The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner should have her application to renew her childcare facility license denied by Respondent, Department of Children and Families (“Department”), for the reasons set forth in the Amended Denial of Application to Renew Child Care Facility License.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Roslyn Smith, holds license No. C07V00140, by which she is licensed to operate the Rising Stars childcare facility pursuant to chapter 402, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 65C-22. Petitioner has operated the Rising Stars childcare facility for 12 years. She serves very low-income children in the Daytona Beach area. There is no question but that Petitioner offers superior service to the children under her care. Petitioner maintains a clothing bank to ensure that the children in her care are adequately clothed. Petitioner prepares wholesome, homemade, nutritious meals for the children, eschewing the more common chicken nuggets and corn dogs offered up at other facilities. The children are encouraged in their classrooms, with appropriate and well-kept educational materials. The facility is clean and well maintained. Petitioner’s husband frequents the facility to perform maintenance and upkeep. The children in her care love Petitioner, a feeling that she returns in kind. On September 20, 2010, Petitioner and the Department entered into a Settlement Agreement to resolve several background screening and training violations. The agreement resulted in Petitioner’s license being placed on probationary status for a period of six months. The Department’s denial of Petitioner’s license renewal was based solely on alleged violations discovered during an inspection conducted on November 3, 2010, and on an alleged violation discovered on February 2, 2011. The November 3, 2011 inspection was conducted by Patricia Medico. Ms. Medico began working for the Department on May 18, 2010. The November 3, 2010 inspection was her first at Rising Stars. Despite having been trained since her hire, and having had a small caseload in DeLand, Ms. Medico considered herself to be “a very new counselor starting at [Petitioner’s] place in November.” Ms. Medico made it a practice to inspect facilities without first reviewing any information or previous Department inspection reports, a common practice with other inspectors. She believed that by going out “cold,” it allowed her to be more objective, and to have no preconceived notions or prejudices. On November 18, 2010, a re-inspection of the facility was performed by Ms. Medico. All deficiencies identified during the November 3, 2010 inspection had been resolved, and no further violations were discovered. Since the November 3, 2010 inspection, Rising Stars has been in substantial -- if not almost perfect -- compliance with all childcare facility standards. From November 3, 2010 through the August 26, 2011 inspection, the only violations discovered were Quinetta Edwards’ missing affidavit of good moral character discussed below, one classroom without a posted lesson plan in March 2011, a minor attendance roster discrepancy in March 2011 that was corrected during the inspection, and one time when the posted lunch menu was not dated. The evidence demonstrates that Petitioner made substantial, effective, and sufficient progress toward compliance since the entry of the settlement agreement on September 20, 2010, and it is so found. The specific violations that form the basis for the denial of Petitioner’s license renewal are as follows: Training Violations Veronica Dickson The Department listed, as a basis for the denial of Petitioner’s license renewal, that Petitioner did not have documentation in the employment file of Veronica Dickson showing that she had started her 40-clock-hour training within 90 days of commencement of her employment at Rising Stars. The evidence suggests that the documentation of Ms. Dickson’s training was in her file since at least October 8, 2010, and another copy was printed from the Daytona State College website and provided to Ms. Medico during the inspection. Ms. Medico stated that she had no recollection of having seen Ms. Dickson’s training records during the inspection. At various times, Ms. Medico admitted that due to her large caseload, she was unclear as to the specifics of any given inspection. However, she indicated that the inspection report is her contemporaneous statement of the facts. She further indicated that it was her practice to print out a copy of the report and go over it with the licensee before having the licensee sign it. When Ms. Medico left a facility, the inspection report provided to the licensee “isn’t necessarily the written in stone inspection.” Rather, it is subject to review, occasionally with items that were found to be non-compliant changed to being compliant, and items that were found to be compliant changed to being non-compliant. If items were changed, Ms. Medico would call the licensee to advise them of the change. Contrary to Ms. Medico’s description of the process, Petitioner testified that, as the normal practice, Ms. Medico did not go over the inspection reports point-by-point. Rather, she indicated that she would receive an unsigned report from Ms. Medico after having accompanied her during the inspection and having discussed -- and oftentimes resolved -- problems at the time. She would sign the computerized signature block