The Issue Whether Petitioner Antoinette Scanziani's license as a family foster home should be renewed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the testimony and evidence received at the hearing, the following findings are made: Respondent is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating family foster homes. Children's Home Society (CHS) is the contract agency in the Central Licensing Zone that directly supervises licenses in that area. Petitioner filed an application to renew her family foster home license on May 26, 2006, which was originally issued for one year in August 2005. Prior to the issuance of her family foster care license on August 19, 2005, Petitioner had completed, inter allia, 30 hours of Models Approach Partnership and Parenting (MAPP) training and signed a Foster Parent Agreement, prepared by CHS, which spells out the duties and obligations of a foster parent. Paragraph 12 of the Agreement specifically states that a foster parent will notify CHS immediately of any change of address. Under Respondent's rules, a family foster care license is not transferable, and a new sanitation inspection and recommendation must be completed before Respondent can issue a new license for the new address. The family foster care license was issued to Petitioner for 5831 Bent Pine Drive, Apartment 300, Orlando, Florida 32822. The first foster child was placed in Petitioner's care on September 1, 2005. In August 2005, Petitioner began a dispute with the rental management company who managed the apartment complex where she lived. This resulted in Petitioner giving the company 60 days' notice that she would not renew her lease after October 31, 2005. The rental company, mean while, would not accept her tender of rental payments for August and September 2005, and initiated eviction proceedings in County Court. Prior to the final hearing, a stipulation was signed by the parties and approved by the County Court. Petitioner moved out of her apartment on October 31, 2005. On November 1, 2005, Petitioner, along with one foster child, moved into a house located at 7741 Fort Sumter Drive, Orlando, Florida 32822. CHS was not notified of this change of address until November 11, 2005. The CHS Dependency Specialist worked diligently with Petitioner to obtain a license for her new residence. DCF issued a new family foster care license for 7741 Fort Sumter Drive, Orlando, Florida 32822 on December 20, 2005. Petitioner maintained an unlicensed foster home from the period of November 1, 2005, through December 20, 2005. Although the foster child residing with Petitioner was not removed from the home, Petitioner was reminded of the need to notify CHS prior to any moves in the future. On April 6, 2006, Petitioner notified CHS that she had moved from her Fort Sumter Drive, Orlando, residence to a residence in Poinciana, Florida (Osceola County) at the end of March 2006. It was subsequently determined that a Writ of Possession for the Orlando residence was issued by the Orange County Court on March 2, 2006. Petitioner testified at the hearing that she moved at the end of March 2006, because of poor maintenance and discriminatory and retaliatory conduct by the landlord. The foster child was not removed from the home and the CHS Dependency Specialist again worked diligently and patiently with Petitioner to obtain a license for her family foster care residence at 127 Conch Drive, Kissimmee, Florida 34759 (Poinciana). Due primarily to Petitioner's lack of cooperation, a completed health inspection of the home was not completed until August 4, 2006. During this time, Petitioner submitted her application for relicensure on May 26, 2006. On July 13, 2006, the CHS Dependency Specialist hand delivered a letter, dated July 11, 2006, to Petitioner reminding her that a face-to-face visit and a walk through of the home was required before recommendation could be given. Petitioner was given a check-list of 16 items which were due to be completed prior to July 16, 2006, or CHS could not recommend renewal of her foster care license. On July 18, 2006, CHS sent Petitioner a follow-up letter. Although another home inspection had taken place on July 17, 2006, it was not a satisfactory home health inspection. In addition, proof of completion of 12 hours of training had not been demonstrated and six other items on the check-list were, also, not completed. The deadline for compliance was extended to August 3, 2006, with a reminder that the existing license expired on August 19, 2006. CHS followed with reminder telephone calls on July 19 and 20, followed by another letter on July 25, 2006, that all remaining items must be completed by August 3, 2006. Petitioner demonstrated compliance with four of the items, but did not provide Radon Test results or proof that her 2A10BC fire extinguisher was tagged and inspected. On August 18, 2006, the foster child, living in Petitioner's home, was removed. On August 19, 2006, Petitioner's family foster care license expired by operation of law, without Petitioner having submitted a completed application package to CHS. On August 28, 2006, Respondent sent Petitioner a notice of intent to deny her application for relicensure. The reasons for the denial were outlined on the four-page letter. Petitioner objected to the notice and requested a formal hearing, and this proceeding followed. From the evidence, it is apparent that CHS worked diligently in helping Petitioner transfer her existing license two times, when Petitioner moved without notifying CHS before the move; and encouraged and worked with Petitioner to complete the application for renewal a month before the expiration of her license. However, due to Petitioner's procrastination and/or resistance, the completed documentation was not sent in to Respondent prior to the expiration of her prior license.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner, Antoinette Scanziani's, application for a renewal of her family foster home license be denied. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of May, 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 11th day of May, 2007.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence allegations contained in its Proposed Revocation of Respondent's Family Day Care License No. 907 dated January 21, 2004.
