatment, verified, for domestic violence and associated with a deadly weapon. The second investigation involving Mr. Farrar related to concerns involving an incident occurring in May 2002. In this incident, Ms. Parker's son William Ousley, was residing at the home when a verbal altercation erupted between Mr. Ousley and other family members and the Petitioner's assistant who worked in the daycare operation at the home. Mr. Ousley was under the influence of alcohol during this altercation and children were present in his immediate vicinity in the home. Mr. Farrar's investigation revealed that Mr. Ousley had a criminal background involving a felony conviction and had not been subjected to "level two screening" before the Petitioner allowed him to occupy the home, at least on a part-time basis. On the day in question Mr. Ousley was in a drunken state and became very angry and argumentative and engaged in a shouting altercation with a person or persons in the home, culminating in his throwing a beer bottle inside the home. The daycare worker or assistant of Petitioner ordered him to leave or she would call the police. Ultimately she summoned the police who arrived, investigated the incident and made a report. One of the officers involved testified at the hearing. Mr. Farrar made verified findings of maltreatment regarding the children in the home on the basis of their being exposed to a person who was abusing alcohol and for possible physical harm to the children. Mr. Farrar also had an active investigation of child abuse at the time of this hearing. This investigation involved an incident occurring less than two weeks before the administrative hearing. In this incident some dogs which the Petitioner was keeping at her home, which belonged to her son Thomas Brantley, attacked a child in the front yard of the home, resulting in injuries to the child requiring some 50 stitches and staples in the child's head and back. Four other children were present in the home at the time of the attack. The dogs had been living in the home for approximately two years at the time of the incident. This incident is not itself a basis for the proposed revocation in this case and was not noticed as a ground for proposed revocation by the Department's charging letter of June 11, 2002. The evidence of this incident is used as corroborative evidence to the testimony and evidence offered concerning the incidents giving rise to the charging letter and proposed agency action. Debra Ann Martin is a family counselor in the licensing department of the Department of Children and Family Services. She testified at the hearing. She is the caseworker who has been assigned to the Petitioner's home since March of 1999. She described the Department's requirements concerning background screening for anyone over the age of 12 who lives in, occupies or resides in a registered daycare home. Ms. Martin established that Ms. Parker has been advised a number of times concerning these rules regarding screening and has knowledge of the screening requirements. The Department's Composite Exhibit One in evidence consists of Ms. Parker's registration applications with the Department, each dated in December 1999, 2000 and 2001, respectively. Other than her granddaughter, listed on the 1999 application, Ms. Parker did not list anyone as a family or household member in any of those applications. Ms. Martin offered a chronology of history of disturbances and incidents involving the Lucille Parker Daycare Home. Ms. Martin established that the Department had denied Ms. Parker's application to re-new her registration in 1999 based upon the concerns of the Department involving Ms. Parker's daughter, Cleta Brantley, referenced above. Ultimately, however, Ms. Parker was allowed to re-register her home on the condition that Cleta Brantley would not live at the home or be allowed any access to the children in the home. During a visit on December 22, 1999, however, Ms. Martin observed Cleta Brantley in the home with her belongings and clothing. The Petitioner testified that Ms. Brantley was merely at the home briefly that day to pick up belongings and clothing which had been left at the home at an earlier date and that she did not actually reside at the home. Further contact by Ms. Martin in the year 2000 and 2001, however, showed that Cleta Brantley and William Ousley both stayed at the home or spent the night on occasions. Ms. Martin described several other incidents when she found evidence that one or more of Ms. Parker's children were sleeping in the daycare home, including an incident in which Thomas Brantley threatened to turn his dogs on her. All of these children or relatives were over the age of 12 at the times in question. They were not and have not been subjected to screening by the Department. Officer Frank Van Schmidt of the Fort Walton Beach Police Department testified on behalf of the Department. Officer Van Schmidt was involving in an incident in May of 2002, in the daycare home of the Petitioner, Lucille Parker. The incident involved Ms. Parker's son, William Ousley. Officer Van Schmidt described observing Mr. Ousley as very intoxicated, angry, yelling and screaming. Officer Van Schmidt testified that Mr. Ousley made it clear to him that he lived at Ms. Parker's home. Officer Van Schmidt established that the Petitioner, Lucille Parker, initially told him that Mr. Ousley did indeed live there but changed her story later on the same day. This was the day when Officer Van Schmidt investigated the incident, described above, involving