The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent should approve Petitioner's registration to operate a family day care home.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner is a 25-year-old female who admittedly has been providing unlicensed child day care in her home for the past several years. While she has no formal training in child care, she has been employed in the child care field for many years and obtained her GED in 1995. Petitioner has been married to her husband, A.P., for six years, and they live together. Respondent is the state agency responsible for regulating child care facilities pursuant to Chapter 402. The Application On September 18, 2002, Petitioner submitted an application to Respondent seeking licensure to operate a registered family day care within her home located at 6351 Redwood Oaks Drive in Orlando, Florida. Respondent processed the application and effectuated the required background screening of the individuals living within the household, including Petitioner and A.P. The screening of Petitioner revealed that on October 3, 2000, a young girl, living within Petitioner's home and under her supervision, was removed following a report to the abuse hotline and the subsequent investigation by Donald Griffin, a protective services investigator employed by Respondent. The screening of A.P. revealed that he was arrested in October 2000 on charges of lewd, lascivious assault or act on a child; prostitution; lewd or lascivious molestation; renting space to be used for prostitution; and lewd or lascivious conduct. The screening further revealed that on May 15, 2002, the State Attorney's Office determined that the case was not suitable for prosecution and filed a "No Information Notice." Upon receipt and consideration of the screening results, Respondent denied Petitioner's application on January 23, 2003, advising her that: . . . the Department is unable to approve your application to operate a family day care due to safety concerns for children that may be placed under your care for the following reasons: Background screening revealed that a child was removed from your care following an allegation of abuse or neglect. Background screening revealed that a member of your household lacks moral character due to their arrest record involving minors which would place the children at risk of harm. With respect to Petitioner's screening results, Petitioner admits that a child was removed from her home, but alleges that the removal was at her request. Petitioner denies any allegation of abuse and insists that the removed child, her friend's daughter, was "extremely unruly and too difficult to handle." As a result, Petitioner claims that she requested that Respondent remove the child and Respondent complied. Respondent's investigator, Mr. Griffin, testified otherwise. Investigator Griffin stated that he personally investigated Petitioner following a report to Florida's child abuse hotline. He separately interviewed both Petitioner and the child and noticed clear bruises and welts on the child. Investigator Griffin determined that Petitioner's home was not suitable for the young girl and removed her from the residence. Mr. Griffin's testimony was more credible. No evidence was offered to support Petitioner's assertion. With respect to the screening results of A.P., Respondent presented compelling evidence that A.P. lacks the requisite good moral character. First, Respondent demonstrated and Petitioner admits that A.P. occasionally gets angry and lacks self-control. In fact, the local police department has responded to domestic disturbance calls from the family home on at-least two occasions. In addition, the evidence surrounding A.P.'s arrest demonstrates that A.P. lacks good moral character. Specifically, A.B., the alleged victim of A.P., credibly testified at hearing that in October 2000, at age 12, she and her minor female friend, L.M. were walking near their school during the early evening when an unknown black male, later identified as A.P., driving a green sports utility vehicle, offered them a ride. The female minors entered his S.U.V. and were taken to a convenience store and then to a hotel. A.B. testified that while in the hotel room, the male inappropriately touched her butt, pushed her on the bed and solicited her to have sex with him for money. A.B. said "no" to his offer and asked him to stop. Shortly thereafter, the male departed the hotel and abandoned the girls in the hotel room with the room key. The police were contacted and investigator Rick Salcido conducted an investigation. After interviewing the girls, Mr. Salcido acquired physical evidence at the hotel linking A.P. to the room and supporting A.B.'s allegations. He retrieved a copy of A.P.'s driver's license and hotel credit card used at check-in from the hotel manager. In addition to the physical evidence linking A.P. to the hotel, A.B. positively identified A.P.'s photo as the perpetrator. Moreover, the investigator determined, and Petitioner admits that A.P. owned and drove a green sports utility vehicle at the time of the alleged incident. While Petitioner asserts that she and A.P. were out of town and on vacation on the date of the incident, she admits that they returned home at approximately 7:00 p.m. that evening. Although A.P. was subsequently arrested, the State Attorney's Office later declined to prosecute and filed a "No Information Notice." At hearing, counsel for A.P. indicated that the statute of limitations had not expired and A.P. invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege to remain silent. A.P. declined to testify and answer questions related to his moral character and the circumstances of his arrest.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for a registration to operate a child care facility. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of August, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM R. PFEIFFER 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 29th day of August, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard Cato, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 400 West Robinson Street, Suite S-1106 Orlando, Florida 32801-1782 Jeremy K. Markman, Esquire 800 North Ferncreek Avenue Orlando, Florida 32803 Paul Flounlacker, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204B 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Josie Tomayo, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Jerry Regier, Secretary Department of Children and Family Services Building 1, Room 202 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent's license to operate a family day care home should be revoked.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony and evidence received at the hearing, the following findings are made: Parties The Department is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating child care facilities, including family day care homes. 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. Any problems found during the inspection 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 which have a provisional license rather than a standard license. The Department also conducts inspections in response to complaints it receives, and it has the authority to inspect family day care homes at any time with or without notice. Respondent is the owner and operator of a licensed family day care home located at 1218 Jordan Avenue in Orlando, Florida (hereafter "Respondent's facility" or "the facility"). Respondent and her husband reside at that address as well. Respondent has operated day care homes in Florida since 1992, and she has been involved in child care for approximately 21 years. As a result, she is or should be familiar with the rules regulating family day care homes. Respondent keeps children in the back portion of her home. The children also play in Respondent's backyard, which is enclosed by an approximately six-foot high wooden fence. A wooden gate in the fence connects Respondent's backyard to the backyard of the house immediately behind Respondent's home. That house has been rented by Annette Rodgers since November 2002. Respondent does not have a pool in her yard. Ms. Rodgers' yard does have a pool, which at the time of the Department's February 27, 2003 inspection (discussed below), was only partially filled with water. Ms. Rodgers' pool is not visible from Respondent's back yard because of the wooden fence and gate. The photographs and videotape received into evidence show that Ms. Rodgers' pool is now completely enclosed by a series of fences.4 The evidence does not clearly and convincingly establish that the fences were not in place on February 27, 2003. Indeed, the weeds and high grass which can be seen along the base of and around the posts of the chain-link fence and the discoloration on some of the fence posts indicate that at least that fence has been in place for quite some time.5 Previous Inspections of Respondent's Facility and Actions Taken by the Department Respondent's facility was inspected on May 28, June 14, and September 30, 2002. Several areas of noncompliance were identified during each of those inspections, including inadequate supervision of children, unsafe storage of chemicals, evidence of roaches in the home, and incomplete enrollment and health records for the children at the home. On each occasion, Respondent was given a period of time within which to correct the areas of noncompliance. The inadequate supervision for which Respondent was cited in June 14, 2002, involved several children playing unsupervised in Respondent's carport area, which has access to the street; several children playing in the backyard under the "supervision" of Respondent's mother, who was not an authorized caregiver; and several children playing unsupervised on the porch area in the vicinity of tools and small screws. The Department issued Respondent a provisional license on October 28, 2002, presumably as part of the license renewal process. The provisional license was based upon Respondent's history of noncompliance with the Department's minimum standards, and it was valid through April 2, 2003, unless Respondent applied for an received a change in license status (which she apparently did not) or "if the license is suspended or revoked by the Department." A provisional license is issued where the Department has continued concerns regarding the day care home's compliance with the applicable statutes and rules. A provisional license is issued in lieu of denying a license renewal or suspending or revoking the home's license. A provisional license gives the licensee an opportunity to correct the areas of noncompliance, and because such homes are inspected more frequently, the Department has an opportunity to monitor the licensee's progress. On October 29, 2002, Respondent was assessed an administrative fine of $100.00 based upon deficiencies identified during the May 28 and June 14, 2002, inspections. The fine was based primarily upon the incident described above involving inadequate supervision of the children at the home. Respondent