without reviewing the report, relying on the earlier discussions. If necessary, she would review the report after the inspection. Having personally provided Ms. Dickson’s training records to Ms. Medico, Petitioner did not realize that the training records were identified as a violation on November 3, 2010. Petitioner would have disputed the violation had she known at the time that she was being cited. The evidence as to whether the training documentation was in Ms. Dickson’s file is contradictory. However, the more persuasive evidence supports a finding of fact that the documentation was provided at the time of the inspection, but was either overlooked or forgotten by Ms. Medico. Therefore, there was no violation of any childcare standard associated with Ms. Dickson’s training records. Alicia Thomas The Department listed, as a basis for the denial of Petitioner’s license renewal, that Alicia Thomas had not started her 40-hour training within 90 days of having started employment in the childcare industry. According to the Department’s personnel records, Ms. Thomas was first employed in the childcare industry on April 5, 2010. There is no evidence to indicate by whom she was employed on that date. The Department provided no information as to how a licensee is to know when a person is employed “in the industry.” However, it is clear that a candidate for employment at a child care facility is to commence training within 90 days of employment at any licensed childcare facility, and that the employing childcare facility is responsible for obtaining documentation from childcare personnel. The evidence is undisputed that Ms. Thomas’s background screening was complete and clear. Furthermore, Ms. Thomas had completed her required in-service training by June 30, 2010. The Department personnel summary sheet indicates that Ms. Thomas started her employment at Rising Stars on May 5, 2010. However, the greater weight of the evidence indicates that Ms. Thomas was hired by Petitioner in July, 2010. From July through November, 2010, which was the period of Ms. Thomas’s employment at Rising Stars, she worked fewer than 30 days due to various medical issues. The evidence indicates that Ms. Thomas’s failure to commence her 40-hour training was not cited by the Department as a violation on November 3, 2010. The unsigned inspection report provided by Ms. Medico for Petitioner’s review did not list a violation related to Ms. Thomas’s training. Ms. Medico testified that she did not cite Petitioner for a violation related to Ms. Thomas on November 3, 2010. Rather, she indicated that “all I did was tell her in notes that Alisca needed to get this,” and that “the next time I went out, she would be cited if she did not correct that.” (emphasis added). Ms. Adams testified that “technically, [Petitioner] should have been cited additionally for Alisca Thomas not starting her training on time,” but that “I overlooked it, and I don’t know what [Ms. Medico’s] rationale was [for not citing], but I overlooked it.” Petitioner testified that Alisca Thomas never appeared on any inspection report that she received. The greater weight of the evidence demonstrates that Petitioner was not cited for a violation related to Ms. Thomas’s training status, and that the deficiency would be considered to be a violation only if it was not corrected by the November 18, 2010 re-inspection. By the time of the November 18, 2010 re-inspection, Ms. Thomas had commenced her training, documentation of which was in her file. Thus, Petitioner made sufficient progress toward compliance, and in fact completely resolved the issue, by the time Ms. Medico went back to the facility. Despite having come into compliance with her training requirements, Ms. Thomas was let go shortly after November 18, 2010 due to her ongoing health issues. Based on the foregoing, Ms. Thomas’s training status, having been completely resolved prior to it being cited as a violation, and its having had no proven effect on the health, safety, or child development needs of the children in Petitioner’s care, is not a sufficient basis for denial of the renewal license. Record-Keeping Course Violation The Department listed, as a basis for the denial of Petitioner’s license renewal, that Petitioner did not complete the Guide to Record Keeping online course or the CEU assessment as required by the September 20, 2010 settlement agreement. As part of the settlement agreement, Petitioner was required by the Department to take and pass the course, and get credit for the Continuing Education Units (CEUs). Petitioner had taken the course in 2009, and had received a certificate of completion. The certificate had not expired. Petitioner attempted to take the Guide to Record Keeping online course as required by the settlement agreement. When Petitioner tried to enroll for the course, the course provider refused to allow her to pay the fee or enroll. Such refusal is consistent with the warning on the course registration home page, which states that “[y]ou can only earn one certificate for each course, and you may not earn CEUs for a course you have previously taken.” Petitioner testified that she advised Ms. Medico and Ms. Adams of the problem with taking the online course. Ms. Adams had a recollection of meeting Petitioner in the lobby of the DCF building, and discussing Ms. Dickson’s and Ms. Thomas’s training issues with her, but did not mention discussing Petitioner’s difficulty in taking