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.
The Issue Whether Respondent proved the allegations contained in its January 30, 2004, notice of revocation of family day care home registration letter to Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating child care facilities, including family day care homes. Petitioner, by and through aid, assistance, and training of the federally funded Weed and Seed Support Group program of the Fort Myers area, began her family day care home provider training in 2001 and, upon completion of training, was registered as a family day care home from July 25, 2002, to June 30, 2003. On June 23, 2003, Respondent acted upon Petitioner's re-registration application to provide child care in her home for up to ten children, effective June 30, 2003, through June 30, 2004. Respondent acknowledged that at the time Petitioner's registration was acted upon, Leona Mark, Petitioner's identified substitute caregiver, had cleared her for background screening but she had not completed either the minimum or 30 hours of family day care home training prior to caring for children in a family day care home. Notwithstanding the situation with Ms. Marks, Respondent's recommendation was to "Issue registration to Deborah Scurry to provide child care in her home for up to 10 children." Ms. Mark did not testify, and the record contains no evidence that Ms. Mark completed her training at any time prior to Respondent's notice of revocation letter of January 30, 2004. Respondent, by letter dated January 30, 2004, informed Petitioner that her family day care home registration was revoked. The revocation letter gave the following basis for revocation: On December 22, 2003, the licensing unit received a complaint that a nine month old sustained a skull facture while in your care. The complaint also stated that you left your daycare children with your 15 year old daughter. During the investigation, you denied ever leaving the daycare children alone and that you always took them with you. The Department, upon conducting interviews, has determined that you did leave the children with your 15-year-old daughter, which is a supervision violation. The letter cited Subsections 402.302(1) and (7) and 402.313(1)(a)4., Florida Statutes (2003), as the provisions determined to have been violated and the authority for revocation of the registration. The Injured Child D.B. is Petitioner's nephew, and he was routinely placed in her family day care home when his mother was working. On Friday morning at approximately 6:30 a.m., on December 12, 2003, L.B., D.B.'s mother, left D.B., a nine-month-old child, in Petitioner's family day care home. At that time, neither L.B. nor Petitioner noticed a bump on D.B.'s head. According to Petitioner, D.B. became "fussy" during morning breakfast at approximately 7:00 a.m., at which time she noticed a small bump on his head. The bump was soft to her touch, and she thought no more about it. During lunch, Petitioner's daughter noticed that the bump had gotten larger and told her mother, who, by telephone, attempted to reach L.B., but was unsuccessful. When L.B. came to pick D.B. up at approximately 6:30 or 7:00 p.m., on December 12, 2003, Petitioner and L.B. discussed the bump on D.B.'s head. L.B. recalled that while playing D.B.'s sibling had hit him on the head with a plastic toy bat at some earlier time and that D.B. had fallen out of bed and hit his head on the floor. L.B. testified that she does not know where D.B. hit his head. It could have happened at home while playing with siblings, when he fell out of bed, or when he was with his father. She was firm in her conviction and belief that D.B. was not injured while in Petitioner's family day care home. There is no evidence of record to account for D.B.'s whereabouts on Saturday and Sunday, December 13 and 14, 2003. On Monday, December 15, 2003, L.B. dropped D.B. off at Petitioner's family day care home. On Tuesday, December 16, 2003, D.B. was again dropped off at Petitioner's family day care home. On Wednesday, December 17, 2003, Petitioner noticed that the bump had gotten larger and called L.B. L.B. came later in the day and carried D.B. to the Emergency Room at Cape Coral Hospital for a medical examination. Medical Examination of the Injured Child A Medical Examination report, dated December 19, 2003, was completed by Susan Sherman (Nurse Sherman), ARNP of the Child Protection Team. The Medical Examination report provides Dr. Michael Weiss' findings, which are as follows: X-RAY FINDINGS: A copy of the report for CT of the head without contrast and a complete skeletal survey are available. These x-rays were read by Dr. Michael Weiss on December 19, 2003. On the CAT scan of the head without contrast, the findings are as follows, "The ventricles are normal in size and midline in position. There is no intracranial hemorrhage. No intra or extra- axial fluid collection. There is a stellate fracture of the left parietal bone. There is also a high right parietal fracture identified. There is no evidence of depression on either side. There is an associated soft tissue hematoma." The impression of the CT scan is as follows: "Biparietal skull fractures, rule out child abuse." Findings and recommendations were reviewed with Dr. Burgett at the time of study. (Dr. Burgett is a pediatrician at the Physician's Primary Care.) . . . (emphasis added) Notwithstanding the findings of Dr. Weiss, Nurse Sherman reported her impression and plan as follows: IMPRESSION: Biparietal skull fractures. From the x-ray report, the skull fracture on the left side of his head is a stellate fracture. There is also a fracture of the parietal bone on the right side of the head. These injuries are consistent with physical abuse. PLAN: The child will be followed medically by his primary care provider. At this time, I do not recommend the child be sheltered. My only recommendation is the child not return to the day care setting. This mother needs to find alternative childcare for [D.B.]. It was reasonable for Nurse Sherman to take the protective approach and recommend that D.B. not return to the family day care home because she believed Petitioner had a history of utilizing substitute caregivers who had not completed required training, and, she also believed that on more than one occasion in the past, Petitioner's child-to-child caregiver ratio was exceeded. An acceptable ratio requires a specific number of caregivers per the number of children within a specific age range. Petitioner had more children than she had certified caregivers required for the separate age range(s) of children found in her family day care home. However, the Department did not charge "past violations of overcapacity" and/or "utilizing substitute caregivers who were not properly qualified" in the January 30, 2004, revocation letter. The evidence of record was inconclusive to demonstrate to any reasonable degree of certainty: first, the date D.B. sustained his injury/injuries; second, whether D.B. was injured while in the care of Petitioner; third, whether D.B. was injured while in the care of his mother; or forth, whether D.B. was injured while in the care of his father. On December 22, 2003, Respondent received a compliant report of a license violation, to wit: over-capacity and background screening. The complaint report was assigned to and investigated by Celeste Davis and a second unnamed person. Ms. Davis closed her report on December 23, 2003. Ms. Davis' investigation found eight children in care: one infant, three preschoolers, and four school-age children. Petitioner was within her ratio at the time of this inspection. Through interviews with the children at the day care, Ms. Davis determined that Petitioner, on occasion, left her day care children alone with L.S., her teenaged daughter, who was not a qualified caregiver. Regarding D.B.'s head injury, Petitioner informed Ms. Davis that the injury did not occur when D.B. was in her care and probably occurred the night before D.B. was brought to her home. Ms. Davis cited Petitioner for one license violation, leaving her day care children alone with her teenage daughter. Ted Leighton investigated an