Findings Of Fact Based upon observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, exhibits admitted into evidence, stipulations and arguments of the parties, evidentiary rulings made pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes (2003), and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant and material facts are determined: The Parties Petitioner is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating child care facilities, including family day care homes. Petitioner routinely conducts inspections of licensed family day care homes to determine whether the home is in compliance with the applicable statutes and rules. Any problems found during the inspections are noted on a report, which is provided to the home’s operator immediately following the inspection. When appropriate, the inspection report provides a time frame within which the problems must be corrected. Regular inspections are conducted approximately twice a year. More frequent inspections--monthly or every six weeks-- are conducted on family day care homes that have a provisional license rather than a standard license. Petitioner also conducts inspections in response to complaints it receives, and it has the authority to inspect family day care homes at any time without notice. Respondent is the provider and licensed owner of a licensed family day care home located at 965 Waldon Avenue in Bartow, Florida (hereinafter “Respondent’s facility” or “the facility”). Respondent’s facility consists of a family residence with a connecting door to the converted garage. The number of children Respondent may have in “care” each day depends upon: (1) the ages of the children in care and (2) the number of qualified caregivers available to supervise the children in various age groups. This restrictive requirement, referred to as the “child care ratio,” is mandated by statute, the violation of which creates a dangerous situation and a dangerous condition for the safety and well-being of the children in care. The Inspection and violations On March 12, 2003, Respondent’s facility was inspected by Gloria Mathews (Ms. Mathews) and Tricia Step (Ms. Step), and several areas of non-compliance were identified during this inspection. The following non-compliant items were noted on Petitioner’s Family Child Care Home Inspection Checklist: unsafe storage of materials dangerous to children was observed in the bathroom drawers, litter was observed in areas where children play, equipment or plumbing not in working order (item was a baby crib and toilet with tissue the children had not flushed), no operable smoke detector or fire extinguisher, the surface of the diaper changing area was not impermeable, no record of fire drills for the past six months, and an up-to-date and age-appropriate immunization record was missing for one child. Two other non-compliant items, Ipecac not labeled with poison control phone number and seven pre-school age children ages 12 months and older were in the facility. Respondent may provide care to only six children in this age group. The extra child was taken home, and this item was corrected at the time of inspection. On December 18, 2003, Respondent’s facility was inspected by Ms. Mathews and Ms. Step, and the following non- compliant items were noted on the Family Child Care Home Complaint: Respondent had 18 children in the facility three of which were infants. Respondent was not present at the time of inspection, and the substitute caregiver was in charge. Petitioner could not determine whether screening of the substitute caregiver, Elizabeth Ricks, had been completed. Ms. Mathews and Ms. Step remained at Respondent’s facility until the parents picked up their children. James Hayes (Mr. Hayes), Respondent’s husband, took one child home. On January 21, 2004, Petitioner informed Respondent by certified mail of the proposed revocation of her family day care license initially issued in March 2002. Petitioner alleged that the decision to revoke Respondent’s license to operate a family child care facility was based on her failure to ensure that the children' substitute caregivers were adequately screened and because Respondent's home was over capacity and out of ratio. The notice stated: On December 18, 2003, there were eighteen (18) children in your day care home. Three (3) of the children were under the age of twelve (12) months. With 3 infants in your care, your license permits you to care for a maximum of six (6) children. The number of children in your home far exceeds the number of children allowed. During an inspection on March 12, 2003, seven (7) preschool age children ages 12 months and older were observed in your home. You are permitted six (6) children in this age group. This violates section 402.302(7), F.S. You also failed to insure [sic] that the substitute care persons in your home caring for children were properly screened in accordance with section 402.313, Florida Statutes. At the final hearing, Petitioner’s inspectors, Ms. Mathews and Ms. Step testified that when they arrived at Respondent’s facility on December 18, 2003, Mr. Hayes was in the facility. Based upon the testimony of the inspectors, Petitioner argued in its post-hearing submittal that Mr. Hayes had not been screened and that he had a criminal record. Petitioner presented no evidence to substantiate the claim that Mr. Hayes had a criminal record. The testimony and argument regarding this issue is hearsay without corroboration and disregarded. Respondent's Evidence Respondent testified that she was out of town on December 18, 2003, and that her substitute caregiver had begun training classes, but apparently had not completed the course and, therefore, had no background check performed. According to Respondent, non-compliant items identified by Petitioner’s inspectors were corrected as soon thereafter as possible. Respondent testified that she was confused regarding the infant and pre-school child-to-caregiver ratio because it was never explained to her in the manner testified to by both Ms. Mathews and Ms. Step. Continuing, Respondent testified that her substitute caregiver(s) had completed the required training and are now qualified to assist her. She contended that submission of the names and certification of training completion had been provided to Petitioner and that she was awaiting Petitioner's response. This testimony was not disputed by Petitioner. Respondent, to counter allegations that her facility and personnel presented a significant or potential risk of harm to the children, provided four testimonial letters from parents who were regular patrons of her facility. Each of the four parents expressed confidence in the assurance of safety and the ready necessity of Respondent’s child care services during the work week and often times during the weekend. Respondent presented photographs of her facility evidencing the facility’s configuration, carpeting, equipment, beds, and other furniture. Respondent testified that Mr. Hayes does not enter the facility during the time children are present. To ensure separation between the family’s living area and the attached rooms used for child care, Respondent installed a door between the room leading from the family’s living area to the anteroom and the garage. Respondent corrected every non-compliant item identified by Petitioner during their two inspections of her facility. Many, if not all, corrections were made when identified; i.e., the clogged toilet was flushed. The non- compliant items, individually or collectively, were minor and did not directly create an unsafe situation for the children in care. These efforts demonstrated a sincere intent and desire to comply with Petitioner's rules and regulations and to continue to provide a safe and necessary family day care home for working parents in her immediate neighborhood. Violations Proven by Petitioner Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence that on March 12, 2003, there were seven preschool children ages 12 months and older in the facility, Family Day Care License No. 907 permits a maximum of six children in care, an amount in violation of Subsection 402.302(7)(c), Florida Statutes (2003). Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence that on December 18, 2003, there were 18 children in Respondent's facility in violation of Subsection 402.302(7)(b), Florida Statutes (2003).
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Finding of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Family Services issue a final order as follows: Finding Petitioner guilty of violating Subsection 402.302(7), Florida Statutes (2003), twice. Finding Petitioner not guilty of violating Section 402.313(3), Florida Statutes (2003). Setting aside the revocation of Respondent's family day care home license. Suspending Respondent's family day care home license until such time that the following conditions are met to the satisfaction of the Department: Respondent's substitute caregivers are identified, trained, qualified, and approved by Petitioner. Respondent demonstrates an understanding of the required child-to-child caregiver ratios. Respondent has trained each of her substitute caregivers on the child-to-child caregiver ratios and provides written instructions to be followed by her caregivers each day when the children in care in a specific age group are out of ratio to the number of caregivers present. That all conditions hereinabove are completed to the satisfaction of Petitioner as the condition for lifting the suspension. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of September 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FRED L. BUCKINE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of September, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack Emory Farley, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 4720 Old Highway 37 Lakeland, Florida 33813-2030 Theresa Hayes Arielle's Angel Care 965 Waldon Avenue Bartow, Florida 33830 Paul F. Flounlacker, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204B Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Josie Tomayo, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issues in these cases are: whether the Davis Family Day Care Home violated provisions of chapter 402, Florida Statutes,1/ and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 65C-20,2/ and, if so, what penalty should be imposed; whether the Davis Family Day Care Home's renewal application for a license to operate a regular family day care center should be approved or denied; and whether the Davis Family Day Care Home's initial application for a license to operate as a large family child care home should be approved or denied.