the record keeping class. Whether Ms. Adams was told of the problem or not is immaterial. The evidence is sufficient to demonstrate, at the very least, that Petitioner advised Ms. Medico, a representative of the Department, of the problem in taking the course. The Department should have known of the restriction on retaking the course at the time it imposed that requirement on Petitioner. Petitioner had no reason to expect that the Department’s required settlement condition could not be performed, and did not know of the restriction until she attempted to comply. Petitioner made a good faith effort to comply with the condition but, since the course provider prohibited Petitioner from retaking the course and receiving CEU credit, performance of that element of the settlement agreement was impossible. Based on the foregoing, Petitioner’s failure to take, complete, and receive CEU credit for the Guide to Record Keeping course, in light of the impossibility of doing so, is not a sufficient basis for denial of the renewal license. Untimely Meeting Violation The Department listed, as a basis for the denial of Petitioner’s license renewal, that Petitioner failed to meet with Susan Liebee, a coordinator at the Daytona State College, within 10 days of the date of the settlement agreement to discuss staff training requirements. The meeting was to have been held by September 30, 2010, but did not take place until October 8, 2010. Petitioner testified that she went to Ms. Liebee’s office to meet with her, but that she was not there. She subsequently called and made an appointment with Ms. Liebee to meet on October 8, 2010, and met as scheduled. Petitioner made every reasonable effort to meet the time frame for the meeting established in the settlement agreement, but due to reasons outside of her control was not able to meet until Ms. Liebee was available on October 8, 2010. Petitioner’s testimony on that point was credible, and there was no evidence to the contrary. Based on the foregoing, Petitioner’s failure to meet with Ms. Liebee due to circumstances involving Ms. Liebee’s schedule that were out of Petitioner’s control, is not a sufficient basis for denial of the renewal license. Affidavit of Good Moral Character Violation The Department listed, as a basis for the denial of Petitioner’s license renewal, that an Affidavit of Good Moral Character was not in the file of new hire Quinetta Edwards. Ms. Edwards was hired effective February 1, 2010. The inspection during which Ms. Edward’s employment file was reviewed was conducted on February 2, 2010. As stated by Ms. Medico, a new employee’s background investigation consists of the level 2 background screening required in Chapter 435, the Affidavit of Good Moral Character signed by the employee, the signed and notarized Child Abuse Reporting Form, the employee’s employment history, checked references for two years, and a supplemental statement that the employee has not had a child care license denied or revoked in the past. All of the screening requirements listed by Ms. Medico, and established in rule 65C-22.006(4), had been met but for the affidavit. Due to a simple oversight, Ms. Edwards failed to execute the Affidavit of Good Moral Character prior to her employment with Petitioner. Upon learning of the oversight, Ms. Edwards executed the Affidavit on February 8, 2010. Petitioner thereupon submitted the affidavit to the Department by facsimile on that date. There was no attempt to backdate the form, or to do anything other than honestly correct the oversight. Ms. Edwards has cleared all screening, meets all employee standards, and remains on the staff of Rising Stars without any problems to this day. The simple and unintentional oversight in having Ms. Edwards execute her affidavit one week after commencement of employment, given that all other background screening was completed without incident, had no effect on the health or safety of the children attending Rising Stars. That oversight was not a material violation of the Department’s licensing standards or of the settlement agreement, and is not a sufficient factual basis for the denial of Petitioner’s license renewal. Other Violations Not Pled In addition to the issues pled as reasons for denial in the Department’s Amended Denial of Application to Renew Child Care Facility License, the parties introduced testimony and documentary evidence regarding a number of alleged minor deficiencies at the Rising Stars facility discovered during the November 3, 2010 inspection. Both Ms. Medico and Ms. Adams admitted that the deficiencies did not form the basis for the Department’s proposed action. As to the facility violations -- which included among other minor deficiencies, a missing lesson plan; exposed “S” hooks on the swing set; worn electrical outlet covers; an exposed, but generally inaccessible screw point underneath a bench; uneven boards on a deck; and two forks in a drawer accessible but off-limits to children -- the evidence demonstrates conclusively that those deficiencies are “common problems” and that “those things, they happen everywhere.” The evidence further demonstrates that Petitioner’s husband keeps the facility well kept and maintained, and that Petitioner does a “wonderful job” with the Rising Stars facility. The evidence is undisputed that each of the alleged violations identified in the November 3, 2010 inspection report were either corrected on the spot during the