apparently did not contest the administrative fine or the issuance of the provisional license rather than a standard license. Despite the provisional license and the administrative fine, the Department's inspections continued to identify areas of noncompliance at Respondent's facility. For example, the November 14, 2002, inspection identified "evidence of rodents/vermin in the home" as well as incomplete enrollment and immunization records for the children in the home. The December 18, 2002, inspection identified these same deficiencies, including "live roaches in the children's area and the kitchen," as well as the storage of plastic shopping bags and chemicals which can pose dangers to children in an unlocked cabinet accessible to the children. These violations were the same as or similar to those for which Respondent had been previously cited and which led to the imposition of the administrative fine and issuance of the provisional license. The Department did not take immediate action to suspend or revoke Respondent's license based upon the results of the November 14 and December 18, 2002, inspections. Instead, the Department continued to give Respondent an opportunity to bring her home into compliance with the minimum standards in the Department's licensing rules and statutes. Inspection of Respondent's Facility on February 27, 2003 The Department next inspected Respondent's facility on February 27, 2003. That inspection was conducted by Department employee Brandi Blanchard. Ms. Blanchard had been responsible for inspecting Respondent's facility since at least September 2002, so she was familiar with the layout of the facility and its history of noncompliance. Respondent testified that Ms. Blanchard, unlike the prior inspector, had been "very good to her." Ms. Blanchard arrived at Respondent's facility by car between 8:30 a.m. and 8:45 a.m. As she arrived, Respondent was pulling her car into the driveway/carport at the facility. Ms. Blanchard parked her car directly behind Respondent's car. Ms. Blanchard got out of her car as Respondent was getting out of hers, and she said, "Hello, Ms. Alli," to Respondent. Upon seeing Ms. Blanchard, Respondent quickly went into the house through the carport door. Ms. Blanchard followed Respondent into the facility. Ms. Blanchard lost sight of Respondent as she went down a hallway towards the back of the house where the children were located. The backdoor of the house was open, and by the time that Ms. Blanchard caught up with Respondent, Respondent was directing the children through the facility's backyard towards the back gate connecting Respondent's yard to Ms. Rodgers' yard. Several of the children, led by Ms. Rodgers' 14-year-old son carrying an infant in a car seat and Ms. Rodgers' 13-year-old son carrying a toddler had already reached Ms. Rodgers' yard. Ms. Blanchard told Respondent to stop and return to the facility with the children, which she did. Ms. Blanchard went through the open gate onto Ms. Rodgers' property and directed Ms. Rodgers' sons to return to Respondent's facility with the children, which they did. While on Ms. Rodgers' property, Ms. Blanchard saw a partially-filled swimming pool and other ongoing construction. Ms. Blanchard did not notice any fencing around the pool and saw one of the children, which she estimated to be three or four years old, walking in the construction area close to the edge of the pool. After the children had been returned, Ms. Blanchard assessed the situation and commenced her inspection of the remainder of Respondent's facility. Ms. Blanchard found roach droppings in the bathtub and in other locations in the facility. Respondent acknowledged a roach problem, but claimed that she had an exterminator working on the problem and that he was due to come out and treat the facility. Respondent did not present any documentation to Ms. Blanchard to corroborate her claims regarding the exterminator, nor did she introduce such documentation at the hearing. Ms. Blanchard found plastic bags in an unlocked cabinet accessible to the children. Respondent acknowledged at the hearing that the bags were in the cabinet and further acknowledged the suffocation danger that they posed to young children. Ms. Blanchard's review of the facility's records identified missing enrollment and immunization records for the children in the home. However, Ms. Blanchard did not document the children whose records were missing and she did not determine whether, as Respondent claimed at the time and in her testimony at the hearing, any of the missing records were for students who had enrolled in Respondent's facility within the prior two weeks. Ms. Blanchard documented the results of her inspection, including the events surrounding the movement of the children to Ms. Rodgers' yard on her inspection report. The inspection report identified each of the violations that she observed, including inadequate supervision based upon Respondent's absence from the facility, unsafe storage of materials dangerous to children (i.e., plastic bags) in a location accessible to the children, evidence of roaches, incomplete enrollment and immunization records, and more than the allowed number of children in the home. Ms. Blanchard also cited Respondent's facility for the dangers posed by Ms. Rodgers' pool since the children were being taken onto Ms. Rodgers' property. With respect to the citation for having too many children, Ms. Blanchard's inspection report did not include any detailed information about the children such as their names (or initials), ages, or descriptions. The report simply stated that Ms. Blanchard counted seven children at the facility -- i.e., "3 infants, 3 preschool and 1 school age child." Ms. Blanchard's testimony at the hearing referred to only two infants, which was consistent with Respondent's testimony on that issue. As a result, the evidence is not clear and convincing that there were seven children in Respondent's care at the facility rather than the authorized six children. During the course of her inspection, Ms. Blanchard did not see any adults (other than Respondent, who arrived as Ms. Blanchard was arriving) at the facility. It is undisputed that Respondent's husband, who is the designated substitute caregiver, was not at the facility that morning. There is no credible evidence that Respondent's 22- year-old son, Abdel, was at the facility that morning. He did not testify at the hearing, and, if as Respondent claims, Abdel was at the facility that morning, Ms. Blanchard would have seen him at some point during the commotion surrounding Respondent's rushing the children out the back door or during her subsequent inspection of the facility. In any event, Abdel was not the substitute caregiver designated by Respondent. He was not even authorized to watch the children because, although he had been background screened by the Department, he had not taken the Department's mandatory child care training program and was not certified in cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). It is more likely than not that Ms. Rodgers' teenage sons were actually left to supervise the children at Respondent's facility during the time that Respondent was gone on the morning of February 27, 2003. Indeed, that is the most likely explanation of their presence at the facility and their involvement in the movement of the children to Ms. Rodgers' yard. However, the evidence on this issue is not clear and convincing. Respondent's explanation of her actions on the morning of the inspection -- i.e., that she hurried into the house upon her arrival and directed all of the children to Ms. Rodgers' yard so she could convey an important message to Ms. Rodgers -- is not credible. Her explanation of the roach droppings that Ms. Blanchard found in the bathtub -- i.e., that it was actually dirt from washing one of the children's feet -- is also not credible. By contrast, Respondent's explanation of the incomplete records -- i.e., that the missing records were for those children who had enrolled in the facility within the prior two weeks -- is reasonable. Because Ms. Blanchard's inspection report did not identify the children whose records were missing and did not document the date of their enrollment, the evidence is insufficient to prove this violation. Respondent admitted at the hearing that she "was taking a chance" by leaving the children at the facility without her husband, the designated substitute caregiver, being present. Respondent testified that she was gone only 15 minutes to drop one of her children off at school, and that she follows that same routine every day although her husband is usually at the facility while she is gone. After Ms. Blanchard completed her inspection, she discussed the results with Respondent and provided Respondent a copy of the inspection report. Ms. Blanchard then went back to her office and discussed the results of the inspection with her supervisor, Patricia Richardson. Based upon the results of the February 27, 2003, inspection and the history of noncompliance at Respondent's facility (both before and after the provisional license), Ms. Richardson determined that Respondent's license should be revoked. Thereafter, on February 28, 2003, Ms. Richardson sent a letter to Respondent informing her that her license was being revoked and advising Respondent of her right to "appeal" that decision through the administrative process.
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 revoking Respondent's license to operate a family day care home. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of June, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II 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 June, 2003.