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Department is responsible for inspecting, licensing and monitoring child care facilities such as the one operated by the Davis Day Care. It is also the Department's responsibility to ensure that all such facilities are safe and secure for the protection of the children utilizing those facilities. The Department routinely conducts inspections of licensed family day care homes to determine whether the home is in compliance with the applicable statutes and rules. Following such inspections, a report is provided to the operator which provides a time frame to correct any outstanding deficiencies. The Department also conducts inspections or investigations of child care facilities in response to complaints it receives. LaShandra Davis (Ms. Davis) owns and operates the Davis Day Care, a family day care facility licensed by the Department. The Davis Day Care was initially licensed in April 2007 and was in continuous operation at all times material to these issues. No testimony was offered that the facility had prior disciplinary actions against it. Ms. Davis is a nurse, has an associate of science (A.S.) degree in nursing from Polk Community College, and is attending college to obtain an A.S. degree in early childhood education. Additionally, Ms. Davis has five sons and one daughter. Their names include (from youngest to oldest): Layla Davis, Steven Davis, Devondrae Davis, Deshawn Williams, Daniel Williams, and Rafael Davis. No testimony was received regarding Ms. Davis using any other name or names from August 3, 2010, through December 2, 2010.5/ On February 23, 2011, Ms. Davis submitted an application to obtain a license to operate a large family day care home at her current location. On March 15, 2011, Ms. Davis submitted her renewal application to retain her license to operate a family day care home at her current location. October 29, 2010, AC 1 (August 3, 2010, Inspection) On August 3, 2010, the Davis Day Care was subjected to an inspection based on a complaint that it was "over-ratio." This over-ratio issue involves the number of children in the care of a family day care operation to the number of adults providing that care. The Department received a complaint that the facility was seeking meal reimbursements for more children than were allowed for the type of child care license it held. Vicki Richmond (Ms. Richmond) testified that she conducted the inspection on August 3, 2010, and cited the facility for being over the licensed capacity ratio by more than two children. Because the facility was over ratio by more than two children, it was a Class I violation. At that August inspection, Ms. Davis explained to Ms. Richmond that she (Ms. Davis) had a license to provide child care for ten children, and she had ten children in her care. Ms. Richmond explained the ratio requirement to Ms. Davis. Based on the age of the children, Ms. Davis was authorized to have a maximum of ten children provided no more than five were preschool age, and, of those five, no more than two were under 12 months of age. At this August inspection, Ms. Davis was over-ratio by two children. Ms. Davis executed and received a copy of the complaint report prepared on August 3, 2010, that discussed the over-ratio limitations. Three other technical violations were brought to Ms. Davis's attention during that inspection, and two of those violations were corrected immediately. Ms. Davis was given a two-week extension to correct the third violation involving an expired fire extinguisher.6/ Additionally, Ms. Richmond testified that Ms. Davis's mother ("Ms. Jones")7/ was visiting the facility while Ms. Richmond was conducting this August inspection. According to Ms. Richmond, Ms. Jones had been previously screened, but did not meet the Department's standards to be in a child care facility. Ms. Jones should not have been present either for a visit or to be preparing lunches as the testimony revealed. Ms. Richmond recommended to Ms. Davis that it was important to check into getting an exemption for Ms. Jones to be at the facility. Ms. Davis later testified that Ms. Jones had cleared up the screening issue, and both had been told Ms. Jones was allowed to be present at the facility. At hearing, Ms. Davis admitted that she was over-ratio on August 3, 2010. Further, she stated that she "just flat out misunderstood" the adult-child ratio requirement issue until Ms. Richmond explained it to her in August 2010. Ms. Brooks and Mr. Giordano testified that they had each individually explained the ratio requirement to Ms. Davis during prior inspections or discussions at the facility. Although there is some discrepancy between Ms. Davis's recollection and the two witnesses on this point, Ms. Davis admitted this violation and was quite candid about her lack of knowledge with respect to it. Credible testimony from both Ms. Richmond and Shelia Nobles (Ms. Nobles) established that having two or more children over-ratio was a Class I violation, which would subject any child care facility to discipline by the Department. When Ms. Davis received the Department's three-page October 29, 2010, AC 1 advising her of the Class I violation (over-ratio by two or more children) and assessing a $500 fine, she was "shocked." Ms. Davis testified that, at the time of the inspection (August 3, 2010), Ms. Richmond had stated the fine might be $50 or maybe more, leading Ms. Davis to believe the fine would not be that high. AC 1 advised Ms. Davis that the over-ratio issue was a Class I violation of section 402.302(7). AC 1 provided one Department address for two reasons, to pay the $500 fine or to request an administrative hearing. There is no language within AC 1 that advised Ms. Davis of an optional payment plan. Ms. Davis testified she was unaware of a payment plan option, and her only option was to appeal the decision, which she did. Ms. Richmond confirmed that the Department would accept payments as long as the total fine amount was paid in full prior to the next renewal. However, that information was not shared with Ms. Davis until the hearing. Department's March 23, 2011, Proposed Denial Application to Operate a Family Day Care Home (AC 2) and Department's April 11, 2011, Proposed Denial Application to Operate a Large Family Day Care Home (AC 3). Both AC 2 and AC 3 set forth five allegations in support of the Department's denial of the renewal application and the large family child care home application. Two alleged abuse allegations from 2007 and 2008 were included in these administrative complaints; however, as previously stated, no testimony or evidence was offered, presented or substantiated at hearing. Thus, any attempt to reference either the 2007 or 2008 allegations as fact is disregarded as unfounded and not supported by credible testimony or evidence. AC 2 and AC 3 rest on three allegations: the alleged abuse of child E.B., the alleged lying during the investigation of the alleged child (E.B.) abuse, and the inspection conducted on August 3, 2010, regarding the facility being over ratio.8/ Natalie Barton (Ms. Barton), E.B.'s mother, testified that she saw marks on E.B.'s bottom at the end of November 2010 (November 30, 2010) that "could only have occurred at the day care." Ms. Barton testified she picked E.B. up from the facility prior to 5:30 p.m. and discovered the marks on E.B.'s bottom during bath time that evening. Both Ms. Barton and Ms. Davis testified that E.B.'s mother sent a picture of the injury to Ms. Davis via her cell phone the evening the injury was first seen. At that point, Ms. Davis told E.B.'s mother that she (Ms. Davis) didn't know what or how the injury occurred and recommended taking the child to E.B.'s doctor. Ms. Davis had no hesitation in making this recommendation to Ms. Barton. Ms. Barton took E.B. to her (E.B.'s) pediatrician the morning after she discovered the injury (December 1, 2010). However, E.B.'s physician indicated he wanted to see the child in two days, as he could not make a determination what, if anything, had caused the injury as there was no bruising. Ms. Barton also testified that she took E.B. back to the Davis Day Care after she was seen by her pediatrician so she could see how E.B. reacted. While at the facility, E.B. was "in her routine," that she (E.B.) walked in and sat on the couch like she did every day. Ms. Barton did not return E.B. to her own pediatrician for further evaluation. Ms. Barton testified E.B. was seen by the child protective team the day after she was seen by the pediatrician (December 2, 2010). On December 2, 2010, after receiving information about the possible physical abuse of a child (E.B.) (documented as being received at 11:08 p.m. on December 1, 2010), Deanna McCain (Investigator McCain) contacted Ms. Barton to obtain additional information. Investigator McCain also spoke with E.B., who said she had been hit by "Ms. Shawna." After observing E.B.'s injuries and obtaining a photograph of E.B.'s buttocks, an appointment was made for E.B. to be seen by a member of the child protection team, i.e., the nurse practitioner. During the afternoon of December 2, 2010, Nurse Practitioner Connie Fleming (Nurse Fleming) performed a medical evaluation of E.B., a then two-year, nine-month old child. During E.B.'s evaluation, Nurse Fleming noticed bruising on E.B.'s buttocks. When Nurse Fleming asked E.B. what happened, E.B. responded "Ms. Shawn spanked me." Nurse Fleming stated the bruising appeared to be consistent with