Abuse Hotline Report filed on December 19, 2003. Mr. Leighton did not testify but his written report was introduced into evidence without objection. Respondent argued in its post-hearing submittal that information Mr. Leighton received from his interviews with four minor children, his review of reports from medical personnel and health care providers, and his conclusion that "it was 'probably' on December 15 or 16, 2003, D.B. was injured at the family day care home accidentally by another child when the Petitioner was not present," as fact. Respondent's argument is not based on facts, but upon uncorroborated hearsay, assumptions and conjectures of Mr. Leighton. For those reasons Respondent's argument is rejected. In support of Mr. Leighton's conclusions, Respondent cited the testimony of Nurse Sherman. Nurse Sherman concluded that D.B.'s injuries were "very serious and 'could have' been life threatening, 'could have' happened accidentally 'if' another child jumped off a bed, landing on D.B., while D.B. was laying on the floor with a hard object under his head." The intended purpose of Nurse Sherman's testimony was twofold: to demonstrate the severity of D.B.'s injury and the location D.B.'s injury was sustained. The inference drawn by Respondent was that a lack of supervision was the primary cause of the injury. This argument is likewise not based upon facts found in the evidence of record. Nurse Sherman's conclusions are but an extension of Mr. Leighton's assumptions and conjectures. This argument is likewise rejected. D.B.'s mother recalled one occasion when D.B. had fallen out of her bed at home. She testified that her older daughter told her that while playing with D.B., he had fallen from his bed to the floor on more than one occasion at home. She speculated that D.B. could have been injured at home or by her three-year-old son, who when playing with D.B. had struck him on his head with a plastic toy bat. L.B. testified further that she and Petitioner are related and that her three children have been continuously in Petitioner's family day care home since Petitioner has been qualified as a provider. She was certain that Petitioner did not and would not injure her children. She testified that D.B. "could have" suffered the injury to his head when he was in the care and custody of his father over the weekend. Of the several possibilities of the date, time, place, and in whose custody D.B. may have been when the injury occurred, the mother was not certain. The inconclusive and conflicting evidence regarding D.B.'s whereabouts and the identification of the person or persons who had custody of D.B. when his injury occurred is, as it must be, resolved in favor of Petitioner. Respondent failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that D.B. was injured when in the care, custody, and control of Petitioner while in the family day care home as alleged in its notice of registration revocation dated January 30, 2004. Caregivers supervision and Over capacity Respondent demonstrated that as of June 13, 2002, neither Petitioner's 15-year-old daughter nor any other person present on the days of inspection who was serving as a caregiver was properly trained. By evidence of record, Respondent demonstrated that Petitioner was over capacity, based on the child-to-child caregiver ratio on or about June 2, 2001. With knowledge of the one occasion of over capacity by Petitioner, Respondent approved Petitioner's re-registration application on June 23, 2002, effective through June 30, 2003, and permitted Petitioner to provide care for up to ten children. The approved re-registration increased Petitioner's child care capacity. Respondent's January 30, 2004, letter did not allege an over capacity violation, and no other pleading filed by Respondent contained information from which Petitioner could have been so informed of the over capacity allegation. Respondent failed to prove that D.B. sustained his head injuries while in Petitioner's family day care home. Respondent has shown that Petitioner did on one occasion leave children in the care of a person or persons, including Petitioner's 15-year-old daughter, who were not trained, certified, or qualified as substitute caregiver(s). There is no evidence of record that Petitioner's violation of child-to-child caregiver ratio demonstrated either gross misconduct and/or willful violation of the minimum child care standards within the meaning of the statutes and rules charged. The evidence demonstrated that Petitioner did not fully understand the child-to-child caregiver ratio differentiations by age groups. Petitioner's lack of understanding does not absolve her of the obligation to know all rules and regulations. It does, however, provide a reasonable inference that the out-of-ratio situation was not an intentional act on behalf of Petitioner. Weed and Seed Support Group in the Fort Myers Area Petitioner presented the testimony of Susan B. Davis, a family child care specialist employed by the Weed and Seed Support Group of the Fort Myers area. The purpose and organizational goal of this federally funded agency is identification of economically disadvantaged persons who are interested in becoming day care providers in their homes in their respective communities. The methodology of the agency is to first assist those persons identified with acquiring required training and certification. Second, the agency assists the trained candidate(s) with the application process through Respondent. According to Ms. Davis, the federal grant overall objective is twofold: first, to seek, find, and train family day care home providers in the community and second, to provide a source of employment and income to the provider's family. As a direct result of this community service, other families within the economically disadvantaged community will have local and affordable family child care service within their respective communities. By accomplishing the identification and training of community child care providers, employed and unemployed parents in need of day care in the various Fort Myers communities will be the beneficiaries of the available family day care home, thereby enabling some parents to become employed and enhancing employment opportunities for employed parents. The Weed and Seed Support Group of the Fort Myers area offers free help and support to self-employed child care providers. In 2001, Ms. Davis identified and assisted Petitioner in becoming a qualified child care provider. Ms. Davis assisted Petitioner in acquiring her 30 hours of training to become a qualified child care provider. She introduced Petitioner and others to the rules and regulations of Respondent pertaining to child care providers. Thereafter, she would visit with Petitioner and others to whom she rendered assistance only as her time and scheduling permitted. Ms. Davis' last visit with Petitioner occurred sometime before Christmas of 2003. Though she had no knowledge of the injury suffered by D.B., she offered to render assistance and additional training, including assisting Petitioner in acquiring a functional understanding of Respondent's rules, regulations, proper maintenance of required records, and correct completion of required reports and forms, that would enable Petitioner to continue her self-employment status as a qualified child care provider offering daily child care services within her community.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Finding of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Family Services enter a final order: Finding that Petitioner left children at her family day care home during her absence from the premises under the supervision, care, and control of unqualified substitute caregivers; and Imposing on Petitioner a fine in the amount of $250.00; and, upon payment thereof, Set aside and vacate revocation of Petitioner's family day care home license/registration; and Issue to Petitioner a six-month provisional license. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of September 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FRED L. BUCKINE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of September, 2004.