William Ousley and the angry drunken altercation. Officer Van Schmidt testified that during the investigation of the incident he overheard Lucille Parker telling someone that she had previously advised the Department several times that Mr. Ousley did not live in the residence because if the Department found out that he did live there she could lose her license. This was after Ms. Parker had advised the officer that Mr. Ousley did not reside at the residence. This is also after Ms. Clayborne, who worked for Ms. Parker and Ms. Gibson, who was present at the scene, had earlier advised the officer that Mr. Ousley did live at the residence. Before he left the home on that day Officer Van Schmidt advised Ms. Parker that the case would be forwarded to the Department of Children and Families. She asked him not to contact the Department and he advised her that he had to tell them according to law. She then stated that she would pay him money if he would not say anything to the Department but he advised her that they had already been notified and that a report would be sent to them. The Petitioner, Lucille Parker, testified on her own behalf. She testified generally that various persons often stayed at her home for limited periods of time. She testified that William Ousley would "stay" with her when he was in town and that the Department found out about that when Ms. Martin discovered Mr. Ousley at the home. Ms. Parker acknowledged that Ms. Ousley had never been given or requested a background screening. Ms. Parker stated that she told Debra Martin that Mr. Ousley was not living there. She further acknowledged that she had kept Mr. Thomas Brantley's dogs at her home for several years and that these were the same dogs involved in the October 2002 attack on a child on her premises. The Petitioner called her other witnesses, some of whom have had their children kept by the Petitioner for substantial periods of time in the last two decades. They uniformly described the Petitioner as given good care to their children, maintaining a safe environment for them and being a very loving keeper of their children. These witnesses who have had their children kept by the Petitioner uniformly testified that they would not hesitate to have her keep their children once more or to continue to keep them as the case may be. Additionally, the Petitioner's minister described the Petitioner as good Christian person who has been an active worker in her church for some 40 or more years, of the highest moral character and otherwise quite well suited to continue to keep children in her home.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That the Petitioner's registration to operate a registered family daycare home should be revoked; however, the revocation should be suspended for a period of one year, during which time the Petitioner, operating under reasonable, but frequent inspection and reporting requirements imposed by the Department, should be given an opportunity to show that the violations of the relevant statutes and rules have been corrected and that she is maintaining the operation of her registered family daycare home in a manner which precisely comports with the rules, policies and statutes that the Department is charged with enforcing. If she demonstrates such compliance to the Department at the end of one year then her registration should be restored in an unimpeded status. If she does not, then revocation should be carried out. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of May, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of May, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Lucille Parker 2112 Ajax Drive Pensacola, Florida 32548 Rick D. Cserep, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 160 Governmental Center, Suite 601 Pensacola, Florida 32501 Paul Flounlacker, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204B Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Josie Tomayo, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent should approve Petitioner’s application for a family day care home license.
Findings Of Fact In 1996, Petitioner lived with her husband, their newborn child, three of her husband's children from a former marriage, and two of her children from a former marriage. Petitioner's stepchildren were: (a) I.M.B., a 15-year-old male; (b) S.J.B., a 14-year-old male; and (c) S.Y.B., a 13-year-old female. Petitioner's children by her former marriage were: (a) R.D.F., a six-year-old male; and (b) D.F., a five-year-old female. At the end of the school year in 1996, Petitioner spanked her stepdaughter for reasons related to her school work. She also spanked her stepsons for school-related reasons. However, the physical punishment of the stepchildren by Petitioner was not excessive. There is no competent evidence that Petitioner beat the stepchildren leaving bruises, scars, or other disfigurement. Petitioner's husband spanked his children at times, using a switch or an extension cord. After one such occasion, Petitioner's stepdaughter asked for some rubbing alcohol to treat a bruise. Petitioner has no first-hand knowledge about the bruise. There is no persuasive evidence that Petitioner's husband ever disciplined his children so severely as to scar or disfigure them. Since 1996, Petitioner completed her training as a licensed practical nurse. She continues to work part-time in that capacity. Petitioner has also earned money babysitting for other parents. Petitioner has never used corporal punishment of any kind to discipline other