an outline of a hand. Pictures taken during the medical evaluation reflect red areas on E.B.'s buttocks. Based on her nine-plus years of training and experience as a nurse practitioner, Nurse Fleming determined that E.B. had suffered physical abuse; however, she never stated who caused the injury. Nurse Fleming contended that the injuries were indicative of a rapid-force compression injury, typical of a slap with a hand. Later on December 2, 2010, Investigator McCain went to the facility to investigate the alleged abuse report. Upon her arrival at the location, Investigator McCain had to wait for a local law enforcement officer (LEO) before she could enter the facility. While Investigator McCain waited for the LEO to arrive (between 3:30 p.m. and 4:45 p.m.), she spoke with parents who were picking up their children from the facility. Each parent she spoke with had supportive comments about the facility ("great day care provider," their child had "no injuries," had never seen "inappropriate behavior," "no concerns"). Whether all these comments came from one parent or multiple parents is unclear. Investigator McCain did not observe any injuries to any of the children leaving the facility. Ms. Richmond also went to the facility at approximately the same time as Investigator McCain; however, Ms. Richmond could enter the home without a LEO, and she did so. Ms. Richmond made contact with Ms. Davis and explained there was a complaint. Ms. Richmond's task at the time was to obtain information about the number of children Ms. Davis had in the facility. According to the sign in sheet, there were seven children present, plus Ms. Davis's four-year-old son. Ms. Richmond testified that Ms. Davis initially stated there were four children present, but later a sleeping child was found in a crib, and her (then) four-year-old son ran through the home.9/ Although Ms. Richmond asked for the attendance sheets for the previous month (November 2010), Ms. Davis was only able to provide the attendance sheets for December 1 and 2, 2010.10/ According to Ms. Richmond, those two attendance sheets documented that Ms. Davis's facility was again over-ratio for those two days. When Investigator McCain entered the facility with the LEO, she explained the reason for her presence to Ms. Davis. Investigator McCain testified Ms. Davis was asked how many children were present and together they conducted a "walk- through" of the facility. Investigator McCain testified that, at the time of the walk-through, she was told there were four children present, three toddlers and a small child in Ms. Davis's arms. Investigator McCain also testified that, during the walk-through, they found an additional child sleeping in a crib. She further testified that, at some later point, another young child ran through the facility, and Ms. Davis identified him as her son. On December 2, 2010, Investigator McCain questioned Ms. Davis about the alleged physical abuse of E.B. During the investigation discussion, Ms. Davis reported to Investigator McCain that "she [Ms. Davis] had no idea how they [E.B.'s injuries] occurred." Ms. Davis further reported E.B. was "fully potty trained." Ms. Davis reported that the child had a toileting accident the day before and had cleaned herself. Still, later in the investigation discussion, Ms. Davis told Investigator McCain that she (Ms. Davis) had helped clean E.B. after the toileting accident, but only from the front, and she had not observed E.B.'s buttocks. Ms. Davis also shared with the investigator that when Ms. Davis questioned E.B. about the injury, E.B. said her mother (Ms. Barton) did it (the abuse). At hearing, Investigator McCain testified that Ms. Davis was "very far along in" a pregnancy and that Ms. Davis was upset, shocked, and surprised by the presence of the investigators. Investigator McCain also confirmed that DCF's presence tends to raise anxiety levels and that people feel like they are being attacked. Further, Ms. Davis confirmed that she was two weeks from her delivery due date when this investigation started. Thus, under the circumstances, forgetfulness may be perceived by some as lying, when in reality it is simply being overwhelmed by the situation. As part of the investigation, it was Investigator McCain's responsibility to also check for any hazards in the facility and to ensure adequate supervision of the children. Although Ms. Davis initially reported there were no other adults to supervise the children, she later reported that her mother, Ms. Jones, came each day around 10:15 a.m. to make lunch for the children. Ms. Barton confirmed that Ms. Jones was sometimes present in the mornings when Ms. Barton brought E.B. to the facility. Several technical violations were noted during the December 2010 investigation; however, they are not the subject of this hearing. Ms. Davis testified she did not spank E.B. Ms. Davis testified that she did not know how the injury occurred, and the child's hearsay statement that her mother had spanked her is not supported by other testimony. However, the time lapses between when the injury was alleged to have occurred (the "end of November," or November 30, 2010, according to the mother), when the injury was "discovered" (the night of November 30, 2010, according to the mother), when the alleged abuse was reported (December 1, 2010, at 11:08 p.m.), when the pediatrician's examination occurred on December 1, 2010, and when the child protective team became involved (December 2, 2010), create confusion and doubt as to when the injury actually occurred and by whom. Even taking the thought process to try to find that the events happened a day later does not relieve the doubt or confusion, nor is that supported by the Department's documentation. Investigator McCain testified that this investigation was closed with a verified finding of physical injury to E.B. However, simply finding a "verified finding of physical injury to E.B." does not establish who perpetrated that physical injury. No testimony was provided that any other possible explanation for the injury was explained. Further, other than indicating that E.B. had red marks on her bottom, no testimony was provided that indicated the degree of harm to the child. That being said, this not to say that logic has left the building with respect to some harm being caused to the child. There were marks on E.B.'s buttocks. Several current and former parents of children who attend or attended the Davis Day Care testified on Ms. Davis's behalf. Each testified that they did not have any concerns with their child attending Ms. Davis's facility. On March 11, 2011, after receipt of the facility's application for the large family day care home license,11/ the Department conducted an inspection of the facility and found it to be in compliance with all the licensing standard requirements (including those previously cited during the December 2010 inspection that were corrected). Upon completion of its investigation, the Department determined to deny Ms. Davis's renewal application and to deny her application for a large family day care license, based on "numerous complaints to our office alleging physical abuse of children in your care and Class I violations of licensing standards." There was one verified complaint of abuse, not "numerous complaints" as alleged. There was a Class I violation regarding the over-ratio issue; however, that could have been resolved with better communication skills. The misrepresentation could have been avoided. Neither notification includes any indication that the March 11, 2011, inspection was taken into consideration prior to making the denial decision. The Department presented testimony indicating that there had been past complaints regarding Ms. Davis and/or the facility. However, no documented prior complaints or final orders were submitted with respect to any prior actions.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: With respect to the October 29, 2010, administrative complaint, that a final order be entered by the Department of Children and Families finding that the facility was over-ratio on August 3, 2010, and imposing an administrative fine of $500 with no less than ten months to pay the fine. It is further RECOMMENDED that Ms. Davis be ordered to attend remedial classes on the financial operations and management of a child care facility; With respect to the March 23, 2011, administrative complaint, that a final order be entered by the Department of Children and Families renewing the family day care home license on probation status for six months with periodic inspections to ensure the continued safe operation of the facility; and With respect to the April 11, 2011, administrative complaint, that a final order be entered by the Department of Children and Families finding that the large family child care home application be issued a provisional license for a minimum of six months with periodic inspections to ensure the continued safe operation of the facility, with the ability for an additional six-month provisional period. In the event the large family child care home provisional license is not activated within two months of the issuance of the final order in this matter, a new application shall be required, subject to all the applicable statutory requirements. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of October, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK 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 25th day of October, 2011.