The Issue The issue in this matter is whether the Department of Children and Families should deny Respondent’s application for registration as a family day care home.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with regulating providers that are licensed or registered as family day care homes. Family day care homes must register annually with the Department. See § 402.313(1)(a), Fla. Stat. Respondent is owned and operated by Cherrie Scally. Ms. Scally has registered Respondent as a family day care home since 1997. In or about August 2015, Ms. Scally filed an application with the Department to renew Respondent’s registration as a family day care home for 2016. Respondent's registration for 2015 expired on October 30, 2015. Upon receiving Ms. Scally’s application, the Department reviewed whether to renew Respondent’s registration as a family day care home. As part of its determination, the Department examined the Florida Central Abuse Hotline Records Search (“CAHRS”). In CAHRS, the Department identified an Investigative Summary involving Respondent that verified a finding of “inadequate supervision” in March 2015. Based on the CAHRS Investigative Summary, the Department issued an Administrative Complaint in November 2015, revoking Respondent’s registration as a family day care home.2/ The Department determined that it could no longer approve Respondent’s registration “based on the verified finding of inadequate supervision.” The CAHRS resulted from an incident that allegedly occurred on March 5, 2015. On March 6, 2015, the Central Abuse Hotline received an anonymous phone call reporting an injury to a child at Respondent’s family day care home. A four-year-old girl who attended Respondent’s family day care home reported to her mother that another child had hurt her.3/ Jessica Baloy, a child protective investigator with the Department, was assigned to investigate the incident. Her duties include investigating facilities regarding complaints of child abuse and neglect. Ms. Baloy prepared the CAHRS Investigative Summary. Ms. Baloy visited Respondent's family day care home on March 9, 2015, to investigate the allegation. Ms. Scally informed Ms. Baloy that she had no knowledge of how or when the child was injured. Ms. Scally did not learn of the incident until the child’s mother called her the evening after the child was picked up. Ms. Scally thought that the incident may have occurred in her “playroom” while she was in her kitchen either cleaning up another child or preparing snacks.4/ During her visit, Ms. Baloy found that the part of Ms. Scally’s home used for childcare consists of two rooms, a “playroom” and a kitchen. The rooms are located next to each other, but a wall separates them. Ms. Baloy observed that the wall obstructs the view between the playroom (where the injury allegedly occurred) and the kitchen where Ms. Scally believes she was located at the time of the incident. Ms. Scally admitted to Ms. Baloy that, while she is able to hear the children in the playroom from the kitchen, she is unable to see directly from the kitchen into the playroom. In her investigation, Ms. Baloy reported that the child had “no indicator” of physical injury. In other words, Ms. Baloy did not find evidence to suggest the child had sustained an injury. Ms. Baloy personally interviewed the child and did not observe any discomfort or physical injuries. Ms. Baloy also received information from the child’s mother that a doctor had examined the child and determined that she had not suffered any trauma, just “some irritation.” The child’s mother decided that no further medical treatment or examination was needed. In her Investigative Summary, Ms. Baloy reported that “[o]bservations of the home daycare were positive that it was not hazardous for the children.” Ms. Baloy also declared that Ms. Scally “once notified by a parent completed the proper notifications needed in regards to this incident.” However, Ms. Baloy did have “some concerns in regards to supervision.” She found that when Ms. Scally was working/standing in her kitchen, she could not view the children in the playroom. Consequently, if something bad happened, she would not be able to see it. Also during her visit to Respondent, Ms. Baloy observed 11 children in Respondent’s facility. Consequently, Respondent was over capacity by one child. (As discussed below, family day care homes are restricted to a maximum of ten children at one time.) After her visit, Ms. Baloy closed her investigation with “verified findings for inadequate supervision.” Ms. Baloy was not aware of any prior investigations involving Respondent. Dinah Davis is the policy supervisor for the Department’s Office of Childcare Regulation. Her responsibilities include approving applications for family day care home registrations with Samantha Wass de Czege, the Department’s Director for the Office of Childcare Regulation. Ms. Davis expressed that the Department was concerned with Ms. Baloy’s Investigative Summary because the finding of “inadequate supervision” indicated that Ms. Scally left the children unattended outside of her direct supervision. The Department’s “rule of thumb” regarding supervision is that a caregiver must be within “sight and sound of the children and [be] able to respond to emergency situations.” Ms. Davis expressed that a constant sightline is crucial to allow the caregiver to respond to and prevent an emergency or potentially harmful situation. Adequate “sight” supervision means that children should be at least within the caregiver’s peripheral vision. In addition, Ms. Davis explained that, by statute, no family day care home is allowed to care for more than ten children at one given time. Ms. Davis referred to section 402.310 as the Department’s authority to deny Ms. Scally’s application. Although section 402.310 allows the Department to place a family day care home registration on probation status, Ms. Davis stated that the Department did not consider the option to place Respondent on probation. Ms. Wass de Czege also testified regarding the Department’s decision to revoke (deny) Respondent’s application for registration. Ms. Wass de Czege stated that the Department’s action was based on the child protective investigator’s findings of “inadequate supervision” and overcapacity. Ms. Wass de Czege agreed with Ms. Davis that supervision in a family day care home requires “direct sight and hearing of the children at all times” so that the caregiver is “able to respond to meet the needs of the children.” Ms. Wass de Czege explained that based on the floor design of Ms. Scally’s home, “she could not have the children in her sight. So, she was not meeting that parameter of the definition of supervision.” Ms. Wass de Czege explained that the Department’s definition of “inadequate supervision” for family day care homes is found in Florida Administrative Code Chapters 65C-22 and 65C-20.5/ Ms. Wass de Czege also remarked that having more than ten children in care at a family day care home is considered overcapacity. Therefore, having 11 children present in the home at the time of Ms. Baloy’s visit caused Respondent to be out of compliance with the governing regulation. Ms. Wass de Czege also conveyed that registration of a family day care home is basically a paper process. The applicant submits the paperwork. The Department checks off the information listed in section 402.313(1)(a). If approved, the applicant can care for children. Ms. Wass de Czege commented that, because of a lack of manpower and resources, a registered family day care home is not subject to routine inspections by the Department. Consequently, the Department has little regulatory oversight of Ms. Scally’s home. Based on its review of the CAHRS, the Department determined that Respondent failed the background check necessary to register as a family day care home for 2016. Ms. Scally testified on behalf of Respondent at the final hearing. Ms. Scally has operated her family day care home since 1997. She has successfully registered with the state every year since then. She cares greatly for the children entrusted to her. This current matter is the first issue she has encountered regarding her registration. Regarding the incident on March 5, 2015, Ms. Scally did not learn that a child may have been harmed at her home until the child’s parent called her that evening to report an injury. The parent relayed that her daughter told her that another child had poked her in a sensitive area, drawing blood. Upon learning of the injury, Ms. Scally immediately took action. That evening, she spoke with the parents of both children involved to make sure all parties were aware of the situation. The next morning, Ms. Scally called the injured child’s parent back to inquire of her well-being. Ms. Scally also contacted her own pediatrician seeking advice on the situation. Ms. Scally offered to arrange for her pediatrician to examine the child. Ms. Scally herself was the anonymous caller reporting the incident to the Central Abuse Hotline.6/ She called the abuse hotline on the next morning. (The CAHRS Investigative Summary notes that the call was received on March 6, 2015, at 10:38 a.m.) Ms. Scally called the abuse hotline because she knew reporting the injury was the proper and legally required step to take. Ms. Scally commented that the Department would not have learned of the incident but for her phone call. Ms. Scally conceded that, when she is standing in her kitchen, she does not have a direct line of sight with the children in her playroom. Consequently, Ms. Scally admitted that if the child was injured in the playroom while she was in the kitchen, the child was out of her sight for a short period of time. On the other hand, Ms. Scally asserts that she can always hear her children from the kitchen. Furthermore, no child is ever out of her eyesight for more than a couple of moments. Ms. Scally also represented that she has taken steps to ensure that she can maintain “sight and sound” supervision over her children in the future. She has purchased a mirror to place in the hallway between the playroom and the kitchen. This mirror allows her to see into either room from the other. Ms. Scally stated that in her 19 years of childcare, she has never had any incidents in her family day care home. Ms. Scally acknowledged that she might have had 11 children in her care on the occasion of Ms. Baloy’s visit to her home on March 9, 2015. Ms. Scally explained that it was likely during a “transition” period as her children were being picked up and dropped off and was not a regular occurrence or for an extended period of time. Based on this incident, Ms. Scally asserts that she will be extra cautious about the interactions between the children in her care. Ms. Scally presented testimony from several parents whom she serves. They each asserted that Respondent provides a valuable service, and they trust her with their children in her home. Mia Carla Hagins placed her daughter with Respondent from 2009 through 2014. Ms. Hagins testified that Ms. Scally ensures safety, nurturing, and care for the children she supervises. Thomas Breck placed two children with Ms. Scally from 1996 through 2000. Mr. Breck testified that Ms. Scally provided excellent care and demonstrated complete professionalism. Mizanne Brown placed her child with Ms. Scally for ten years. Ms. Brown testified that Ms. Scally was fabulous, nice, and wonderful. Ms. Scally also produced 26 letters of recommendation from parents and teachers of children for whom she has cared. Ms. Scally asserted that these letters show how positively her community views her, her home, and her childcare services. Based on the competent substantial evidence presented at the final hearing, the Department failed to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, sufficient grounds to deny Respondent’s application for registration as a family day care home under the provisions of section 402.310. Accordingly, the Department should approve Respondent’s application to register as a family day care home.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Families enter a final order approving Respondent’s application for registration as a family day care home. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of August, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. BRUCE CULPEPPER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of August, 2016.