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services was the state agency in Florida responsible for the licensing of family child day care centers in this state. Respondent, Elizabeth Horton, has, since before January 31, 1992, operated the Little Darling Horton-Cotton Family Day Care at 3710 11th Street East in Bradenton, Florida. The location is Mrs. Horton's home, and she resides there with Alfrader L. Cotton, her companion, Craig E. Horton and Sheldon G. Horton, her sons, and Tangela D. Horton, her daughter. In January, 1992, Mrs. Horton submitted an application for a license to operate a family day care center at the stated location and listed the others noted above as residents. Thereafter, on July 9, 1992, June 28, 1993, July 11, 1994, July 18, 1994 and December 21, 1995, Mrs. Horton submitted application forms for renewal of her license. On each of the renewal application forms, those same individuals were listed as residents of the home. Mrs. Horton's brother, L. H., was not listed as a resident or in any capacity on any of the application forms. On or about December 3, 1993, a report of abuse of a minor female, A. M., born on February 12, 1984, was received in the Department. The substance of the allegation was that A. M., along with her little brother, born on March 6, 1985, were placed by their mother at the Respondent's home from about 5:00 PM until early the next morning each week night, while their mother was at work. The report further alleged that Mrs. Horton's brother, L. H., had molested A. M. while she was staying in the Horton home. He was alleged to have awakened her in the middle of the night while she was asleep in the Horton daughter's bedroom on the pretext of taking her to the bathroom, but fondled her breasts and vaginal area. This report was investigated by personnel of the Department and was classified as verified. A report of neglect was entered against Mrs. Horton arising out of her failure to supervise the children and a Hearing Officer from the Division of Administrative Hearings, after a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, entered a Recommended Order recommending that the Department enter a Final Order amending the proposed confirmed report to a classification of unfounded and expunging Mrs. Horton's name from the case record and all Department records. The Hearing Officer found, however, that L. H. had committed the abuse, and this determination was subsequently affirmed by the Secretary of the Department in the Final Order entered in this case. In 1989, L. H. was found guilty in the Circuit Court in Manatee County of lewd and lascivious acts in the presence of a child eleven years of age or younger, in violation of Section 800.04, Florida Statutes, a felony, and was sentenced, among other things, to community control for two years followed by seven years probation. After his arrest for the assault on A. M., on June 28, 1995, his prior sentence was increased to seven years in prison. He was also tried in Circuit Court for Manatee County for sexual battery, and was, on that same date, sentenced for the second offense to life imprisonment, with the provision he serve no less than twenty-five years. Whenever an individual is issued a license to operate a family day care center, that person is provided with a copy of a handbook containing the rules of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services relating to the licensing and operation of those facilities. Included within that pamphlet is a copy of Department rule 10M-10.002, dealing with personnel, which requires that all persons who are members of the operator's family or who reside in the day care home must be screened as must be persons providing substitute care in the absence of the operator. The evidence regarding the status of L. H. is contradictory. A. M. indicates that L. H. would be at the center from about 10:00 PM at night, after Mrs. Horton picked him up at work; would be there when she, A. M., went to bed at some time after 9:00 PM and before 11:00 PM; and, most of the time, would also be there then next morning, having spent the night in the bedroom of Mrs. Horton's son, Craig. A. M. cannot recall if L. H. ate his meals at the Horton home or took his showers there, but she recalls that he did cook there several times. She never saw him change or wash his clothes there and she never saw any of his clothes in the closet. Though she contends she was never left alone with L. H. by Mrs. Horton, she claims she was touched on her private parts by him on several occasions in the early hours of the morning, while the others in the house were sleeping. A. M.'s mother does not know if L. H. lived at the Horton child care center or not. He was there sometimes at night when she dropped the children off, and he was always there when she picked them up the next morning. To the best of her knowledge, the children were never left alone with him. Mrs. Horton, on the other hand, while admitting she knew that her brother had been convicted of a felony regarding a sexual offense against a minor child, categorically denies that L. H. lived at her home. She admits that he visited there from time to time and admitted to Ms. Winfrey, the child care supervisor from the Department, that he spent the night there from time to time as well. According to Mrs. Horton, L. H. lived with their parents in a home in the next block east on 11th Street East. Respondent admitted at hearing to picking him up from work around 9:00 PM at times, but not regularly. She contended at hearing he would come to the house to watch TV and to play games with her son, but rarely did he stay and never did he spend the night. The probation officers who visited L. H. would sometimes come to her house to see him but would never come in. None of the probation officers ever said anything to her about L. H.'s being at her home with children being present. At no time until the report of abuse was filed did she have any idea that L. H. was behaving improperly with any children in her charge. When she found out what he had done, she told him not to come back to that house. Mrs. Horton's daughter, age 17, claims that L. H. did not live at the care center at any time. He did not wash his clothes there or do anything which indicated he lived there. Since she was older, she stayed up later than A. M., going to bed around 10:00 PM or so. As she recalls, L. H. would usually leave the house about 10 or 11:00 PM and she would see him leave often. She did not often go to bed while he was still there. Taken together, the evidence establishes that while L. H. may not have resided at the house on a permanent basis, he was there frequently enough to be considered a member of the family as defined in the Department rules.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a final order denying Elizabeth Horton renewal of her license to operate a family day care center. DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of October, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of October, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Raymond R. Deckert, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative services, Room 500 400 West Dr. M. L. King, Jr. Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33614 Elizabeth Horton 3710 11th Street East Bradenton, Florida 34208 Alfrader Cotton Qualified Representative 3710 11th Street East Bradenton, Florida 34208 Gregory D. Venz Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Building Number Two, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Richard Doran General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Building Number Two, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue is whether the Beatrice Guardian Angel Daycare violated provisions of chapters 402 and 435, Florida Statutes (2012), and/or Florida Administrative Code Chapter 65C-22, such that its license should not be renewed.
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 Daycare. 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 and/or investigations are conducted. Ms. Giles owned, operated and directed the Daycare. The Daycare located on West Lancaster Road opened in November 2011, and was in continuous operation at all times material.6/ Ms. Giles opened the Daycare at this particular location after operating it at a different location. Luz Torres is a family service counselor for the Department. Ms. Torres is trained to inspect day care centers for initial applications, renewal applications and routine inspections. Ms. Torres is familiar with the Daycare, having inspected it several times while it was operational. Inspections of the Daycare revealed operational deficiencies during four inspections, dated February 15; June 20,; July 2,; and November 7, 2012. The specific deficiencies were set forth on inspection reports provided to Ms. Giles at the time of each inspection. Ms. Torres conducted a routine inspection of the Daycare on February 15, 2012 (inspection one). A number of areas of noncompliance areas included physical environmental issues, such as insufficient lighting, gaps in fencing, ground cover for outdoor equipment, and training. Other areas included: a lack of documentation of employee educational courses showing literacy and developmental course training, a 40-hour child care course, and 10 hours of in-service training; items in the first aid kit were missing; deficiencies in food and nutrition, such as unlabeled bottles and sippy cups; and deficiencies in children's health and immunization records, personnel records, and background screening. The Department issued an "Administrative Warning Notification" (notification) to Petitioner based upon the following violations: "[T]he facility's fencing, walls or gate area had gaps that could allow children to exit the outdoor play area. The gate was observed broke [sic] with gaps on both sides." This notification advised Petitioner that the "next violation of a licensing standard outlined in this notice, [would] result in an administrative fine." On June 20, 2012, Ms. Torres conducted a routine inspection (inspection two) of the Daycare. The noncompliant areas included: missing documentation for some children's immunization records; missing documentation of ten hours of in-service training for the Daycare's director; and missing documentation of background screening documents, including an affidavit of good moral character for employees. A second notification7/ (dated June 20, 2012) was issued to the Daycare following inspection two. This notification involved issues regarding a child's health and immunization records, and missing documentation for employees. One child's immunization records had expired. Four staff members were deficient regarding in-service training logs, and an additional staff member had not received the level two screening clearance. In response to a complaint (complaint one), Ms. Torres conducted an investigation of the Daycare on July 2, 2012. The Daycare was found to be out-of-ratio regarding the number of children to staff, and background screening documentation for level two screening for staff members was missing. In a mixed group of children ages one and two years old, the ratio of one staff for six children is required. At the time of the complaint one investigation, there was one staff per eight children. Although this ratio issue was rectified during the complaint one investigation, it was and is considered a violation. The documentation for the level two screening violation for the staff was not corrected during this investigation. A third notification was issued to the Daycare following the complaint one investigation. This notification involved the staff-to-child ratio, and the lack of background screening documentation. The Daycare was notified that the appropriate staff-to-child ratio must be maintained at all times, and the missing Level two screening documentation had to be resolved. This notification advised the Daycare that the "next violation of a licensing standard outlined in this notice, [would] result in an administrative fine." 8/ On August 1, 2012, the Daycare was notified that its license would expire on November 29, 2012. The Daycare's renewal application was due 45 days before the expiration date, or before October 15, 2012. The denial letter set forth that the Daycare's renewal application was filed on October 30, 2012.9/ In June 2012, Ms. Giles became aware that her daughter, Alexis