The Issue The issues in this case are: whether the Griffin Family Day Care Home violated provisions of chapter 402, Florida Statutes (2012),1/ and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 65C-20,2/ and, if so, what penalty should be imposed; and whether the Griffin Family Day Care Home's renewal application for a license to operate a regular family day care center should be approved or denied.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for inspecting, licensing, and monitoring child care facilities such as the one operated by the Griffin Day Care. It is the Department's responsibility to ensure that all such facilities are safe and secure for the protection of the children utilizing those facilities. The Department inspects each licensed day care center three times a year: two unannounced routine inspections (to ensure compliance with the applicable laws and rules) and one renewal application inspection. In the event of a complaint, additional inspections or investigations are conducted. Wanda Griffin owns and operates the Griffin Day Care, a family day care facility licensed by the Department. The facility is located at 1408 Unitah Avenue, Lakeland, Florida, and was in continuous operation at all times material to the issues herein. The facility has not been the subject of any prior disciplinary actions. Lydia Murphy is a child care licensing specialist for the Department. Ms. Murphy is trained to inspect family day care centers for initial applications, renewal applications, and routine inspections. Ms. Murphy is familiar with the facility, having inspected it between 15 to 18 times over the past five to six years. As a result of a complaint being made, DCF conducted an investigation of the facility. On Friday morning, March 23, 2012, a four-year-old child, S.B., was brought to the facility. Following some outside play time, S.B. and the other children came into the facility and were seated at a table for lunch. While Ms. Griffin was retrieving the pizza from the garage, S.B. got up from the table and left the facility via the front door. Ms. Griffin's granddaughter4/ told Ms. Griffin that S.B. was gone. Ms. Griffin immediately began a search for the child. Ms. Griffin contacted 911 and the child's mother. S.B. was located approximately one-half mile from the facility and was returned. There was no testimony about whether or not S.B. was ever in jeopardy while she was unsupervised. Although S.B.'s mother later told Ms. Griffin that S.B. was known to wander off, Ms. Griffin advised S.B.'s mother that she (Ms. Griffin) would no longer take care of S.B. Ms. Griffin admitted this incident occurred. On Tuesday, March 27, 2012, Ms. Murphy (and another DCF employee) interviewed Ms. Griffin about the Friday incident. During that interview, Ms. Griffin told Ms. Murphy that the lock on the front door was not engaged, as she (Ms. Griffin) had disengaged it to allow her daughter to enter the facility following medical treatment. At hearing, Ms. Griffin testified that the front door lock had been engaged when S.B. left the facility. When confronted that the incident occurred on a Friday and that she had told Ms. Murphy just four days after the incident (on Tuesday) that the door lock was disengaged for her daughter, Ms. Griffin claimed that her daughter did not go for the medical treatment on that Friday. Ms. Griffin's testimony is not credible. Leviticus Griffin is Ms. Griffin's husband. They lived together in Plant City for a time and, in 2001, moved to Lakeland. Ms. Griffin testified that, when she applied for (the child care) licensure, they were not living together, as she was living "on housing," and Mr. Griffin was living elsewhere. On four or five inspection visits when Ms. Murphy saw a white truck in the drive-way, there was a man present on the facility property. Ms. Murphy did not see him inside the facility. Ms. Murphy was told he was the yardman. Ms. Griffin maintained that Mr. Griffin was not the yardman. Ms. Griffin testified that the yardman was "one of my grandbaby's uncles" and that she had forgotten his name. Ms. Griffin maintained that this yardman had been her yardman "since she had moved in." Ms. Griffin's testimony is not credible. At the hearing, Ms. Griffin claimed that, when Ms. Murphy saw Mr. Griffin at the facility, he was there to talk about health issues. On the 2012 renewal application, submitted on May 8, Ms. Griffin did not report that Mr. Griffin was residing in the facility. As she was reviewing the 2012 renewal application, Ms. Murphy saw a copy of Mr. Griffin's driver's license and identified him as the yardman she had seen at the facility. In performing the required renewal application investigation in May 2012, Ms. Murphy "put two and two together" and decided that Mr. Griffin was living in the facility. Ms. Murphy investigated Mr. Griffin. Ms. Murphy determined Mr. Griffin had two disqualifying offenses that would preclude his living at the facility unless or until he received an exemption from those disqualifying offenses. Ms. Murphy called and told Ms. Griffin that she was adding Mr. Griffin's name to the 2012 renewal application as a person living in the facility. Ms. Griffin did not object to Mr. Griffin's name being added to this application and indicated she "was going to add him to the license." Although Ms. Murphy testified she spoke with the landlord, Fred Leslie, about who was living in the facility, that testimony is hearsay and was uncorroborated through other competent evidence or testimony. At some undetermined time, a copy of Ms. Griffin's 2008 rental application5/ (Exhibit 2) was provided to DCF. That rental application, which Ms. Griffin executed on June 2, 2008, does not contain an address on the "Rental Property Address" line, nor is it a rental agreement. The name, "Leviticus Griffin," is on the rental application as an additional occupant of the property; however, there is no evidence that this application was for the facility property. Ms. Griffin maintained that Mr. Griffin was not living at the facility at that time, but that he lived elsewhere. DCF presented a certified copy (Exhibit 5) of the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, Intranet Records Information System (IRIS). IRIS documented multiple vehicle transactions and driver license transactions involving Mr. Griffin. IRIS reflects that Mr. Griffin's address, as of the "Issue Date" for this record, March 4, 2008, was that of the facility. Mr. Griffin did not testify in this proceeding. Five of the six DCF applications or renewal applications (Exhibit 3)6/ for licensure submitted by the facility identify no one other than Ms. Griffin as living in the facility. The sixth application, the 2012 renewal application form, reflects Ms. Griffin's name on one line and Mr. Griffin's name on the second line where Ms. Murphy inserted and dated the addition. It is noted that the 2007 DCF "renewal" application is for an address different than the address at issue. Beatriz Blanco is a DCF exemption screening specialist with over six years of experience. Mr. Griffin first came to Ms. Blanco's attention in May 2012. Mr. Griffin submitted a request for an exemption. Ms. Blanco wrote Mr. Griffin asking him to provide information about two disqualifying offenses. In July 2012, Ms. Blanco received a partially-completed application from Mr. Griffin. In late July 2012, a letter seeking additional information was sent to Mr. Griffin at his address of record, 1408 Unitah Avenue, the same as the facility. As of February 6, 2013, Mr. Griffin had not submitted any additional information for further consideration of his exemption request.