people's children. Petitioner has completed all necessary training to operate a family day care home. She knows that corporal punishment is not an acceptable way to discipline children in a day care facility. She understands that when children do not behave appropriately, she may do one of the following: (a) talk to the child; (b) place the child in time-out for one minute per year of age; or (c) call the child's parent. Petitioner currently lives with her husband, their son, and Petitioner's children from her former marriage. Petitioner's stepdaughter also lives with Petitioner. Petitioner's stepdaughter is 18 years of age and will be available to serve as a substitute caretaker if Petitioner is licensed to operate a family day care home facility. One of Petitioner's stepsons, I.M.B., is deceased. The other stepson, S.J.B., is in jail. S.J.B.'s son lives with Petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent enter a final order granting Petitioner a license to operate a family day care home. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of July, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of July, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Ralph J. McMurphy, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 1601 West Gulf Atlantic Highway Wildwood, Florida 34785 Kimberly Strange-Bennett Post Office Box 58 Orange Lake, Florida 32681 Paul F. Flounlacker, Jr., Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204B Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Josie Tomayo, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Whether Petitioner's application for licensure as a family day care home should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: Petitioner, Linda Richmond, formerly Linda Cook, applied for a license to operate a family day care at her residence. In connection with Petitioner's licensure application, dated December 17, 2001, the Department conducted a background screening of Petitioner, which included a review of the following: local and state criminal records; Florida Department of Law Enforcement reports; FBI records; records of the Florida Hot Line Information System; employment history; and affidavits of good moral character. Based on information obtained from the Florida Hot Line Information System, the Department denied Petitioner's application to operate a family day care home. According to the Notice of Denial dated June 12, 2002: [Y]our registration to operate a Family Day Care Home is being denied at this time due to the following: (1) Background screening revealed a prior incident of neglect of your children and inadequate supervision. The facts underlying the report demonstrates [sic] an inability to ensure the safety of children in your care to the level necessary to be registered as a Family Day Care Home. The Notice of Denial does not specify which background screening records the Department relied on in reaching its decision to deny Petitioner's application. However, in light of the evidence presented by the Department, the denial was apparently based on information included in a 1990 Abuse Report and/or a 1995 Abuse Report. The 1990 Abuse Report noted that Petitioner admitted using crack cocaine and having people come to her home for the purpose of using crack, but denied that she used drugs in her children's presence. Also, the 1990 Abuse Report indicated that one of Petitioner's minor children had been fondled by a man who was at the home for several days and that Petitioner "reported being in the home at the time of the alleged incident." Furthermore, according to the 1990 Abuse Report, the house in which Petitioner, her then husband, and her children lived was not clean and did not have electricity. The 1990 Abuse Report concluded that Petitioner had neglected her children. Based on the investigation, on or about October 25, 1990, the report was closed as "confirmed for conditions hazardous to health and all other maltreatments are indicated." The 1990 Abuse Report noted that "due to the condition of the home and the crack usage in the home by the parents," the children were placed in the home of their maternal grandmother. Finally, as to the disposition of the case and the services to be provided, the report stated that the risk and severity of harm to the children was low "in the grandparental home," that protective service supervision was needed, and that the case was referred to protective services for ongoing supervision. Petitioner admits that at the time of the 1990 Abuse Report and investigation related thereto, she was addicted to crack cocaine. However, Petitioner's credible testimony was that she never used crack or any illegal drug in her children's presence. Moreover, at the time one of her minor children was fondled by a man temporarily staying at the house in which the children lived with their father, Petitioner was estranged from her then husband, was not staying with him and the children, and was not aware of that incident until some time after the incident occurred. Notwithstanding the findings and conclusions in the 1990 Abuse Report, there is no evidence that Petitioner neglected or failed to supervise her children, as alleged by the Department. In late 1995 or early 1996, a second abuse report, the 1995 Abuse Report, was generated following an investigation into allegations that the maternal grandfather of Petitioner's children was physically abusing them. As a result of an investigation, the 1995 Abuse Report found that the maternal grandfather, with whom the