Anderson, had a drug addiction problem when Ms. Anderson's baby was born addicted to drugs. Ms. Anderson and her two children were required to live with Ms. Giles while Ms. Anderson addressed her addiction problem. Ms. Anderson's two children attended the Daycare. Ms. Anderson would visit the Daycare to see her children. On November 7, 2012, as a result of another complaint (complaint two) being filed, DCF conducted an investigation of the Daycare. Ms. Giles reported that on two different occasions, two small bags were found at the Daycare. One small empty bag was found in the Daycare's common hallway. A second bag was found on a desk in the Daycare's office and contained a white residue. After the second bag was found and Ms. Giles was told by an employee what the bags might be used for ("people transport drugs in"), she suspected that Ms. Anderson might have left the bags at the Daycare. Also, after finding the second bag, Ms. Giles banned Ms. Anderson from the Daycare. There was speculation that the two bags contained an illegal substance; however, the two bags were discarded before any scientific testing could be done or any photographs could be taken. There is simply no proof as to what was in either bag.10/ There was no clear and convincing evidence that Ms. Anderson supervised or tended to children other than her own while she was at the Daycare. There was clear and convincing evidence that Ms. Anderson was at the Daycare on multiple occasions and had access to every room and child/children there. Ms. Anderson did not have the appropriate level two screening. In addition to investigating complaint two, child care regulations counselor Christina Bryant also observed inadequate ratios between staff and children, and a lack of qualified or unscreened individuals supervising children. Ms. Bryant observed one staff for five children in the zero to twelve month age group (ratio should be one to four), and she observed one staff to nine children, in the one-year-old classroom (ratio should be one staff to six children). Upon completing a review of the Daycare's record keeping, Ms. Bryant also found that background screening documents were missing for staff members. On November 14, 2012, Child Protective Investigator (CPI), Beauford White was directed to go to the Daycare and remove Ms. Anderson's two children from the Daycare.11/ When CPI White advised Ms. Giles he was removing the children from the Daycare, Ms. Giles became very emotional, and initially told CPI White he could not take the children. CPI White contacted his supervisor who directed CPI White to contact the Orange County Sheriff's Office (OCSO) for assistance in removing the children. Between the time the OCSO was called and when the deputy arrived, approximately 45 to 60 minutes, CPI White had obtained compliance, and Ms. Giles released the two children to his custody.12/ On Thursday afternoon, November 29, 2012, Ms. Giles was asked to attend a meeting on Friday, November 30, 2012, in the Department's legal office regarding the Daycare's license. Because of the short notice, Ms. Giles was unable to obtain an attorney to accompany her to the meeting on November 30, 2012. Ms. Giles attended the meeting by herself with a number of Department staff. Ms. Giles was given the following option: execute a relinquishment of the Daycare's license, or the Department would seek to revoke the license. Ms. Giles did not know the law. Ms. Giles executed the relinquishment13/ of the Daycare's license because she was thinking that "revoke sound[ed] horrible to" her. She did not want to relinquish her license, nor close her business, but she did not feel she had any choice in the matter. The totality of the circumstances under which Ms. Giles found herself renders the "relinquishment" less than voluntary. After this meeting, Ms. Giles returned to the Daycare and was present when Ms. Torres removed the Daycare's license from the wall. Mytenniza Boston, a Daycare employee, was also present when Ms. Torres removed the license. Ms. Giles did not tell Ms. Boston or any of the other Daycare employees that the Daycare's license had been relinquished, nor did she start notifying parents of the Daycare's closing. On Monday, December 3, 2012, around noon, Department investigators arrived at the Daycare and found children in the opened facility. Ms. Giles was at the Daycare making telephone calls to parents asking them to come pick up their child or children. The Daycare was open for business despite the fact that Ms. Giles had relinquished her license on Friday, November 30, 2012. On occasion Pervis Giles, Ms. Giles' then husband would walk to the Daycare to talk with Ms. Giles. Mr. Giles would also cut the Daycare's grass, unlock the Daycare's door for daily operations, and participate with Ms. Giles in making business decisions about the Daycare. Ms. Giles did not consider these activities to be working for the Daycare; however, common sense dictates otherwise. Ms. Giles has several children. At various times during the Daycare's operation, Ms. Giles' children were at the Daycare volunteering, cleaning up or helping with the Daycare children in some fashion. Ms. Giles' children did not have the required level two background screening as Ms. Giles did not know that her children needed to be screened. Ms. Giles' lack of understanding regarding who is required to be screened is troublesome. Ms. Giles has been in the daycare business for many years, yet she failed to comply with basic safety measures.
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 DENYING the renewal application. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of July, 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 22nd day of July, 2013.
The Issue The issue for determination in this case is whether Respondent's license to operate a child day care facility should be revoked for violations of Chapter 402, Florida Statutes, and Rule Chapter 10M-12, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, HRS, is the agency of the State of Florida vested with the statutory authority to license and inspect child day care facilities. Respondent ELMER ROGER PILLSBURY holds a provisional license issued by HRS to operate WHITFIELD ACADEMY, a child day care facility located in Manatee County, Florida. Respondent KAREN PILLSBURY is the manager of WHITFIELD ACADEMY, and is responsible for the day-to-day operations of the facility. In addition to managing WHITFIELD ACADEMY, Respondent KAREN PILLSBURY also operates Kinder Kare Day Care, another licensed child day care center in Manatee County, Florida. At all material times, Respondents ELMER ROGER PILLSBURY and KAREN PILLSBURY have been married. WHITFIELD ACADEMY was first licensed by HRS on June 27, 1989. At that time KAREN PILLSBURY was the owner of the facility. On June 1, 1990, ownership of the facility was transferred from KAREN PILLSBURY to ROGER ELMER PILLSBURY. After the transfer of ownership, KAREN PILLSBURY continued as the operator of the facility, and was in control of the management of the facility. WHITFIELD ACADEMY has an authorized licensed capacity of one hundred and thirty five children. During the period relevant to this proceeding the facility has had a daily census ranging from thirty to ninety children, with an average between fifty and sixty children per day. Staffing at the facility has ranged from four to nine employees. Pursuant to statutory authority, HRS routinely conducts quarterly inspections of licensed child day care facilities. HRS also routinely investigates complaints filed against licensed child day care facilities. Beginning in 1989 and continuing through 1995, HRS has cited Respondents for numerous statutory and rule violations including the following charges set forth in the Administrative Complaint: child abuse; failure to comply with staff/child ratios; failure to maintain direct supervision; improper storage of dangerous chemicals; roach infestation; fire code violations; failure to repair shattered glass in a window; corporal punishment; unsanitary bathrooms; failure to designate staff left in charge; nonconstructive discipline; and failure to cooperate with health officials in responding to an outbreak of Hepatitis A. Child Abuse On or about April 25, 1989, Respondent KAREN PILLSBURY, while working at Kinder Kastle Day Care, disciplined an eighteen-month old child for biting other children by "popping" the child on his mouth with her finger. Respondent KAREN PILLSBURY considered this form of discipline appropriate to prevent small children from biting other children. It is accepted practice by some child development professionals that nonexcessive physical contact may be used as a deterrence to prevent children from biting others. HRS has promulgated Rule 10M-12.013(1)(c), Florida Administrative Code, which prohibits any form of physical punishment in a child care facility. As a result of this incident, a complaint was filed with HRS against KAREN PILLSBURY. HRS investigated the complaint and on May 30, 1989, filed an Administrative Complaint against KAREN PILLSBURY d/b/a/ Kinder Kastle Day Care for violations of HRS's child care standards which, as set forth above, prohibit any corporal discipline on a child in a child care facility. As a result of this administrative action, KAREN PILLSBURY was assessed a fine of $100, which was paid on January 16, 1990. In addition to the administrative fine imposed on Kinder Kastle, on September 29, 1989, as a result of this incident, HRS also proposed to confirm a report of child abuse against Respondent KAREN PILLSBURY for using excessive corporal punishment. Respondent did not seek administrative review of HRS's decision to classify the report as confirmed child abuse. Instead, Respondent applied for an exemption to continue working in a child day care facility. Respondent's application for exemption was denied by HRS on November 20, 1989, and Respondent then sought administrative review of HRS's decision to deny her request for exemption filed with DOAH as Case No. 90-007C. During the pendency of the administrative review denying Respondent KAREN PILLSBURY's application for exemption, Respondent continued to have contact with children at her child care facilities. HRS thereafter filed an Emergency Complaint seeking injunctive relief against Respondent in circuit court, (Case No. CA90-912, Fla. 12th Cir.), and on March 26, 1990 an injunction was issued by the court prohibiting Respondent from being present at Kinder Kastle or Whitfield Academy. Prior to hearing scheduled in the administrative case, HRS and Respondent KAREN PILLSBURY, on May 22, 1990, entered into a stipulated settlement, under the terms of which HRS agreed to grant Respondent an exemption to work at child day care facilities, and Respondent agreed to dismiss the administrative action, receive counseling with regard to alternative ways to modify a child's behavior without the use of corporal punishment, and obtain instruction in social behavior modification. Respondent KAREN PILLSBURY has complied with the terms of the stipulated settlement