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 the Griffin Family Day Care Home committed the Class I violations, imposing an administrative fine of $1,000.00, and denying its renewal application. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of February, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK 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 28th day of February, 2013.
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
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent should approve Petitioner's family day care license application.
Findings Of Fact Based upon observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying in person and the documentary materials received in evidence, stipulations by the parties, evidentiary rulings made pursuant to Chapter 120.57, Florida Statutes, and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant and material facts are found: Before December 15, 2000, Petitioner, Freddie Mae Law (Ms. Law) submitted an application for a family foster care license to Respondent, the Department of Children and Family Services (Department). Gloria Mathews (Ms. Mathews), who was at that time assigned to the Department's family foster care license unit, conducted the requisite pre-license investigation and found that Ms. Law met the mandatory requirements and that Ms. Law was qualified for a family foster care license. Based solely upon the results of Ms. Mathews' investigation of Ms. Law's background and qualifications, the Department issued Ms. Law a family foster care license on December 15, 2000. Thereafter, Ms. Law provided family foster childcare service out of her home in Mulberry, Florida. At some undetermined time after December 15, 2000, Ms. Mathews transferred from the Department's family foster care license unit to the Department's family day care license unit where she is currently working. Ms. Law's family foster care license was valid from December 15, 2000 to December 15, 2001, and was renewable on or before its anniversary date. On December 15, 2001, the Department took no action regarding the renewal of Ms. Law's foster home license. With the Department's consent and approval, Ms. Law operated her family foster care out of her home until February 21, 2002, at which time she voluntarily surrendered her foster care license to the Department. For more than eight years before she acquired her "foster care license" Ms. Law worked at the Cornerstone Youth Shelter. This residential shelter home, through contract with the Department, and the Department of Juvenile Justice, accepted referrals of children in need of housing and foster care services. On September 11, 2001, four months before the expiration date of Ms. Law's family foster care license on December 15, 2001, the required renewal investigation was conducted by Cheryl Dishong (Ms. Dishong), who was then a foster care license unit caseworker. Prior to the initial renewal visit by a foster care license unit caseworker, the Department requires the assigned caseworker to secure a copy of a foster care visit report form that contains the names and ages of the foster children in the foster home to be visited by the caseworker. Additionally, caseworkers are required to record the results of their foster care home visit on the foster care visit report form. Uncertain of the time of her prearranged visit with Ms. Law and of her arrival time at Ms. Law's residence, Ms. Dishong recalled arriving at the Law's residence at approximately 3:00 p.m. or 3:30 p.m. in the afternoon. According to Ms. Dishong, Ms. Law was not home upon her arrival, but arrived within five to ten minutes thereafter. During the short five to ten-minute interval before Ms. Law arrived, Ms. Dishong saw several teenaged children walking home from school. Ms. Dishong observed the two teenaged children approach Ms. Law's home, and she spoke with them outside Ms. Law's home. Neither Ms. Dishong nor the children entered Ms. Law's home at that time. Upon Ms. Law's arrival, she and Ms. Dishong entered the home while the two teenaged children stayed outside on the porch. During this visit, Ms. Dishong discussed with Ms. Law her one concern; the five-minute interval between the arrival of the two teenagers home and Ms. Law's arrival home. Ms. Law explained to Ms. Dishong that the one teenage foster child along with her biological daughter attended school within walking distance from their home. The normal family school day routine was for the teenagers to walk to and from school each day. The entire family would leave home together in the mornings and would normally arrive home in the evenings at about the same time Ms. Law arrived home from work. Ms. Law further explained to Ms. Dishong that her family's school day routine consisted of her transporting the younger foster children to school each morning on her way to work and picking them up from school on her way home each afternoon. This routine of a mother transporting young children to and from school each day is a routine of many mothers with young school children. The routine of teenaged children walking home from school and arriving a reasonably short time before their parents arrive home from work is also that of normal families. The Department proffered no rule or known and accepted standard that was violated by the hereinabove Law foster family school day routine. Ms. Law's determination of personally transporting the younger foster children to and from school and her determination that the teenaged foster child and her biological child should walk to and from school do not reflect a lack of supervision nor do they demonstrate faulty decision- making. Ms. Dishong, the Department's chief witness and a foster care license unit relicensure caseworker for three and one-half years, testified exclusively from memory. Her testimony, with exception of her face-to-face conversations with Ms. Law and her several telephone conversations with Ms. Law, consisted primarily of conclusions and generalizations. Ms. Dishong was unable to accurately recall names of specific foster children with whom she allegedly had conversations, and she could not recall specific dates, times, or places. Her recollection of statements allegedly made to her by foster children and other children lacks support and, therefore, lacks credibility. Ms. Dishong's recollection and testimony of statements allegedly made by the several children, foster, biological and others, is unobjected to as hearsay not supported by any other evidence of record and, in itself, cannot support a finding of fact.1 Accordingly, that testimony is disregarded in the preparation of this Recommended Order. On September 21, 2001, Nacara Daniels (Ms. Daniels), the Department's investigator of abuse report 2001-051113, visited Ms. Law's foster care home for an investigation of allegations contained in abuse report 2001-051113. Before her visit to Ms. Law's home, Ms. Dishong told Ms. Daniels of allegations of a lack of supervision and faulty decision-making purportedly contained in three other unidentified abuse reports. On October 9, 2001, and as the direct result of Ms. Daniels' investigation, interview, and discussion with Ms. Law regarding her foster care supervision, the Department entered into a Partnership Development Plan (PDP) agreement with Ms. Law. This partnership agreement and its cooperative working relationship between Ms. Law and the Department's caseworkers are designed to provide foster care that is in the best interest of the foster children. The PDP agreement reduced to writing the Department's agreed acceptance to continue its foster care partnership with Ms. Law and Ms. Law's agreed acceptance to continue working with the Department. Ms. Law complied with the terms and conditions contained in the PDP agreement from the date she signed the agreement on October 9, 2001, to the date Ms. Law voluntarily surrendered her foster care license to the Department on February 21, 2002. On or after October 9, 2001, and after completing her investigation and discussions with Ms. Law, Ms. Daniels closed abuse report 2001-051113 with a finding that allegations contained in abuse