The Issue The issues in these cases are: whether the Davis Family Day Care Home violated provisions of chapter 402, Florida Statutes,1/ and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 65C-20,2/ and, if so, what penalty should be imposed; whether the Davis Family Day Care Home's renewal application for a license to operate a regular family day care center should be approved or denied; and whether the Davis Family Day Care Home's initial application for a license to operate as a large family child care home should be approved or denied.
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Department is responsible for inspecting, licensing and monitoring child care facilities such as the one operated by the Davis Day Care. It is also the Department's responsibility to ensure that all such facilities are safe and secure for the protection of the children utilizing those facilities. The Department routinely conducts inspections of licensed family day care homes to determine whether the home is in compliance with the applicable statutes and rules. Following such inspections, a report is provided to the operator which provides a time frame to correct any outstanding deficiencies. The Department also conducts inspections or investigations of child care facilities in response to complaints it receives. LaShandra Davis (Ms. Davis) owns and operates the Davis Day Care, a family day care facility licensed by the Department. The Davis Day Care was initially licensed in April 2007 and was in continuous operation at all times material to these issues. No testimony was offered that the facility had prior disciplinary actions against it. Ms. Davis is a nurse, has an associate of science (A.S.) degree in nursing from Polk Community College, and is attending college to obtain an A.S. degree in early childhood education. Additionally, Ms. Davis has five sons and one daughter. Their names include (from youngest to oldest): Layla Davis, Steven Davis, Devondrae Davis, Deshawn Williams, Daniel Williams, and Rafael Davis. No testimony was received regarding Ms. Davis using any other name or names from August 3, 2010, through December 2, 2010.5/ On February 23, 2011, Ms. Davis submitted an application to obtain a license to operate a large family day care home at her current location. On March 15, 2011, Ms. Davis submitted her renewal application to retain her license to operate a family day care home at her current location. October 29, 2010, AC 1 (August 3, 2010, Inspection) On August 3, 2010, the Davis Day Care was subjected to an inspection based on a complaint that it was "over-ratio." This over-ratio issue involves the number of children in the care of a family day care operation to the number of adults providing that care. The Department received a complaint that the facility was seeking meal reimbursements for more children than were allowed for the type of child care license it held. Vicki Richmond (Ms. Richmond) testified that she conducted the inspection on August 3, 2010, and cited the facility for being over the licensed capacity ratio by more than two children. Because the facility was over ratio by more than two children, it was a Class I violation. At that August inspection, Ms. Davis explained to Ms. Richmond that she (Ms. Davis) had a license to provide child care for ten children, and she had ten children in her care. Ms. Richmond explained the ratio requirement to Ms. Davis. Based on the age of the children, Ms. Davis was authorized to have a maximum of ten children provided no more than five were preschool age, and, of those five, no more than two were under 12 months of age. At this August inspection, Ms. Davis was over-ratio by two children. Ms. Davis executed and received a copy of the complaint report prepared on August 3, 2010, that discussed the over-ratio limitations. Three other technical violations were brought to Ms. Davis's attention during that inspection, and two of those violations were corrected immediately. Ms. Davis was given a two-week extension to correct the third violation involving an expired fire extinguisher.6/ Additionally, Ms. Richmond testified that Ms. Davis's mother ("Ms. Jones")7/ was visiting the facility while Ms. Richmond was conducting this August inspection. According to Ms. Richmond, Ms. Jones had been previously screened, but did not meet the Department's standards to be in a child care facility. Ms. Jones should not have been present either for a visit or to be preparing lunches as the testimony revealed. Ms. Richmond recommended to Ms. Davis that it was important to check into getting an exemption for Ms. Jones to be at the facility. Ms. Davis later testified that Ms. Jones had cleared up the screening issue, and both had been told Ms. Jones was allowed to be present at the facility. At hearing, Ms. Davis admitted that she was over-ratio on August 3, 2010. Further, she stated that she "just flat out misunderstood" the adult-child ratio requirement issue until Ms. Richmond explained it to her in August 2010. Ms. Brooks and Mr. Giordano testified that they had each individually explained the ratio requirement to Ms. Davis during prior inspections or discussions at the facility. Although there is some discrepancy between Ms. Davis's recollection and the two witnesses on this point, Ms. Davis admitted this violation and was quite candid about her lack of knowledge with respect to it. Credible testimony from both Ms. Richmond and Shelia Nobles (Ms. Nobles) established that having two or more children over-ratio was a Class I violation, which would subject any child care facility to discipline by the Department. When Ms. Davis received the Department's three-page October 29, 2010, AC 1 advising her of the Class I violation (over-ratio by two or more children) and assessing a $500 fine, she was "shocked." Ms. Davis testified that, at the time of the inspection (August 3, 2010), Ms. Richmond had stated the fine might be $50 or maybe more, leading Ms. Davis to believe the fine would not be that high. AC 1 advised Ms. Davis that the over-ratio issue was a Class I violation of section 402.302(7). AC 1 provided one Department address for two reasons, to pay the $500 fine or to request an administrative hearing. There is no language within AC 1 that advised Ms. Davis of an optional payment plan. Ms. Davis testified she was unaware of a payment plan option, and her only option was to appeal the decision, which she did. Ms. Richmond confirmed that the Department would accept payments as long as the total fine amount was paid in full prior to the next renewal. However, that information was not shared with Ms. Davis until the hearing. Department's March 23, 2011, Proposed Denial Application to Operate a Family Day Care Home (AC 2) and Department's April 11, 2011, Proposed Denial Application to Operate a Large Family Day Care Home (AC 3). Both AC 2 and AC 3 set forth five allegations in support of the Department's denial of the renewal application and the large family child care home application. Two alleged abuse allegations from 2007 and 2008 were included in these administrative complaints; however, as previously stated, no testimony or evidence was offered, presented or substantiated at hearing. Thus, any attempt to reference either the 2007 or 2008 allegations as fact is disregarded as unfounded and not supported by credible testimony or evidence. AC 2 and AC 3 rest on three allegations: the alleged abuse of child E.B., the alleged lying during the investigation of the alleged child (E.B.) abuse, and the inspection conducted on August 3, 2010, regarding the facility being over ratio.8/ Natalie Barton (Ms. Barton), E.B.'s mother, testified that she saw marks on E.B.'s bottom at the end of November 2010 (November 30, 2010) that "could only have occurred at the day care." Ms. Barton testified she picked E.B. up from the facility prior to 5:30 p.m. and discovered the marks on E.B.'s bottom during bath time that evening. Both Ms. Barton and Ms. Davis testified that E.B.'s mother sent a picture of the injury to Ms. Davis via her cell phone the evening the injury was first seen. At that point, Ms. Davis told E.B.'s mother that she (Ms. Davis) didn't know what or how the injury occurred and recommended taking the child to E.B.'s doctor. Ms. Davis had no hesitation in making this recommendation to Ms. Barton. Ms. Barton took E.B. to her (E.B.'s) pediatrician the morning after she discovered the injury (December 1, 2010). However, E.B.'s physician indicated he wanted to see the child in two days, as he could not make a determination what, if anything, had caused the injury as there was no bruising. Ms. Barton also testified that she took E.B. back to the Davis Day Care after she was seen by her pediatrician so she could see how E.B. reacted. While at the facility, E.B. was "in her routine," that she (E.B.) walked in and sat on the couch like she did every day. Ms. Barton did not return E.B. to her own pediatrician for further evaluation. Ms. Barton testified E.B. was seen by the child protective team the day after she was seen by the pediatrician (December 2, 2010). On December 2, 2010, after receiving information about the possible physical abuse of a child (E.B.) (documented as being received at 11:08 p.m. on December 1, 2010), Deanna McCain (Investigator McCain) contacted Ms. Barton to obtain additional information. Investigator McCain also spoke with E.B., who said she had been hit by "Ms. Shawna." After observing E.B.'s injuries and obtaining a photograph of E.B.'s buttocks, an appointment was made for E.B. to be seen by a member of the child protection team, i.e., the nurse practitioner. During the afternoon of December 2, 2010, Nurse Practitioner Connie Fleming (Nurse