Petitioner's children were living, had used excessive corporal punishment on them. The report was closed with a finding of verified maltreatment of the children by their maternal grandfather. During the time period covered by the 1995 Abuse Report and the maltreatment of Petitioner's children by their maternal grandfather, the children were not living with Petitioner. They were living with and in the custody of their maternal grandparents, having been placed with them by the State as a result of the findings and conclusions in the 1990 Abuse Report. As accurately noted in the 1995 Abuse Report, Petitioner's role at the time covered by the report was that of "parent not in home." Nothing in the 1995 Abuse Report indicates that Petitioner neglected or failed to supervise her children. Rather, it was Petitioner who called the Abuse Hot Line on December 19, 1995, after she observed her father hit one of her children so hard that the child fell to the ground. This incident occurred December 19, 1995, while Petitioner was at her parents' house to visit her children and give them Christmas gifts. The reason Petitioner called the Abuse Hot Line to report the December 19, 1995, incident described in paragraph 12 was that she cared about her children and perceived her father's action to be physical abuse of one of her children. Although Petitioner reported the December 19, 1995, incident the day it occurred, no one came out to investigate the matter. The following day, Petitioner reported the incident to her counselor at the Center for Drug Free Living, who then telephoned the Abuse Hot Line. The Notice of Denial fails to state any facts from either the 1990 Abuse Report or the 1995 Abuse Report which establish that Petitioner neglected or failed to adequately supervise her children. Moreover, neither the 1990 Abuse Report nor the 1995 Abuse Report supports the Department's allegations that Petitioner neglected or failed to supervise her children. Finally, the Department presented no evidence to support its allegations or to demonstrate Petitioner's "inability to ensure the safety of children in [her] care to the level necessary to be registered as a Family Day Care Home." Petitioner successfully refuted the Department's allegations that she neglected and failed to adequately supervise her children, even though she admitted that in 1990, she was addicted to crack cocaine. However, this admission by Petitioner, standing alone, does not establish the Department's allegations. After the 1990 Abuse Report was issued and prior to issuance of the 1995 Abuse Report, Petitioner faced her addiction and took action to turn her life around so that she could regain custody of her children. As part of Petitioner's rehabilitative process, she successfully completed a drug treatment program as evidenced by the fact that she has been "drug free" since September 15, 1995, or for more than seven years. In addition to the drug treatment program, Petitioner also participated in and completed a parenting class. After completing the drug treatment program and the parenting class, Petitioner regained custody of and was reunited with her children. In March 1996, Petitioner was awarded "supervised" custody of her children. Six months later, Petitioner was awarded permanent custody of her children. There is no indication that Petitioner neglected, abused, mistreated, or failed to supervise her children either prior to or after March 1996, when she regained custody of the children. Since successfully completing the drug treatment program and parenting class and regaining custody of her children, Petitioner has had a stable work history, has remarried, and has become an active member of a church in her community. From 1996 through 1999, Petitioner was employed as a housekeeper by Disney World. After leaving Disney World, Petitioner was employed at Sophie's Kids Learning Center, as a child care provider or "teacher" of toddlers. Petitioner is currently employed at Sophie's Kids Learning Center and has been employed there since 1999, except for a six-month period when she took leave to care for her daughter and grandchild. In letters of support, Petitioner is described as a good employee, one of the center's best instructors who is doing "excellent work with children of all ages." Petitioner is an active member of Salem Gospel Baptist Church and has been for the past two years. Petitioner attends church services regularly, is a member of the church choir, and teaches a children's Sunday School Class. Letters of support from the pastor of the church and a church member indicate that Petitioner is a committed member of the church who works with the children in the church. These letters also state that Petitioner has gained and enjoys the respect of the parents in the church as well as those not in the church.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Family Services enter a final order granting Petitioner's application for licensure to operate a family day care home. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of December, 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 13th day of December, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard B. Cato, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 400 West Robinson Street Suite S-1106 Orlando, Florida 32801-1782 Linda Richmond 25 West 14th Street Apopka, Florida 32703 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 application for registration of the Tonya Rodreguez Registered Family Day Care Home (Respondent) should be denied.