in DOAH Case No. 90-007C. On June 4, 1990, the circuit court injunction against Respondent was set aside, and Respondent resumed her duties at Kinder Kastle and Whitfield Academy. Staff/Child Ratio Violations HRS has promulgated Rule 10M-12.002(5)(a)1., Florida Administrative Code, which establishes ratios for personnel to children in child day care facilities. The ratios are dependent upon the ages of the children at the facility. During inspections of child day care facilities HRS staff observe the number of children being supervised by facility personnel and record the ratios. HRS staff does not personally check the ages of the individual children in a supervised group, but relies on personal observation as well as the representations made by the facility personnel to determine the ages of the children and whether the ratios are appropriate. Since 1989, WHITFIELD ACADEMY has been cited by HRS for staff/child ratio deficiencies on at least twelve occasions. On September 14, 1989, during a routine quarterly inspection at WHITFIELD ACADEMY, an HRS inspector observed there was one staff member for fourteen children between the ages of one year and two and one half years. The HRS staff/child ratio at that time required one staff member for eight children aged one to two years old and one staff member for twelve children aged two to three years old. The inspection report cited WHITFIELD ACADEMY for this deficiency. At the reinspection of the facility on October 2, 1989, the ratio for this group of children remained at one staff member to fourteen children, and had not been corrected. At reinspection on October 16, 1989, the deficiency was corrected. On April 11, 1990, during the investigation of a complaint filed against WHITFIELD ACADEMY, HRS cited the facility for a staff/child ratio deficiency because two staff members were supervising a group of thirty-eight children who appeared to be of varying ages ranging from three to five years old. The inspection report cautioned WHITFIELD ACADEMY with respect to mixing children of different ages in supervised groups. Upon reinspection by HRS staff on April 25, 1990, this deficiency was corrected. As a result of a complaint filed against WHITFIELD ACADEMY, an inspection was also conducted on April 25, 1990, regarding the staff/child ratio for younger children. At that time HRS staff observed twelve children who appeared to be from under one year old to two years old in the care of one staff member. The staff/child ratio required for children under one year old was one staff member to six children, and for children of one year of age was one staff member for eight children. WHITFIELD ACADEMY was cited for this deficiency. Upon reinspection by HRS staff on May 2, 1990, this deficiency was corrected. On July 11, 1990, HRS cited WHITFIELD ACADEMY for a staff/child ratio deficiency for having one staff member supervising fourteen children, some of whom appeared to be under one year old. Upon reinspection on July 25, 1990, this deficiency was corrected. The staff/child ratio deficiencies at WHITFIELD ACADEMY did not reoccur until March 31, 1992. At that time an HRS inspector cited the facility as deficient when the inspector observed one staff member supervising seven children under the age of one year old in the nursery for a short period of time, approximately twenty to thirty minutes. The required staff/child ratio at that time was one staff member to six infants. Upon reinspection on April 14, 1992, this deficiency was corrected. On August 4, 1992, HRS again cited WHITFIELD ACADEMY for a staff/child ratio deficiency for having one staff member supervise seven infants for a short period of time when another staff member was on leave. Upon reinspection on September 10, 1992, this deficiency was corrected. On January 14, 1993, a complaint was filed with HRS against Respondents WHITFIELD ACADEMY and KAREN PILLSBURY for a staff/child ratio deficiency of one staff member for eight infants under one year old. The deficiency lasted for approximately one hour. In addition, the complaint alleged that on one occasion a staff member left children in the toddler area alone to obtain records for a health nurse, and that two children were sleeping out of the sight of a staff member. As a result of this complaint, on March 10, 1993, administrative action was taken against Respondents, and a fine in the amount of $250 was assessed. Respondents paid the fine on April 8, 1993. On April 21, 1993, Respondents submitted a corrective action plan to HRS to address the problems identified in this complaint. On August 18, 1993, HRS cited WHITFIELD ACADEMY for a staff/child ratio deficiency for having one staff member supervise five infants under one year old. At this time the required ratio had changed from one staff member to six infants, to one staff member to four infants. Upon reinspection on September 1, 1993, this deficiency was corrected. On February 9, 1994, HRS cited WHITFIELD ACADEMY for a staff/child ratio deficiency when an inspector observed two toddlers among a group of older children in the playground. This deficiency was immediately corrected. On March 29, 1994, and on April 20, 1994, HRS received complaints that on two separate occasions the staff/child ratios at WHITFIELD ACADEMY were improper because of the mixing of children of different ages. The allegations of the complaints were verified by HRS, and an administrative fine was assessed against WHITFIELD ACADEMY in the amount of $300 on May 12, 1994. The fine was paid on August 18, 1994. On February 23, 1995, HRS initially cited WHITFIELD ACADEMY for a staff/child ratio deficiency; however, on the same date, when the age of the child in question was verified by reviewing the facility's records, this citation was found to be without basis. On March 23, 1995, HRS cited WHITFIELD ACADEMY for a staff/child deficiency for having one staff member for seventeen children ages two and three when the required ratio was one staff member for eleven two year olds and one staff member for fifteen three year olds. Upon reinspection on April 11, 1995, this deficiency was not corrected. Upon another reinspection on April 21, 1995, this deficiency was corrected. WHITFIELD ACADEMY has experienced difficulty in retaining qualified staff. Some instances of noncompliance with staff/child ratios resulted from staff at the facility being ill, taking breaks, and the failure of staff to report for work. Except for the citations issued on September 14, 1989, and March 23, 1995, all instances of staff/child ratio deficiencies at WHITFIELD ACADEMY were corrected in a timely manner. Failure to Provide Direct Supervision On six occasions WHITFIELD ACADEMY has been cited by HRS for failure to comply with departmental rules governing direct supervision of children at a child day acre facility. HRS has promulgated Rule 10M-12.005(5)(a)2., Florida Administrative Code, which requires personnel at a child day care facility to watch and direct the children's activities with close proximity, within the same room or enclosed outdoor play area, and to be present with the children at all times during the day, including during meals, nap time, and snack time. On September 14, 1989, during a routine quarterly inspection, HRS cited WHITFIELD ACADEMY for failure to provide direct supervision because a staff member at the facility was going in and out of her classroom to assist another staff member at snack time. Upon reinspection on October 2, 1989, the HRS inspector observed children left alone at the facility, and determined that this deficiency had not been corrected. Upon a further reinspection on October 6, 1989, the deficiency was corrected. On April 11, 1990, HRS cited WHITFIELD ACADEMY for failure to provide direct supervision because children were being allowed to leave the playground to go inside to use the bathroom unattended by a staff member. This deficiency was corrected at reinspection on April 25, 1990. On August 4, 1992, HRS cited WHITFIELD ACADEMY for failure to provide direct supervision because volunteers at the facility were being allowed to supervise children out of the presence of a trained staff member. At reinspection on September 10, 1992, this deficiency was corrected. As set forth in Paragraph 23, above, the complaint filed on January 23, 1993, against Respondents WHITFIELD ACADEMY and KAREN PILLSBURY alleged, in addition to a staff/child ratio deficiency, a failure by Respondents to provide direct supervision, in that on one occasion a child was left unattended when a staff member retrieved records for a health nurse, and further alleged that during nap time, some children could not be directly observed by facility staff. This complaint was verified by HRS and resulted in an administrative fine of $250, which Respondents paid on April 21, 1993. Respondents also submitted a corrective action plan which addressed these problems. On August 3, 1994, HRS received a complaint that children at WHITFIELD ACADEMY were not being supervised because one staff member was observed sleeping, and another staff member would, on occasion, leave the room. On August 11, 1994, HRS sent WHITFIELD ACADEMY a warning letter concerning the complaint, and by August 29, 1994, Respondents took corrective action, including dismissal of the staff member found sleeping. On December 19, 1994, HRS received a complaint against WHITFIELD ACADEMY alleging that a five month old child, while strapped in an infant chair, was pushed off a table by a one year old child and received a concussion. The complaint alleged that the two staff members present at the time of the incident were not watching the children. This incident occurred because a child had spilled milk, and one staff member was momentarily involved in cleaning up the spilled milk. The infant was not seriously injured. Improper Storage of Dangerous Chemicals Beginning in 1989, HRS has cited WHITFIELD ACADEMY for improper storage of dangerous chemicals on thirteen occasions. In this respect, HRS has promulgated Rule 10M-12.003(1)(d), Florida Administrative Code, which requires that cleaning supplies, flammables, and other potentially poisonous or dangerous supplies be kept out of the reach of children, and in such a manner as to insure the safety of children. The thirteen citations issued by HRS against WHITFIELD ACADEMY for this deficiency largely result from a failure to lock a supply storage room door at the facility. The supply storage room at the facility is located next to the boys' bathroom and contains cleaning supplies, as well as cans of paint. The supplies and paint are stored on shelves beyond the reach of children. On September 14, 1989, during a routine quarterly inspection of WHITFIELD ACADEMY, HRS staff observed the door to the supply storage room unlocked. This deficiency was corrected at reinspection on October 2, 1989. On November 13, 1989 during a routine quarterly inspection of WHITFIELD ACADEMY, HRS staff observed a can of Lysol spray disinfectant on the toilet tank in the toddler bathroom. This deficiency was corrected at reinspection on