report 2001-051113 were uncorroborated. Ms. Daniels recalled, at some unspecified time subsequent to October 9, 2001, sharing her abuse report findings of uncorroborated allegations, the conditions and terms of the PDP, and her abuse report closure status with Ms. Dishong. Before the two-week Christmas break of December 2001, Ms. Law telephoned the Department and spoke to each foster child's caseworker. By mutual agreement between Ms. Law and each caseworker with whom she spoke, a Christmas vacation plan was developed for sharing the daily care and responsibilities for Ms. Law's foster children over the two-week Christmas holiday period. It was agreed that during the two-week 2001 Christmas break, Ms. Law would leave her foster children at the Department's office each morning on her way to work, and she would pick them up from the Department's office each evening on her way home after she finished work. During this two-week Christmas holiday period, Ms. Law continued to provide the foster children breakfast before leaving home each morning, and the Department's caseworkers provided each child with their midday lunch meals. On January 4, 2002, Jayme Sprouse (Ms. Sprouse), a Department investigator, received abuse report 2002-001260. Before her initial visit to the Law family foster care home, Ms. Sprouse reviewed all the information contained in the Department's foster care unit licensing renewal case file. On February 4, 2002, one month after receiving abuse report 2002-001260, Ms. Sprouse spoke with Ms. Law concerning the general allegations to have occurred during an unspecified time span before December 2001 regarding her use of unscreened foster care sitters. This inexplicable month delay is significant in that it evidences the fact that allegations contained in abuse report 2002-001260 did not constitute an immediate danger to the health, safety, and welfare of the foster children in Ms. Law's foster care home. Had abuse report 2002-001260's allegations been sufficient to create an immediate danger or threat to the safety and well-being of the foster children, Ms. Sprouse was required to conduct an investigation on January 5, 2002, within 24 hours after receiving the abuse report on January 4, 2002. Ms. Sprouse inquired of Ms. Law's use of an unapproved foster child sitter. Ms. Law explained to Ms. Sprouse that she had a Department-approved foster child sitter, Chastity Griffin, who sat her foster children and who transported both biological and foster children to outings and entertainment activities. During this period, Ms. Law had also submitted an application to the Department for another approved sitter named Jocelyn (whose last name was not provided in the record) for approval. Not knowing that approval by the Department was required before a sitter could be used to sit foster children, Ms. Law permitted Jocelyn to sit with the foster children during the pendency approval of her foster care sitter application. After February 4, 2002, Ms. Sprouse advised Ms. Law that that the Department had denied Jocelyn's pending sitter screening application. Responding to this information, Ms. Law immediately discontinued the use of Jocelyn as a foster care sitter, evidencing her willing readiness to comply with the Department's requirements once they were made known to her by the Department's staff. After Ms. Law satisfied Ms. Sprouse's concern regarding the use of an unapproved sitter, Ms. Sprouse closed her investigation of abuse report 2002-001260 with a finding of no indicators of inadequate supervision based on the Florida Statute definition of inadequate supervision for abuse purposes. Ms. Sprouse voiced no other concerns regarding Ms. Law's foster care supervision to Ms. Law. After the February 4, 2002, meeting with Ms. Sprouse, the record contains no credible evidence that Ms. Law continued to use unscreened sitters at the foster home or used unscreened persons for any other purposes. Ms. Sprouse shared her abuse report findings of fact and her closure of the abuse report with Ms. Dishong, the case worker assigned the task of the renewal investigation of Ms. Law's foster care licensure process. At no time during the period of September 11, 2001, throughout January 28, 2003, did Ms. Dishong inform Ms. Law that the Department's foster relicensing unit had received, in addition to abuse report 2001-051113 and abuse report 2002- 001260, three additional abuse reports alleging that she inadequately supervised the foster children in her home. Petitioner's Family Day Care Application On or about November 6, 2002, Ms. Law made application to the Department for a family day care license. The November 6, 2002, application is the subject of this de novo proceeding. In December 2000, Ms. Mathews was assigned to the Department's foster care license unit. While there, it was she who approved Ms. Law's foster care license application. In November of 2002, Ms. Mathews was assigned to the Department's family day care license unit. Ms. Mathews again conducted the requisite pre-licensure investigation of Ms. Law's minimum qualifications and criminal background check. For the second time within less than two years, Ms. Mathews again found Ms. Law to have met all statutory requirements and was, therefore, qualified to have a family day care license issued to her. Specifically, Ms. Mathews confirmed that Ms. Law met mandatory minimum standards as required by statute. She visited and otherwise assured herself that Ms. Law's home met minimum standards. She ascertained that Ms. Law had completed 30 hours of childcare training at Polk Community College upon receiving Ms. Law's certificate of completion from Polk Community College. Ms. Mathews was satisfied the Ms. Law's criminal background check found Ms. Law free from any criminal convictions. Ms. Mathews satisfied herself the Ms. Law's substitute family day person was qualified and had completed a minimum of three hours of childcare training as required. Having completed and approved Ms. Law's foster care license application, Ms. Mathews was aware that Ms. Law's long- time employment at Cornerstone Youth Shelter was her sole source of income. Ms. Mathews advised Ms. Law that at the time her family day care license was issued, she would be prohibited from all other employment. To assist Ms. Law in determining the appropriate time to submit her two-week notice of resignation to Cornerstone Youth Shelter, Ms. Mathews was the person to whom Ms. Law would inquire regarding the status of her forthcoming family day care license. Ms. Mathews informed Ms. Law of her successful compliance with minimum requirements and told her the Department was in the process of signing her family day care license. On January 17, 2002, in reliance on Ms. Mathews repeated assurances that her family day care license was forthcoming and to comply with the "no other work outside the home" requirement, Ms. Law gave her two-week notice of resignation to Cornerstone Youth Shelter. Notwithstanding the fact that Ms. Mathews was assigned to the Law application and was working in the Department's family day care licensing unit, the Department's foster care unit's relicensing investigator, Ms. Dishong, never informed Ms. Mathews that the Department's foster care relicensing unit had concerns of such magnitude that they could be the bases for the denial of her family day care license application. The Department's foster care license unit did not inform the family day care license unit that since November 6, 2002, the Department purportedly had received three additional abuse reports (bringing the total abuse reports to five) that would ultimately adversely impact Ms. Law's family day care license application. This is significant in that Ms. Mathews was the person who at that time had determined that Ms. Law met minimum standards for a family day care license. This inexplicable lack of information sharing between the Department's foster unit and its family day care unit continued from January 17, 2002 to January 2003. Ms. Dishong, Ms. Law's foster care unit investigator and the Department's primary witness, (1) could not identify from memory the three abuse reports