Findings Of Fact Since 1994, and at all times material to this case, Mrs. Rodreguez has operated the Respondent, which is located at 2736 Lemon Street, Fort Myers, Florida. On October 25, 2010, Mrs. Rodreguez filed an application with the Petitioner for registration of the Respondent. The previous registration had lapsed. Since 1992, and at all times material to this case, Mrs. Rodreguez has been married to her husband, Terry Rodreguez (Mr. Rodreguez). In 1990, Mr. Rodreguez was convicted of possession of a controlled substance and a concealed firearm. Mrs. Rodreguez was aware of her husband's criminal conviction. The registration application included a section where an applicant was directed to list "OTHER FAMILY/HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS." The application filed on October 25, 2010, by Mrs. Rodreguez disclosed only herself and her three children. Mrs. Rodreguez did not list her husband on the application. On June 23, 2010, a child protective investigator (CPI) commenced an unrelated investigation of the Respondent and went to the Lemon Street address. Mr. Rodreguez was present in the home when the CPI arrived. The CPI testified without contradiction that Mr. Rodreguez was uncooperative. She returned to the Respondent later that day accompanied by a law enforcement officer, but, when they arrived, Mr. Rodreguez was no longer present at the Respondent. On June 24, 2010, the CPI returned to the Lemon Street address, and Mr. Rodreguez was again present. During questioning by the CPI on that date, Mr. Rodreguez stated that he resided in the home. Additionally, Mrs. Rodreguez advised the CPI that she and her husband had separated, but acknowledged that she and her husband both resided at the home. At the hearing, Mrs. Rodreguez asserted that she has been separated from her husband for many years; however, she acknowledged that they remain legally married, that he uses her address as his legal address, and that her address is listed on his driver's license. She testified that he is homeless and that he returns to the house to see her children. Mr. Rodreguez was issued several traffic citations between January and July of 2010, and all of the citations identified his address as 2736 Lemon Street, Fort Myers, Florida.
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 the application for registration of the Tonya Rodreguez Registered Family Day Care Home. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of April, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 April, 2011.
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 Respondent, Mildred Jones, doing business as Jones Family Day Care (Jones or Respondent), committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated May 29, 2012, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, Respondent operated a licensed day care facility located in Orange County, Florida. On the date of the attempted inspection in this case, Respondent had six children enrolled in her day care program. Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility of licensing and inspecting day care facilities throughout the State of Florida. As part of that responsibility, Petitioner routinely inspects day care facilities to assure compliance with rules and regulations that govern day care programs. On May 4, 2012, Petitioner’s agent, Luz Torres, inspected Respondent’s home. This was not Ms. Torres’ first visit to the home and, like all other visits, she approached the front door during regular business hours and knocked. Upon knocking, Ms. Torres was greeted by a female voice behind the door who advised that she could not let Ms. Torres into the home. The female, later identified as Christine Randall, refused Ms. Torres admission even after the inspector advised that it was required by law. Despite her efforts to enter the home, Ms. Torres was denied access. Ms. Torres could hear the sounds of children within the home but could not from outside the front door determine the identity or number of the voices. Ms. Randall did not advise Ms. Torres that Ms. Jones was in the rear of the property. Ms. Randall did not direct Ms. Torres to go to the rear of the property. Ms. Torres could not view the rear of the property from the front entrance. Ms. Torres’ efforts to reach Ms. Jones by telephone proved fruitless. Ms. Randall has not been screened or had a background check in years. Ms. Randall was not listed as a substitute caregiver for Respondent’s facility. Ms. Jones’ claim that only Ms. Randall’s two children were present on the date Ms. Torres attempted entrance has not been deemed credible. Ms. Jones also claimed Ms. Randall was present helping her prepare for her inspection. Had only two children been present, Ms. Randall could have easily admitted Ms. Torres, had her observe that the home was being prepared for inspection without other children present, and addressed her role as helper to Ms. Jones with only her own children present in the home. Instead, Ms. Randall denied access to the home and failed to direct Ms. Torres to the rear of the property (presuming Ms. Jones was, in fact, there). Ms. Wright’s suggestion that only Ms. Randall’s children were present on the date in question has not been deemed persuasive as Ms. Wright did not enter the home on that date, did not view the home for the entire time, and does not routinely know who is or is not in the home from her vantage as Respondent’s neighbor and friend.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Families enter a final order finding Respondent committed a Class I violation and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $250.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of October, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. D. PARRISH 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 1st day of October, 2012. COPIES FURNISHED: Stefanie C. Beach, Esquire Department of Children and Families Suite S-1129 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801-1782 Mildred Jones Jones Family Day Care Home 5027 Caserta Street Orlando, Florida 32819 Gregory Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Families Building 2, Room 204B 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 David Wilkins, Secretary Department of Children and Families Building 1, Room 202 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Marion Drew Parker, General Counsel Department of Children and Families Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