November 30, 1989. On February 20, 1990, during a routine quarterly inspection of WHITFIELD ACADEMY, HRS staff observed the door to the supply storage room unlocked. This deficiency was corrected at reinspection on March 6, 1990. During the inspection of WHITFIELD ACADEMY conducted on April 11, 1990, as set forth in Paragraph 18, above, the supply storage door was not locked. This deficiency was corrected at reinspection on April 25, 1990. At a routine quarterly inspection of WHITFIELD ACADEMY on July 11, 1990, items used for crafts, such as paint and hair spray, were observed in an unlocked cabinet in the playroom. This deficiency was corrected at reinspection on July 25, 1990. During a routine quarterly inspection of WHITFIELD ACADEMY on October 16, 1990, the door to the supply storage room was unlocked. This deficiency was corrected at reinspection on October 30, 1990. During a routine quarterly inspection of WHITFIELD ACADEMY on January 9, 1991, the door to the supply storage room was unlocked. This deficiency was not corrected at reinspection on January 24, 1991, but was corrected at reinspection on February 7, 1991. On May 31, 1991, during a food service inspection at WHITFIELD ACADEMY, cleaning chemicals were observed stored over a food preparation counter. At reinspection on June 17, 1991, this deficiency was corrected. Except for the January 9, 1991 citation, all storage deficiencies relating to storage of cleaning supplies and other such materials were corrected in a timely manner. Children at WHITFIELD ACADEMY did not have access to cleaning supplies, flammables, or other potentially poisonous or dangerous chemicals. Pest Control Deficiencies On three occasions since 1989, WHITFIELD ACADEMY has been cited for failure to maintain appropriate sanitation due to problems with pest control. On each occasion evidence of roaches was found at the facility. On January 24, 1991, HRS conducted an inspection of WHITFIELD ACADEMY in response to two complaints filed with the department which alleged that evidence of roaches had been observed at the facility, and that the facility did not conduct appropriate fire drills.. During the inspection, live roaches were observed in the kitchen, behind the soda machine, and in cabinets above and beside the sink. This deficiency was classified as a major infestation. At reinspection on February 8, 1991, the deficiency had been corrected. During a routine food inspection at WHITFIELD ACADEMY on May 31, 1991, live roaches were observed in three different areas. This deficiency was classified as a significant infestation. A routine quarterly inspection conducted on June 6, 1991 also showed evidence of live roaches in the nursery and playroom. At reinspection by the food inspector on June 17, 1991, the deficiency had been corrected, and reinspection again by HRS on July 5, 1991, confirmed that the problem was corrected. All deficiencies cited by HRS against WHITFIELD ACADEMY relating to maintaining proper pest control were corrected in a timely manner. Failure to Designate Staff In Charge On two occasions since 1989, HRS cited WHITFIELD ACADEMY for failure to designate a staff member left in charge of the facility contrary to Rule 10M- 12.002(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code, which requires that when the operator of a facility is absent, a person over 21 years of age must be in charge of, and present at the facility at all times. On October 14, 1992, an HRS food service inspector during a routine inspection of WHITFIELD ACADEMY was unable to locate a specific staff member at the facility willing to accept the food service inspection report. At the time of the inspection KAREN PILLSBURY was absent from the facility. The report was eventually accepted and signed for by Connie Jimenez, an employee of the facility at that time, who was more than 21 years of age. On May 10, 1994, during a routine quarterly inspection, HRS cited WHITFIELD ACADEMY for failure to designate a person in charge. The HRS inspector did not observe or review a posted list of employees of the facility to determine if any employee had been designated in charge at that time. This deficiency was corrected at reinspection on May 24, 1994. Respondent KAREN PILLSBURY, the operator of WHITFIELD ACADEMY, posts a list of employees in her office which designates the employee in charge in her absence. Because of the chronic problems encountered during inspections by HRS at WHITFIELD ACADEMY, employees of the facility were reluctant to acknowledge responsibility for the facility and accept HRS inspection reports. Fire Code Violations On January 24, 1991, in response to the complaints described in Paragraph 48, above, a deputy fire marshal with the Southern Manatee Fire & Rescue District, verified that WHITFIELD ACADEMY did not comply with appropriate fire code standards in that the employees were not properly trained in fire drill procedures, the fire drill log was not properly completed, and the fire drill log inaccurately reflected that fire drills had been regularly conducted at the facility. These deficiencies were corrected at reinspection on February 8, 1991. Premises Safety Hazards On October 10, 1990, during a routine quarterly inspection, HRS cited WHITFIELD ACADEMY for failure to maintain outdoor equipment free from hazards. This deficiency was cited because of a shattered window pane glass located on the side of the building next to the playground. At reinspection on October 30, 1990 the deficiency had not been corrected. The deficiency had been corrected by reinspection on November 13, 1990. Respondents replaced the shattered window pane glass with a shatterproof new window which required a special order. The delay in correcting this deficiency was caused by the shipping time for this special order. Unsanitary Conditions On February 23, 1995, during a routine quarterly inspection, HRS cited WHITFIELD ACADEMY for failure to maintain adequate toilet facilities in violation of Rule 10M-12.003(6)(b), Florida Administrative Code, because of a clogged toilet in the boys' bathroom. The toilet was clogged again at reinspection on March 9, 1995. At reinspection on March 23, 1995, this deficiency was corrected. Children at WHITFIELD ACADEMY occasionally placed items in the toilets. Respondents cleaned and unclogged the toilets on a timely basis. The incident described in Paragraph 59, above, resulted from a child. Corporal Punishment On or about August 17, 1994, an abuse report was filed with HRS alleging that an employee of WHITFIELD ACADEMY used corporal punishment in the discipline of her own child who was attending the facility. The report further alleged that the corporal punishment was inflicted on the child with the permission of Respondent KAREN PILLSBURY in violation of Rule 10M-12.013(1)(c), Florida Administrative Code. This incident resulted in a proposed confirmed report of abuse. Respondent KAREN PILLSBURY did not authorize or otherwise permit the infliction of corporal punishment by an employee of WHITFIELD ACADEMY in the discipline the employee's child on or about August 17, 1994. Nonconstructive Discipline During a routine quarterly inspection on April 7, 1995, HRS cited WHITFIELD ACADEMY for subjecting a child to severe, frightening or humiliating discipline in violation of Rule 10M-12.013(1)(b), Florida Administrative Code. At this time an employee was attempting to restrain a child from biting other children, and was overheard by an HRS investigator to say to the child, "Are you crazy, are you out of your mind?" Respondent KAREN PILLSBURY was not present at the facility when this incident occurred. Respondent KAREN PILLSBURY took remedial measures to address this incident with the employee, and upon reinspection on April 21, 1995, this deficiency was corrected. Hepatitis A Outbreak At the end of July of 1992, twenty-one cases of Hepatitis A, a highly infectious disease, were reported in Manatee County, Florida. At least one reported case was related to a child who had formerly been in attendance at WHITFIELD ACADEMY. The Manatee County Public Health Unit determined that in addition to the former attendee at the facility, thirteen of the other twenty- one reported cases had an association with WHITFIELD ACADEMY. There were no confirmed cases of Hepatitis A found in children in attendance at WHITFIELD ACADEMY, nor in any employees of the facility at that time. As a result of the association of reported cases of Hepatitis A with WHITFIELD ACADEMY, Manatee County Public Health officials recommended that preventative measures be taken at the facility, and that attendees and employees of the facility be tested for immunity to the disease, and if not immune receive Immune Globulin injections. Notifications were also sent to the parents of attending children. Arrangements were made with Manatee County Public Health to provide Immune Globulin injections at WHITFIELD ACADEMY. On the day the injections were given, there was insufficient Immune Globulin available to provide immunizations to all attendees, parents, and employees of the facility, including the Respondents and their family, who had requested the injections. Persons unable to obtain injections at the facility were instructed to contact the Manatee County Public Health Unit; however, there were further problems with obtaining sufficient Immune Globulin which resulted in delays in the inoculation of some of those persons requesting the treatment. Respondents and their family members were inoculated with Immune Globulin. As a result of the initial failure of the Respondents to receive Immune Globulin, and other problems relating to the recommendations for preventative measures at the facility, on August 7, 1992, HRS instituted proceedings in circuit court, Case No. CA-92-003149, Fla. 12th Cir, seeking a temporary restraining order against WHITFIELD ACADEMY from operation for at least sixty days. To resolve this action, WHITFIELD ACADEMY agreed to close from August 12, 1992 through August 23, 1992, to complete a terminal cleaning of the facility by August 24, 1992, to continue immunizations for at least six weeks after any reported case of Hepatitis A was associated with the facility, and to implement certain sanitation measures. The agreement was incorporated into an Order entered by the circuit court on August 24, 1992. Respondents complied with the terms of this agreement. Respondents reasonably cooperated with HRS officials in addressing the problems associated with the outbreak of Hepatitis A in July of 1992. Subsequent to August 24, 1992, there were no confirmed reports of cases of Hepatitis A associated with WHITFIELD ACADEMY. Other Violations On October 30, 1990, an employee of WHITFIELD ACADEMY informed HRS inspectors that a reinspection of the facility could not be conducted until Respondent KAREN PILLSBURY returned. After being shown Section 402.311, Florida Statutes, which authorizes HRS inspections, the employee allowed the inspectors to conduct a partial reinspection. Upon Respondent's return, an inspection was completed. This violation has not reoccurred. During a routine inspection on September 11, 1990, HRS cited WHITFIELD ACADEMY for failure to maintain proper medical examination certificates or immunization records in violation of Rule 10M-12.008, Florida Administrative Code. This deficiency was not corrected at reinspection on September 28, 1990; however these records were subsequently brought into compliance. As a result of the continuing problems at WHITFIELD ACADEMY relating to the record-keeping and other deficiencies, two meetings were conducted on April 16, 1991, with HRS representatives and Respondents and their counsel, at which time agreement on a course of action for resolving these problems was reached. Respondents have made a reasonable effort to comply with this agreement.