Fleming) performed a medical evaluation of E.B., a then two-year, nine-month old child. During E.B.'s evaluation, Nurse Fleming noticed bruising on E.B.'s buttocks. When Nurse Fleming asked E.B. what happened, E.B. responded "Ms. Shawn spanked me." Nurse Fleming stated the bruising appeared to be consistent with an outline of a hand. Pictures taken during the medical evaluation reflect red areas on E.B.'s buttocks. Based on her nine-plus years of training and experience as a nurse practitioner, Nurse Fleming determined that E.B. had suffered physical abuse; however, she never stated who caused the injury. Nurse Fleming contended that the injuries were indicative of a rapid-force compression injury, typical of a slap with a hand. Later on December 2, 2010, Investigator McCain went to the facility to investigate the alleged abuse report. Upon her arrival at the location, Investigator McCain had to wait for a local law enforcement officer (LEO) before she could enter the facility. While Investigator McCain waited for the LEO to arrive (between 3:30 p.m. and 4:45 p.m.), she spoke with parents who were picking up their children from the facility. Each parent she spoke with had supportive comments about the facility ("great day care provider," their child had "no injuries," had never seen "inappropriate behavior," "no concerns"). Whether all these comments came from one parent or multiple parents is unclear. Investigator McCain did not observe any injuries to any of the children leaving the facility. Ms. Richmond also went to the facility at approximately the same time as Investigator McCain; however, Ms. Richmond could enter the home without a LEO, and she did so. Ms. Richmond made contact with Ms. Davis and explained there was a complaint. Ms. Richmond's task at the time was to obtain information about the number of children Ms. Davis had in the facility. According to the sign in sheet, there were seven children present, plus Ms. Davis's four-year-old son. Ms. Richmond testified that Ms. Davis initially stated there were four children present, but later a sleeping child was found in a crib, and her (then) four-year-old son ran through the home.9/ Although Ms. Richmond asked for the attendance sheets for the previous month (November 2010), Ms. Davis was only able to provide the attendance sheets for December 1 and 2, 2010.10/ According to Ms. Richmond, those two attendance sheets documented that Ms. Davis's facility was again over-ratio for those two days. When Investigator McCain entered the facility with the LEO, she explained the reason for her presence to Ms. Davis. Investigator McCain testified Ms. Davis was asked how many children were present and together they conducted a "walk- through" of the facility. Investigator McCain testified that, at the time of the walk-through, she was told there were four children present, three toddlers and a small child in Ms. Davis's arms. Investigator McCain also testified that, during the walk-through, they found an additional child sleeping in a crib. She further testified that, at some later point, another young child ran through the facility, and Ms. Davis identified him as her son. On December 2, 2010, Investigator McCain questioned Ms. Davis about the alleged physical abuse of E.B. During the investigation discussion, Ms. Davis reported to Investigator McCain that "she [Ms. Davis] had no idea how they [E.B.'s injuries] occurred." Ms. Davis further reported E.B. was "fully potty trained." Ms. Davis reported that the child had a toileting accident the day before and had cleaned herself. Still, later in the investigation discussion, Ms. Davis told Investigator McCain that she (Ms. Davis) had helped clean E.B. after the toileting accident, but only from the front, and she had not observed E.B.'s buttocks. Ms. Davis also shared with the investigator that when Ms. Davis questioned E.B. about the injury, E.B. said her mother (Ms. Barton) did it (the abuse). At hearing, Investigator McCain testified that Ms. Davis was "very far along in" a pregnancy and that Ms. Davis was upset, shocked, and surprised by the presence of the investigators. Investigator McCain also confirmed that DCF's presence tends to raise anxiety levels and that people feel like they are being attacked. Further, Ms. Davis confirmed that she was two weeks from her delivery due date when this investigation started. Thus, under the circumstances, forgetfulness may be perceived by some as lying, when in reality it is simply being overwhelmed by the situation. As part of the investigation, it was Investigator McCain's responsibility to also check for any hazards in the facility and to ensure adequate supervision of the children. Although Ms. Davis initially reported there were no other adults to supervise the children, she later reported that her mother, Ms. Jones, came each day around 10:15 a.m. to make lunch for the children. Ms. Barton confirmed that Ms. Jones was sometimes present in the mornings when Ms. Barton brought E.B. to the facility. Several technical violations were noted during the December 2010 investigation; however, they are not the subject of this hearing. Ms. Davis testified she did not spank E.B. Ms. Davis testified that she did not know how the injury occurred, and the child's hearsay statement that her mother had spanked her is not supported by other testimony. However, the time lapses between when the injury was alleged to have occurred (the "end of November," or November 30, 2010, according to the mother), when the injury was "discovered" (the night of November 30, 2010, according to the mother), when the alleged abuse was reported (December 1, 2010, at 11:08 p.m.), when the pediatrician's examination occurred on December 1, 2010, and when the child protective team became involved (December 2, 2010), create confusion and doubt as to when the injury actually occurred and by whom. Even taking the thought process to try to find that the events happened a day later does not relieve the doubt or confusion, nor is that supported by the Department's documentation. Investigator McCain testified that this investigation was closed with a verified finding of physical injury to E.B. However, simply finding a "verified finding of physical injury to E.B." does not establish who perpetrated that physical injury. No testimony was provided that any other possible explanation for the injury was explained. Further, other than indicating that E.B. had red marks on her bottom, no testimony was provided that indicated the degree of harm to the child. That being said, this not to say that logic has left the building with respect to some harm being caused to the child. There were marks on E.B.'s buttocks. Several current and former parents of children who attend or attended the Davis Day Care testified on Ms. Davis's behalf. Each testified that they did not have any concerns with their child attending Ms. Davis's facility. On March 11, 2011, after receipt of the facility's application for the large family day care home license,11/ the Department conducted an inspection of the facility and found it to be in compliance with all the licensing standard requirements (including those previously cited during the December 2010 inspection that were corrected). Upon completion of its investigation, the Department determined to deny Ms. Davis's renewal application and to deny her application for a large family day care license, based on "numerous complaints to our office alleging physical abuse of children in your care and Class I violations of licensing standards." There was one verified complaint of abuse, not "numerous complaints" as alleged. There was a Class I violation regarding the over-ratio issue; however, that could have been resolved with better communication skills. The misrepresentation could have been avoided. Neither notification includes any indication that the March 11, 2011, inspection was taken into consideration prior to making the denial decision. The Department presented testimony indicating that there had been past complaints regarding Ms. Davis and/or the facility. However, no documented prior complaints or final orders were submitted with respect to any prior actions.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: With respect to the October 29, 2010, administrative complaint, that a final order be entered by the Department of Children and Families finding that the facility was over-ratio on August 3, 2010, and imposing an administrative fine of $500 with no less than ten months to pay the fine. It is further RECOMMENDED that Ms. Davis be ordered to attend remedial classes on the financial operations and management of a child care facility; With respect to the March 23, 2011, administrative complaint, that a final order be entered by the Department of Children and Families renewing the family day care home license on probation status for six months with periodic inspections to ensure the continued safe operation of the facility; and With respect to the April 11, 2011, administrative complaint, that a final order be entered by the Department of Children and Families finding that the large family child care home application be issued a provisional license for a minimum of six months with periodic inspections to ensure the continued safe operation of the facility, with the ability for an additional six-month provisional period. In the event the large family child care home provisional license is not activated within two months of the issuance of the final order in this matter, a new application shall be required, subject to all the applicable statutory requirements. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of October, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of October, 2011.