allegedly filed against Ms. Law, (2) could not find the three abuse reports in her foster unit renewal investigation file, (3) could not proffer any evidence that allegations contained in those three reports were investigated and corroborated by Department investigators, and (4) did not inform Ms. Law that allegations supposedly contained in those three unidentified abuse reports would adversely impact her pending family day care application. This complete failure to identify, investigate, inform, and discuss with Ms. Law the three abuse reports is significant when the Department's processing of abuse reports 2001-051113 and 2002-001260 that were filed against Ms. Law is compared to its processing of the three unidentified abuse reports. In processing abuse reports 2001-051113 and 2002- 001260, the Department first investigated each report. Second, the Department discussed the allegations of each report with Ms. Law. Third, the Department closed each report with a written finding. Lastly, of the three unidentified three abuse reports testified to by Ms. Dishong, and that constituted the primary basis for denial of Ms. Law's family day care license application, the Department did not follow its previous procedure of identification, investigation, advising, and discussion with Mr. Law and the investigator's recorded finding regarding allegations contained in those three reports. According to Ms. Dishong, the Department's foster care license unit held a foster staff committee meeting during some unidentified time in 2002. Ms. Dishong did not provide the names of her foster care unit coworkers who attended the staffing committee nor did she provide the names of the Department's other employees who attended the staffing committee. It is clear that the Department, in part based upon the foster care staff committee results, determined that Ms. Law's family day care license application would be denied. It is also clear that Ms. Mathews did not attend the Department's foster licensing care unit's staffing committee meeting. Ms. Mathews first became aware of the Department's foster care unit's license renewal investigation file on Ms. Law when she reviewed that file in preparation for this final hearing. Upon completion of her review, Ms. Mathews did not change her prior approval and finding that Ms. Law met minimum standards. Based on her review of that file, she did however qualify her prior approval of granting Ms. Law a family day care license to a "but for" the content of the foster care unit's license renewal investigation file. The record contains no evidence from which to determine how the Department's foster care licensing unit's conclusions and decision to not renew Ms. Law's foster care license were conveyed to the Department's family care license unit. It is clear, however, that the Department's decision denying Ms. Law a family day care license was based on uninvestigated and uncorroborated allegations purportedly contained in three unidentified abuse reports. The Department's denial letter of January 29, 2003, unequivocally confirms the fact that the Department's decision to deny Ms. Law's family day care license application was based upon its consideration as fact, uninvestigated and uncorroborated allegations contained in three unidentified abuse reports. The Department's licensure staffing committee's consideration of Ms. Dishong's personal observations and conclusions contained in her foster care closure form, in its deliberations and its ultimate decision to deny Ms. Law's family day care application, were not based on fact and are, therefore, not justified. Ms. Law has, by a preponderance of the evidence, proven that she successfully met the Department's statutory minimum requirements for a family day care licensee.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Family Services issue a final order granting Petitioner, Freddie Mae Law, a family day care license. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of July, 2003, 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 23rd day of July, 2003.
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, Marie Carline St. Fort, resides in Orlando, Orange County, Florida; in November 1999, she applied for a license to operate a family day care home at her residence. In the course of discharging its statutory responsibility of investigating applicants seeking licensure for family day care homes, DCFS discovered three incidents of child abuse/neglect, involving Petitioner's children or children in Petitioner's care, as reported to the Florida Abuse Hotline Information System. Petitioner acknowledged each incident indicating that the alleged abuse/neglect was the result of the actions of either her husband or her mother. One incident involved her husband's imposition of excessive corporal punishment to her daughter/his step-daughter which Petitioner witnessed but in which she failed to intervene. A second incident involved alleged sexual fondling of a male child by the maternal grandmother, which apparently occurred; however, upon investigation by a child protection investigator, this activity was excused and was attributed to "cultural differences" in the Haitian culture. Petitioner is of Haitian heritage. Petitioner testified that after the incident referred to in paragraph 5, supra, an Orange County Juvenile Court Judge allowed her children to return to Petitioner's home after nine days in protective custody conditioned on the grandmother not residing in the home. The grandmother presently resides in the home. In response to each of the alleged incidents of abuse/neglect, Petitioner indicated that the alleged perpetrator was someone other than herself and that she, therefore, should not be disqualified. Based on the three acknowledged incidents of abuse/neglect, DCFS determined that Petitioner's home did not meet the minimum standards required for licensure as a family day care home. DCFS advised Petitioner of her licensure denial by certified mail on January 21, 2000. In this letter Petitioner was advised: "Any party whose substantial interests are affected by this determination has a right to request an administrative proceeding pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, and rules promulgated pursuant thereto, [within] 30 days of receipt of this notice. The request must be in writing, . . .". By an undated letter received by DCFS on December 19, 2001, in which Petitioner acknowledged receipt of DCFS's letter, Petitioner asked the "department to reconsider my request and approve my requested license to operate a Family Day Care Home." DCFS interpreted this as a request for an administrative hearing. In the same letter Petitioner indicated, "I had written you a letter before within 30 days as stated in your letter dated January 21, 2000. I have never received any response from your office concerning this matter." Petitioner testified, contradicting her letter received by DCFS on December 19, 2001, that her first letter, which apparently had never been received by DCFS, had not been mailed until approximately 60-90 days after the expiration of the 30- day deadline stated in DCFS's January 21, 2000, letter denying licensure. No relevant excuse was offered for her tardiness.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Family Services enter its final order granting the motion to dismiss Petitioner's request for administrative hearing or, in the alternative, enter its final order denying Petitioner's licensure application for a family day care home license for her failure to present any meritorious evidence of entitlement. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of May, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 2nd day of May, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard Cato, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 400 West Robinson Street Suite S-1106 Orlando, Florida 32801-1782 Marie Carline St. Fort 2800 Rose Boulevard Orlando, Florida 32839 Peggy Sanford, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204B Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Josie Tomayo, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