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: A Final Order be entered finding that the charges against Respondents ELMER ROGER PILLSBURY, KAREN PILLSBURY, and WHITFIELD ACADEMY are insufficient to warrant licensure revocation, and that the Administrative Complaint filed against Respondents be DISMISSED. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 29th day of November, 1995. RICHARD HIXSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of November, 1995. APPENDIX As to Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1 - 2. Accepted and Incorporated. 3 - 5. Accepted and Incorporated except that Respondent also has complied with the terms of the settlement agreement. 6 - 7. Accepted and Incorporated except that the deficiencies were corrected. 8. Accepted, except that Respondents and their counsel agreed to cooperate with HRS to remedy the problems. 9 - 15. Accepted and Incorporated, except that the cited deficiencies were corrected. 16. Accepted, except that the replacement glass was on special order, and the problem was corrected. 17 - 25. Accepted, except that the deficiencies were corrected. 26. Accepted, except that Respondents reasonably cooperated with health officials and were finally inoculated. 27 - 35. Accepted and Incorporated, except that the deficiencies were corrected. Rejected to the extent that Respondent authorized corporal punishment. Rejected as irrelevant. 38 - 42. Accepted and Incorporated, except that the deficiencies were corrected. COPIES FURNISHED: Raymond R. Deckert, Esquire DHRS, District 6 Legal Office 4000 W. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. Tampa, Florida 33614 Earl W. Baden, Jr., Esquire 1101 Sixth Avenue West Post Office Box 1907 Bradenton, Florida 34206 Robert L. Powell, Agency Clerk DHRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner, Sabra Portwood, is entitled to register her home as a family day care home under the provisions of Chapters 402 and 435, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact On August 10, 2000, Petitioner was married to Randy Shoaff. She had two children, twins, by him and is currently pregnant with another of his children. Although estranged at present, they remain married. Petitioner is in the preliminary stages of dissolving the marriage and intends to complete the dissolution process. Petitioner and Mr. Shoaff have had a rocky relationship. On October 4, 2000, less than two months into their marriage, Mr. Shoaff struck Petitioner several times in the head from behind. She was pregnant at the time of the attack. The incident was reported to law enforcement. On March 12, 2001, Petitioner swore out a Petition for Injunction for Protection Against Domestic Violence, naming her husband as Respondent. The essential facts to which she swore and testified to at hearing were as follows: On February 23, 2001, at 705 W. Wilcox the Respondent Randolph Shoaff told me that the only reason I was still alive was because I was pregnant and that I have 3 other children. He said that he wanted to shoot me & then kill himself. Because of his actions before I have been afraid of him on 3 or 4 different occasions, and I would just be quiet & not say anything & wait for him to go to work. On Oct. 4th (there should be a police report) there was a dispute between us & he started hitting me in the head repeatedly when I was 3 months pregnant & had only been home for 3 hrs from the doctor because I was bleeding during pregnancy. I am afraid because I asked his coworker if his (Randy's) gun was under the counter & he said it wasn't there. As a direct result of Petitioner's request for a domestic violence injunction, the Third Circuit Court issued a Temporary Injunction. Subsequently, the injunction was conditionally dissolved. However, Mr. Shoaff was ordered to have no personal contact with Sabra Portwood at her home. A third Order was subsequently entered in order to facilitate visitation with his children, allowing non-hostile contact between the parties. Mr. Shoaff does not live with Petitioner. However, Petitioner and Mr. Shoaf are presently married. Therefore, Mr. Shoaf is currently a member of Petitioner's family and is required to undergo background screening for Petitioner's registration. Mr. Shoaff did not pass the background screening because of the injunction based on domestic violence entered against him. No exemption from disqualification was sought. Because of the failed background screening, Petitioner, who was the victim of domestic violence and took steps to protect herself from that violence, was denied registration based on the actions of her estranged husband.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Children and Family Services denying Petitioner's request to register her home as a family day care home. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of May, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 24th day of May, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: John R. Perry, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 2639 North Monroe Street Building A, Suite 104 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2949 Sabra Portwood 140 Regina Road Perry, Florida 32348 John 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 Whether the Department of Children and Family Services (the "Department") had just cause to revoke the license of Petitioner to operate a family day care home.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony and evidence received at the hearing, the following findings are made: From April 15, 1987, through March 31, 2001, Marcia Edwards operated a registered family day care home at 15475 Chloe Circle, Fort Myers, Florida 33908. The Department regulates three types of day care facilities. In descending order of regulatory oversight, they are a licensed child care facility, a licensed family child care home, and a registered family child care home. Sections 402.305 and 402.313, Florida Statutes. While the first two categories of facilities require annual on-site Department inspections, background screening for all personnel, training, and more extensive paperwork, a registered family day care home involves no Department inspections and only requires that the operator complete a training course and provide to the Department certain paperwork and that the operator and other household members undergo background screening. The operator of a registered family day care home must comply with the limits on the number of children under care, as set forth in Subsection 402.302(7), Florida Statutes. Ms. Edwards had been reminded of the requirement for background screening of household members at least once, via letter dated February 12, 1993. Nonetheless, the Department received two complaints in December 1994, regarding the presence of an unidentified person in the home. One complaint noted that an "unidentified male houseguest was eating and drinking the children's food." The second complaint noted that Ms. Edwards was out of town and left the children in the care of her mother and "a guy named Wayne." On January 4, 1995, the Department sent Ms. Edwards a letter informing her of the complaints and reminding her that she could not leave children with persons who had not undergone background screening. The letter noted that neither Ms. Edwards' mother nor "Wayne" had undergone background screening. The adult male referenced in the complaints was Wayne Brueckman, who was residing in the Edwards home. On February 6, 1995, in compliance with the Department's letter, Ms. Edwards submitted the necessary information to initiate background screening on Mr. Brueckman, listed as a "Household Member" and "Sitter/Relief." Mr. Brueckman's background screening revealed no disqualifying information. Ms. Edwards was reminded of the statutory capacity limitations in person and in writing at least 11 times between September 1987 and June 1999. On at least five occasions, Ms. Edwards responded that she understood the capacity limitations. Nonetheless, Department employees personally observed violations of the capacity limitations on at least five separate occasions. By letter dated July 7, 1999, the Department gave Ms. Edwards an administrative warning that she would be subject to imposition of a fine if she continued to operate in violation of the statutory capacity limitations. On August 13, 1996, an abuse report was received by the Department that Wayne Brueckman sexually abused D.S., a three- year-old boy, in the Edwards home. The child had told his mother that Mr. Brueckman kissed his penis, put a "white thing" in his anus, and spanked him when he defecated in his pants. However, the child would not repeat his allegations to protective investigator Mae Cook, and an examining physician could find no physical evidence of sexual abuse. Mr. Brueckman denied the allegations. Ms. Edwards was interviewed by Ms. Cook concerning the August 13, 1996, complaint. Ms. Edwards denied any inappropriate activity and vouched for Mr. Brueckman as her friend of 20 years. Though she closed the file because she did not have sufficient evidence to confirm the allegations, Ms. Cook strongly suggested that children staying overnight not be allowed to sleep in Mr. Brueckman's room and that he not be left alone at any time with children, to avoid any repetition of such allegations. A repeated citation in the violation notices from this point forward was that Ms. Edwards would leave Mr. Brueckman alone with the children in her care for extended periods of time. Concerns regarding Mr. Brueckman were also raised during an investigation of another sexual abuse report received by the Department on November 18, 1996. This complaint involved Z.A., a three-year-old boy in care at the family day care home. The child told a story of some adult in the Edwards home rubbing his genitals, but his limited verbal skills made it unclear whether a man or woman did the touching. Wayne Brueckman and Marcia Edwards were both interviewed by the protective investigator and both denied any inappropriate activity. Again, there was no physical evidence to confirm the allegations. On February 5, 2001, the Department received an abuse report that W.W., a 19-month-old boy in care at the Edwards home, had bruises along his spine and arms, two large bumps on his head, and a patch of hair loss on the top of