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether the Department of Children and Family Services should revoke the family day care license of Respondents.
Findings Of Fact Respondent has been registered with the Department as a family home day care provider since September of 2001. A registered family home day care does not have to meet all of the requirements that a licensed day care home must meet. However, the same background screening and training requirements must be met. Registered family day care homes are not inspected as often as licensed homes. Each year, the registered provider must complete a renewal application that, among other things, identifies household members and substitute care-givers. The operator of the home and all household members are required to pass a Level 2 background screening. Additionally, registered family home applicants must pass a 30-hour family day care home training, a five-hour early literacy course, and each year, complete 10 hours of in-service of continuing education. Operators of the registered homes must designate a substitute care provider who is also required to go through the background screening. Ms. Huewitt designated Teresa Clary as her substitute care provider on her 2007, 2008, and 2009 applications. Previous Disciplinary Action On three occasions in the fall of 2008 and on one occasion in February 2009, Respondent was found to be out of compliance with ratio requirements, i.e., caring for more children than allowed. Additionally, in November 2008, the Family Services Counselor from the Department called the home and the phone was answered by one of Ms. Huewitt’s adult daughters. That daughter informed the Family Services Counselor that Ms. Huewitt was not home and would be back shortly. The Department then determined that this violated the substitute care requirement as Teresa Clary was designated as the substitute care provider. As a result, the Department issued an Administrative Complaint on January 12, 2009, regarding two incidents of being out-of-ratio and for violation of “listed substitute requirements.” A $300 fine was imposed and the registration was placed on probationary status in February 2009. In a letter dated August 27, 2009, the Department informed Ms. Huewitt that the Probationary Registration was lifted effective August 9, 2009, because “the Operator has been in compliance with ratio and capacity requirements during periodic monitoring/inspections while on probationary registration.”2/ Facts concerning the Amended Notice of Administrative Action Ms. Huewitt has three adult children: Jennifer Oliver, Stephanie Oliver, and Anthony Oliver. Jennifer Oliver was listed as an “other family/household member” on the 2007, 2008, and 2009 applications. As a result, a background screening was conducted on Jennifer. The background screening revealed a disqualifying offense. Jennifer requested an exemption from disqualification, but was denied. Consequently, Jennifer Oliver was not permitted to be in the home during the operational hours of the day care. On February 2, 2009, Ms. Huewitt entered into a safety plan in which she agreed not to allow her daughter, Jennifer, to supervise the children while in her care, or even to allow Jennifer to be in the residence while children are in her care during business hours. Despite this, on August 11, 2009, at approximately 9:25 a.m., the Family Services Counselor, Miatta Jalaber, went to Ms. Huewitt’s home and saw Jennifer in the home. Jennifer exited the home as Ms. Jalaber did her walk-through. As a result, Ms. Jalaber called her supervisor, who instructed Ms. Jalaber to write another safety plan for Ms. Huewitt. The August 11, 2009, safety plan was hand-written by Ms. Jalaber while at Ms. Huewitt’s home day care and states, “I Alisa Huewitt understand that my daughter, Jennifer Oliver, must not be present in my residence [address] during operating hours 7:30 a.m.-6:00 p.m. M-F while I have children in care.” The safety plan was signed by both Ms. Jalaber and Ms. Huewitt. Ms. Jalaber made subsequent visits to Ms. Huewitt’s home on October 30, 2009, December 29, 2009, January 29, 2010, February 5, 2010, February 19, 2010, and March 30, 2010. No other persons were present and Ms. Huewitt’s home was in ratio during those visits. She did observe Jennifer in the home on April 16, 2010, but the day care was closed that day. Stephanie Oliver is not listed on any of the applications as a person residing in the home, but has been seen at Ms. Huewitt’s during hours when the day care is open. While there was some testimony that both Stephanie and Ms. Huewitt’s son Anthony have some sort of criminal background and that they have been seen at the day care during business hours, the record is insufficient to establish that their criminal records contain disqualifying offenses, or that they actually live in the home. What is clear is that Ms. Huewitt is of the belief that it is not necessary to list persons who do not actually reside in the home, but who frequently visit the home, on her applications under the category “Other Family/Household Members.” There were instances in which Ms. Jalaber went to the day care home and was led to believe that Jennifer Oliver was Stephanie Oliver. Ms. Jalaber only learned that the daughter she saw and spoke to at the home was Jennifer, who was not supposed to be there during working hours, when she attended Jennifer’s exemption from disqualifying fact-finding meeting. While the record is insufficient to clearly support a finding that Ms. Huewitt lied to Ms. Jalaber about her daughter’s identity, she was not forthcoming with clarifying the confusion. In July 2009, the Department received an abuse report that Ms. Huewitt’s grandson, Kory Hill, Jr., sustained a skull fracture in her residence during business hours. Ms. Jalaber went to Ms. Huewitt’s home, not to investigate the abuse report, but because there was concern that Kory Hill, Sr., who reportedly was taking care of Kory Hill, Jr., on the day of the incident, was residing in the home. Kory Hill, Jr., is Jennifer’s son. Ms. Jalaber addressed her concerns with Ms. Huewitt.3/ During this visit, Ms. Jalaber learned that there was a separate structure in back of Ms. Huewitt’s house. Ms. Jalaber describes it as being just three steps in back of the main house. The structure contains a large room, a closet, and a bathroom and will hereinafter be referred to as “the apartment.” Ms. Jalaber observed clothes in the apartment’s closet and throughout the apartment, and sofa cushions on the floor. It appeared to Ms. Jalaber that someone was residing in the apartment. Ms. Huewitt denies that Mr. Hill, Sr., resided in her home. However, Ms. Huewitt acknowledges that her infant grandson, Kory Hill, Jr., was injured while in the care of his father, Kory Hill, Sr., and that the injury took place in the apartment in back of her house. The injury took place during the day while children were in her care in the main part of her house. Jhaismen Collins is a Child Protective Investigator with the Department. She was assigned to investigate the abuse report regarding this incident. Her investigation began July 1, 2009, at the emergency room where Kory Hill, Jr., had been taken. While there, she spoke to Ms. Huewitt and other family members present in the emergency room. She then made several visits to Ms. Huewitt’s home to follow-up, after the baby was discharged from the hospital. During the follow-up visits, Ms. Collins observed Stephanie in the home and observed Kory Hill, Sr., packing his belongings to leave the home. While the evidence is inconclusive as to whether Mr. Hill actually resided in the apartment behind Ms. Huewitt’s home, it is clear that he frequented the home and the apartment behind the home to visit his son. His son, Kory, Jr., and another son, Kentavious, who is also Ms. Huewitt's grandson, are now attending Ms. Huewitt’s day care. Ayuana Hale is a Dependency Case manager for the Department. Her job is to provide needed services to the child and family in the case of a verified finding of abuse, neglect, or abandonment. She was assigned to the case involving Kory Hill, Jr., after the abuse investigation was closed as verified. Ms. Hale testified that Mr. Hill is currently incarcerated. She has knowledge of this because she is obligated to try to offer Mr. Hill services while he is incarcerated. Parents of children who attend Ms. Huewitt’s home day care are extremely complimentary of the care their children receive, and are not concerned with the safety of their children while there.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Children and Family Services enter a final order placing the license on probation, requiring Respondent to attend further training in the requirements of applicable statutes and rules regarding who must be listed on her applications, requiring those listed to undergo background screening, and requiring successful completion of such training, with no further incidents, prior to approval of Respondent's application for renewal of her registration. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of June, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BARBARA J. STAROS 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 June, 2010