his head. Medical examinations by the Child Protection Team and the child's pediatrician determined the injuries were significant, inflicted and the result of physical abuse. The abuse report was called in by J.W., the divorced father of the child. W.W. lived with his father and his older sister in the home of J.W.'s mother. J.W.'s teenaged nephew also lived in the house. W.W. did not see his biological mother. J.W. worked as a chef, and left W.W. and his older sister at the Edwards home on evenings that he worked. The medical determination of the approximate time of injury indicated the injuries occurred either at the child's residence or the Edwards family day care home. When at his residence, W.W. was in his father's care. J.W. denied inflicting the injuries on his son, and discounted the possibility that anyone else living in his household might have done so. J.W. was certain that his son's injuries were inflicted at the Edwards home. W.W.'s older sister told investigators that "bad boys" at the Edwards home had inflicted the injuries on the boy. J.W. readily consented to the CAT Scan, eye examination, and clotting factor test recommended by the pediatrician. The father expressed concern about the supervision provided by the family day care home. He recalled several times in the past that when he came to pick up his children at night, he could look in the window of the Edwards home and see Mr. Brueckman sleeping. It required lengthy knocking and ringing of the doorbell to finally rouse Mr. Brueckman or anyone else in the home. Wayne Brueckman and Marcia Edwards were interviewed by the Protective Investigator. Both denied any inappropriate activity or failure to supervise. However, based upon the medical evidence, and multiple interviews including questioning of the children in attendance at the family day care home, the report was closed as verified. The Protective Investigator concluded that the child was injured by other children at the family day care home. The case determination found that Marcia Edwards and Wayne Brueckman inadequately supervised and neglected W.W. On February 22, 2001, while the W.W. case was being investigated, Ms. Edwards applied to renew her family day care home registration. Based upon the W.W. investigation, the Department issued a denial of registration on May 29, 2002. Ms. Edwards requested a formal administrative hearing to contest the denial of registration. The Department forwarded the matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings, where it was assigned DOAH Case No. 01-2840. A hearing was scheduled for September 19, 2001, in Fort Myers, Florida, before Judge Daniel S. Manry. Counsel for Ms. Edwards requested a continuance due to a scheduling conflict. Judge Manry granted the continuance and rescheduled the hearing for October 19, 2001. On October 12, 2001, the Department filed a motion to relinquish jurisdiction, accompanied by a settlement agreement between the parties. On October 15, 2001, Judge Manry entered an order closing the file in DOAH Case No. 01-2840. The settlement agreement required licensure of the family day care home, which would obligate the family day care home to comply with increased regulatory standards. One such standard prohibits the owner from working out of the home during the hours the family day care is operating. Rule 65C- 20.009(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code. In the settlement agreement, Ms. Edwards affirmatively recognized her on-going obligation to comply with all requirements of the Florida Statutes and Administrative Code applicable to family day care homes. The settlement agreement also provided that the Edwards home would receive a consultation by Child Care of Southwest Florida ("CCSWF"), a private, non-profit regional organization that, among many other services, provides training and technical assistance to home-based child care providers. This consultation would be at the Department's expense. CCSWF's consultant would assess the home's compliance with licensing standards and make suggestions as to implementation of best practices. The Department's experience has been that CCSWF's consultation, technical assistance, and training have proven successful in improving marginal child care providers. On December 17, 2001, Lisa Bledsoe, the infant/toddler coordinator for CCSWF, visited the Edwards home for the required consultation. Ms. Bledsoe rated the home based on the Family Day Care Rating Scale ("FDCRS"), an objective tool developed by the National Network for Child Care for the assessment of infant/toddler group care. The FDCRS consists of 32 items which assess the quality of center-based child care for children up to 30 months of age. This 32-item scale covers six categories: Space and Furnishings for Care and Learning, Basic Care, Language and Reasoning, Learning Activities, Social Development, and Adult Needs. Each item can be ranked from 1 to 7. A ranking of 1 describes care that does not even meet custodial care needs while a ranking of 7 describes excellent, high- quality personalized care. The Edwards family day care home received a cumulative score of 2.375 on the FDCRS. Deficits included a sterile and child-unfriendly interior, lack of interesting and colorful pictures and no pictures at child's eye level, insufficient opportunity for outdoor play, minimum hand washing requirements not met, diapers not checked regularly, failure to conduct regular fire drills, dim lighting, and insufficient activities to encourage language development. Ms. Bledsoe contacted Ms. Edwards to notify her the completed rating would be mailed to her. Ms. Bledsoe offered follow-up visits, technical assistance, and training classes for caregivers. Ms. Edwards rejected the offer of further assistance. While acknowledging that her recommendations were not mandatory, Ms. Bledsoe could recall no other day care provider rejecting additional help from CCSWF, which is provided free of charge. The need for Ms. Edwards to provide supervision at the family day care home and to be present was an important issue in the settlement of DOAH Case No. 01-2840. On October 10, 2001, prior to the signing of the settlement agreement, Ellen Blake, a licensing counselor for the Department, conducted a pre- licensing orientation and review at the Edwards home. Ms. Blake and Ms. Edwards had a lengthy discussion about supervision requirements. Ms. Edwards told Ms. Blake that she would be absent only when taking and picking her children up from school. She and Mr. Brueckman were sharing the care of the children. After obtaining licensure, Ms. Edwards appeared to be providing closer supervision of Mr. Brueckman. Ms. Edwards was present for six of the seven licensing inspections the Department performed between October 10, 2001, through June 18, 2002. However, testimony from Ms. Edwards' own witnesses established Ms. Edwards was readily available in the evenings to do extensive hours of volunteer work. Additionally, she transported her own minor children to after-school and weekend activities and was always available to transport other people's children to and from school and outside activities. Further, Ms. Edwards operated a photography business that often involved out-of-home shoots, including a large annual undertaking at St. Xavier School. Mr. Brueckman was left alone with children when Ms. Edwards was out of the home. Ms. Edwards' witnesses also established that she provides child care 24 hours a day, 7 days per week, which is a service not readily available in the community. The home is consistently well utilized, especially during the expanded hours. Mr. Brueckman was providing evening and night supervision, and slept in the same room as the children under his care. The Edwards have three minor children who often have multiple friends spend the night for sleep-overs. Neither the Edwards children nor their friends were restricted from access to the designated child care room. On June 13, 2002, the Department received an abuse report stating that Wayne Brueckman sexually abused D.S., a two- and a half-year-old boy in care at the Edwards family day care home. On June 20, 2002, during an interview with the Lee County Sheriff's Office, Mr. Brueckman admitted to inappropriately touching the child's penis and having the child touch his penis during diaper changes. Mr. Brueckman has been charged with two counts of felony lewd and lascivious molestation and is awaiting trial. Commission of sexual battery on a two-and-a-half-year- old child is a serious violation of the obligation of a child care provider to supervise a child entrusted to their care and for which they are receiving payment. Molestation of a child creates a great likelihood of actual or potential harm. Mr. Brueckman lived at the Edwards home and received only room and board for the continuous care he provided for the children of paying clients, as well as Ms. Edwards' three minor children and their numerous friends. Mr. Brueckman admitted to having had no dating or sexual relationships with an adult for over ten years. He had no private time and felt overwhelmed by his work situation. On June 20, 2002, the Department cited Ms. Edwards for a deficiency in supervision as she failed to meet the needs of children in her care due to Wayne Brueckman's molestation of D.S. The operator of a family day care home is ultimately responsible for the supervision of the children in care. Rule 65C-20.009(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code. Upon learning of Mr. Brueckman's actions, Ms. Edwards immediately evicted him from her house. To meet the requirement that she have a trained substitute caregiver in the home, Ms. Edwards designated her husband as her substitute in July 2002. As of the date of hearing, Mr. Edwards had not completed the required training. During the nine licensing inspections the Department performed between October 10, 2001 through July 1, 2002, various violations of minimum licensing standards were found, including: inadequate lighting in the playroom; failure to keep up-to-date immunization records; failure to keep on file the required enrollment information; ants on the kitchen table; home, furnishings, toys and equipment not kept clean and in good repair; incomplete first aid supplies; and hazardous materials (alcoholic beverages and protein shake mix) within a child's reach. Ms. Edwards corrected all these violations. The Department never sought to fine Ms. Edwards for any of the cited violations. By notice, dated August 14, 2002, the Department revoked Ms. Edwards' license based on the reasons delineated in the letter including past history, licensing inspections, the arrest of Mr. Brueckman for lewd and lascivious molestation of a child at the family day care home, and the ongoing failure to have a qualified substitute.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered revoking the license of Marcia Edwards to operate a family day care home. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of February, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of February, 2003.