The Issue Whether Petitioner has grounds to impose a fine for a violation of the rule that requires the family day care operator to allow access to the entire premises of the family day care home for inspection.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to the allegations of this case, Respondent, Mary Higdon, was licensed by Petitioner to operate a family day care in her home. Barbara Ivey, DCF, has been the day care licensing representative for Respondent since 1996. At Ivey's first inspection of the day care home, Higdon refused her access to the master bedroom. Ivey did not note the violation. However, Ivey advised Respondent that the rule required that the entire premises had to be inspected. In 1998, during a scheduled appointment, Respondent again refused access to the master bedroom on the grounds that her husband worked nights and was sleeping. Ivey insisted that she must inspect the master bedroom and she would be back. When Ivey returned, she was able to inspect the master bedroom. In 1999, during a scheduled appointment, Respondent again refused access to the master bedroom. Ivey reminded her that Respondent had agreed to the time of the appointment and that this refusal was not acceptable. Respondent then stated that someone could "peek" in to the room while her husband slept. A trainee, who was with Ivey, went with Respondent toward the bedroom; the door was opened slightly, and the trainee peeked into the room but was not able to see into the dark room. On August 24, 1999, Ivey made an unannounced visit to Respondent's home to inspect the entire premises and re-check an air-conditioner that was out of compliance. This re-check was necessary for re-licensing. Ivey arrived at the home on a weekday during regular operating hours. Stacy Rivera, Respondent's daughter, answered the door to Ivey. Ivey identified herself and asked to inspect the premises. She explained to Rivera that the inspection would only take a moment. Rivera acknowledged that she knew that Ivey was an inspector for DCF. Ivey also noted that there were six or seven children present at the home. Rivera indicated that all of them were her children. Rivera stated her mother was out of town and refused to permit Ivey entry. Ivey requested that Rivera contact her mother so she could complete the re-licensing. Ivey observed Rivera calling someone, but did not know who. Rivera returned to the door and reiterated that Ivey could not enter. Rivera has not been screened to care for children. Rivera testified that she was not an employee of the family day care. Respondent did not notify Petitioner that the day care would not be in operation during the week of the inspection.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Respondent was found guilty of violating Rule 65C-20.012(3), Florida Administrative Code, and that an administrative fine of $100.00 be imposed. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of August, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of August, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Carmen M. Sierra, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 400 West Robinson Street, Suite S-1106 Orlando, Florida 32801-1792 Mary Higdon 7141 Green Needle Drive Winter Park, Florida 32792 Virginia A. Daire, 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 204B 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Should Respondent’s annual renewal of her family day care home registration be denied?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: The Department is the agency of the State of Florida with whom a family day care home must register annually if that family day care home is not required to be licensed by the Department or the county within which the family day care home is located. Annie P. Smith owns and operates Smith Family Day Care Home, which is located in Highlands County, Florida. Respondent is not required to be licensed by the Department or Highlands County but must register annually with the Department. On or about October 28, 1999, Respondent applied to renew her annual family day care home registration. On or about November 10, 1999, the Department screened Florida Abuse Hotline Information System (FAHIS) which revealed report number 1998-094609, an alleged report of child abuse or neglect filed against Respondent. FAHIS report number 1998-094609 alleges that while the child D.W.H., aged 6 months, was under the care of Respondent the child received a large bruise on his upper, inside left thigh. The report characterizes Respondent's role as an alleged perpetrator of child abuse. On or about March 29, 2000, the Department received FAHIS report number 2000-050228, alleging that the child, K.L.B. was picked up from Respondent's day family care home with a broken arm. By an Amended Administrative Complaint dated April 28, 2000, the Department advised Respondent that it was denying her application for annual renewal of her family day care home registration. The Department's denial of Respondent's application for renewal of her registration for her family day care home was based on Respondent's: (a) failure to provide satisfactory proof of screening in accordance with Section 402.313(1)(a)5., Florida Statutes; (b) failure to protect and maintain the safety of the child, D.W.H. while the child was in her care; and (c) failure to protect and maintain the safety of the child, K.L.B. while the child was in her care. The Department presented no evidence concerning FAHIS report number 2000-050228 or the alleged abuse of the child, K.L.B. In fact, the Department announced at the hearing that it was dropping Count III of the Administrative Complaint concerning the alleged abuse of the child, K.L.B. After picking D.W.H. up from Respondent's family day care home on August 25, 1998, T.W., the child's mother, transported the child to Heartland Pediatrics of Avon Park for a scheduled appointment with Dr. Deshipande for the child's regular check-up. During the child's examination, Dr. Deshipande, discovered bruises on the inner thigh of the child's left leg. Dr. Deshipande described the bruises as a "large area on (l) inner thigh of bruising in various stages -- dark purple to pink. No tenderness. No other bruises elsewhere." (Emphasis furnished). Dr. Deshipande suspected possible child abuse and instructed one of his staff to notify the Department's abuse hotline. Subsequently, the Department conducted an investigation into the allegations of abuse. Ray Starr, a former Child Protective Investigator (CPI), with the Department, was the person primarily responsible for the Department's investigation and preparation of the abuse report. Starr's testimony that he contacted Respondent during his investigation by telephone concerning the alleged abuse is inconsistent with the abuse report and with Respondent's testimony. The abuse report indicates that Starr talked with Respondent in person concerning the alleged abuse. Respondent testified that neither Starr nor anyone else from the Department talked to her by telephone or in person concerning the alleged abuse during the time of the investigation. After discussing the background of the child's parents with local law enforcement and Department personnel, including one Department employee who was a "good friend" of the child's father, Starr determined that the child's parents were not responsible for the bruises. Without any further investigation (except possibly one telephone call to Respondent) Starr determined that the bruises were either the direct result of Respondent's action with the child or her inattention to the child which resulted in the bruises by whatever means. Starr made no effort to discuss Respondent's reputation as a caregiver with any of Respondent's present or past clients or to determine if there had been any problems with Respondent's care of other children. Based on the testimony of several of Respondent's present and past clients, Respondent enjoys a reputation of being an excellent caregiver for children, particularly younger children. On August 25, 1998, the child's mother, while giving the child's medical history to Dr. Deshipande, indicated that the child had been going to Respondent's family day care home for a period of 12 days and that bruising had been noted once before. However, at the hearing the child's mother testified that she could not recall how long the child went to Respondent's family day care home and that there had been no problem with the child's suffering any bruising at Respondent's day care home prior to the day of the alleged incident. The child's mother could not recall what time she left the child at Respondent's home or picked him up from Respondent's home on the day of the alleged incident or any other day. The child's mother could not recall virtually anything about the incident other than her assertion that she checked her child thoroughly before she took him anywhere and checked him thoroughly after picking him up, which she described as "a mother's thing." Based on this assertion, the mother concluded that the child must have been bruised between the time she left him in Respondent's care on August 25, 1998, and the time she picked him up from Respondent's day care home on August 25, 1998. Karen Babcock, a Licensed Practical Nurse, employed by Heartland Pediatrics of Avon Park saw the bruises on the child on August 25, 1998, while he was being examined by Dr. Deshipande. Babcock testified that although she was not present when the photographs were taken by a Department employee on August 26, 1998, the bruises on the child's leg as shown by the photographs depict a fair and accurate representation of the bruises as they appeared on August 25, 1998. Ray Starr was present when the photographs were taken on August 26, 1998, and testified that the bruises on the child's leg as shown by the photographs depict a fair and accurate representation of the bruises as they appeared on August 26,1998. Dr. Deshipande did not testify at the hearing and, other than his description of the bruises, did not state in his notes an opinion as to when he considered the bruises may have occurred. The fact that he noted bruises "in various stages" indicates that the bruises occurred at various times. Nothing in Ray Starr's testimony or the abuse report indicates that Ray Starr talked with Dr. Deshipande concerning the timing of the bruising. Likewise, none of the other witnesses talked with Dr. Deshipande concerning the timing of the bruising. Dr. Deshipande's description of child's bruises does not describe bruises that are alleged to have occurred earlier in the day on August 25, 1998, during the time the child was in the care of the Respondent. Likewise, the photographs, when viewed in light of Dr. Deshipande's description of the bruising as it appeared to him on August 25, 1998, do not depict bruising that is alleged to have occurred earlier in the day on August 25, 1998, during the time the child was under the care of Respondent. Therefore, although it is clear that the child was bruised, it is not at all clear that the child was bruised during the time he was under the care of Respondent on August 25, 1998, either by Respondent directly or as a result of Respondent's inattention, notwithstanding the testimony of the child's mother to the contrary, which I find lacks credibility.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department enter a final order granting Respondent's application for renewal of her annual family day care home registration. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th of January, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ WILLIAM R. CAVE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of January, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack Emory Farley, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 4720 Old Highway 37 Lakeland, Florida 33813-2030 Sidney M. Crawford, Esquire Sidney M. Crawford, P.A. Post Office Box 5947 Lakeland, Florida 33807 Virginia A. Daire, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204B Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Josie Tomayo, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue 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 The issue is whether the renewal application for a family day care home license filed by Petitioner should be denied based upon alleged violations of Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C-20.10(1)(f), stated in Respondent's letter of proposed denial dated August 3, 2005.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the observation of and the demeanor of the witnesses while testifying, documentary materials in evidence, stipulations of the parties, and evidentiary rulings during the hearing, the following relevant, material, and substantial facts are determined: Petitioner was initially granted her first family day care home license to operate a family day care home at 2829 Kathryn Drive, Lakeland, Florida 33805, on August 3, 2003, and her family day care home license was renewed by Respondent for operation at the above address for one additional year on August 3, 2004. At the time of the 2004 family day care home license renewal, Petitioner was in compliance, with no noncompliant items noted in her record from 2003 through 2004 that would have justified denial of the license renewal. On an unspecified date prior to August 3, 2005, Petitioner made an application to renew her family day care home license. On August 3, 2005, Respondent notified Petitioner by letter of the proposal to deny her application for renewal of her family day care home license. Petitioner contested the proposed denial resulting in this administrative hearing on November 7, 2005. The denial letter of Respondent indicated that the decision was based upon, "[y]our inability to ensure the safety of children in your care." The letter continued stating: "Your Family Day Care Home was found to be out of compliance in regards to the fencing requirements as stated in 65C-20.10(1)(f), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), on 07/28/03, 03/22/04, 01/12/05, 01/20/05, and 06/10/05." Petitioner acknowledged that the fence was missing a few boards during the above period. It is undisputed that the January 12, 2005, inspection by Timothy Graddy, child care licensing inspector, found numerous violations. Upon reinspection by Mr. Graddy on January 20, 2005, the violations noted during his January 12, 2005, inspection were corrected, but for repair of the fence around the home and the undated fire extinguisher inspection certification. Mr. Graddy was not called to testify regarding the severity of the noncompliance violations, the probability of harm to health or safety of the children nor actions taken by Petitioner to correct the cited violations. No other witness testified regarding these mandatory items. It is likewise undisputed that Respondent imposed an administrative fine on Petitioner for noncompliance items identified during an undated inspection in 2004. Petitioner, without requesting a Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, hearing, paid the administrative fine of $100 on December 9, 2004, for violations noted in compliance inspections that occurred between January and December of 2004. It is likewise undisputed that the Department imposed a second administrative fine on Petitioner for those violations noted from inspections that occurred between January 1, 2005, and June 21, 2005. Again, and without requesting a Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, hearing, Petitioner paid the administrative fine of $250 on June 1, 2005. William Wright, child care licensing inspector and a member of the license application review committee, reviewed the relicensing application filed by Petitioner, voiced as his primary concern a July 2005 central abuse hotline report of an incident that occurred July 11, 2005. In the abuse report, a two-year-old male child was reported to have had bruises on both facial cheeks. The allegations narrative reflected the child received the bruises by falling/tripping over his shoes. Petitioner called the father of the child, who came by, observed the bruise on his child's cheeks, signed an incident statement prepared by Petitioner, and took his child home. The father did not return his child to Petitioner's family day care home. During the subsequent investigation of the abuse incident, bruises were found on the child's thigh(s). Two or three days after the July 11, 2005, incident report, a subsequent investigation by local law enforcement and follow-up investigation by Respondent's personnel resulted in conflicting and unresolved accounts of how the child received the bruises, where the child received the bruises, and who was at fault for the bruises. It was unclear to the investigators where and how the child received the bruises on his thighs. What is clear is that the child did not receive thigh bruises while in Petitioner's family day care home. Respondent closed the abuse report with "[S]ome indicator of bruises, welts and marks. No intervention services were needed." There is insufficient evidence to conclude, infer or establish that while in Petitioner's care the child sustained bruises on his thighs that were discovered several days after the July 11, 2005, abuse report and, thus, to conclude the child's safety was at risk while in Petitioner's family day care home. Another review committee member, Patricia Hamilton, child care licensing supervisor, opined the proposed denial was based upon "the Department's belief" that Petitioner was not able to operate a day care without violating one or more Florida Administrative Code rules. It is her belief that children in Petitioner's family day care home would not be safe because the historical inspection record compiled by Respondent, in her opinion, demonstrated Petitioner could not consistently comply with the rules of operating a safe family day care home. This is a reasonable inference drawn from a historical review of Petitioner's family day care home inspection record. Petitioner, as of November 28, 2005, filed a Notice of Change of Address. Petitioner now resides at 7354 Beaumont Drive, Lakeland, Florida. By moving to a new residence, Petitioner effectively withdrew the family day care home license application for license of the residence at 2829 Kathryn Avenue, Lakeland, Florida 33805, the subject of this case.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law hereinabove, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Family Services enter a final order dismissing the petition filed by Tarsha Seay, d/b/a Seay Family Day Care Home. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of February, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FRED L. BUCKINE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of February, 2006.