inspection, or were corrected by the November 18, 2010 re-inspection. They have not recurred. To the extent that those alleged deficiencies are considered in the final decision regarding renewal of Petitioner’s license, despite having not been pled by the Department, it is found that the alleged deficiencies, have had no adverse effect on the health, sanitation, safety, and adequate physical surroundings for the children in Petitioner’s care, have had no adverse effect on the health and nutrition of the children in Petitioner’s care, and have had no adverse effect on the child development needs of the children in Petitioner’s care. Therefore, those alleged deficiencies do not form a sufficient basis for denial of Petitioner’s license renewal. Finally, evidence was received regarding the employment of Jennifer Geier by Petitioner during a period that she was disqualified from employment. Petitioner was not aware that Ms. Geier was subject to disqualification, especially since she had received a letter from the Department of Corrections dated September 9, 2009, stating that “there are no stipulations in her order that prevents her from employment in a child care facility.”1/ Upon discovering that the offense was, in fact, disqualifying, Ms. Geier was terminated. It is clear that at the time the Department issued its Amended Denial of Application to Renew Child Care Facility License on August 2, 2011, the Department was well aware of Ms. Geier and her relationship with Petitioner, with all aspects of her employment at Rising Stars having been resolved in the September 20, 2010 Settlement Agreement, and with her having received a Final Order from the Department granting an exemption from disqualification on January 3, 2011. Since all aspects of Ms. Geier’s employment were resolved by the settlement agreement, and since Ms. Geier’s employment by Petitioner was not pled by the Department, her previous employment does not form a sufficient basis for denial of Petitioner’s license renewal.
Recommendation Upon the consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Family Services enter a Final Order granting the renewal of license, No. C07V00140, to Petitioner Roslyn Smith for the operation the Rising Stars childcare facility. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of November, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY 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 4th day of November, 2011.
The Issue At issue is whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalties should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Department is authorized to regulate child care facilities pursuant to sections 402.301-402.319, Florida Statutes. Section 402.311 authorizes the Department to inspect licensed child care facilities. Section 402.310 authorizes the Department to take disciplinary action against child care facilities for violations of sections 402.301-402.319. Tiny Blessings is a child care facility operating pursuant to License Number C04DU0799. The facility is located at 4932 Blanding Boulevard, Jacksonville, Florida. Lawanda Jackson is the owner of Tiny Blessings. Jacqueline King is a family service counselor for the Department's child care licensing program. She is charged with inspecting day care facilities. Ms. King has worked for the Department for over 20 years. In addition to five years in her current position, Ms. King has worked as a child protective investigator on sexual abuse cases and has served as a juvenile probation officer. Ms. King conducted the inspections of Tiny Blessings that are at issue in this case. Count I On October 6, 2010, Ms. King conducted an inspection of Tiny Blessings. The facility's records appeared to show that employee Monalisa Tedtaotao had been hired on September 3, 2010, but that her background screening had not been completed until September 27, 2010. Ms. King noted that the facility's records indicated that Ms. Tedtaotao's 40-hour training program began on September 3, 2010. Ms. Tedtaotao testified she began work at Tiny Blessings on September 27, 2010, the day the background screening was completed. Ms. Jackson was adamant that Ms. Tedtaotao did not begin work at Tiny Blessings until September 27, 2010. She believed that Ms. King either mistook the date on Ms. Tedtaotao's job application for her starting date, or was intentionally misstating the facts in order to stack the alleged violations and close down Tiny Blessings.2/ The Department produced no witness who actually saw Ms. Tedtaotao working at Tiny Blessings prior to September 27, 2010. The only document in evidence showing the date of September 3, 2010, was created by Ms. King as part of her inspection report. It is noted that Ms. Jackson produced no payroll records or other evidence to verify Ms. Tedtaotao's starting date. As to Count I, the Department proved at most that Tiny Blessings' recordkeeping was inadequate. The Department did not prove that Ms. Tedtaotao worked at Tiny Blessings as an unscreened individual. Count II Ms. King testified that, at the time of the October 6, 2010, inspection, employee Tiffany Turner's personnel file was missing a mandatory document: CS-FSP 5131, "Background Screening and Personnel File Requirements" ("Form 5131"). The Department characterized this as a "filing problem," not a situation in which the employee had failed to undergo background screening. Ms. Jackson agreed that a Form 5131 was not in Ms. Turner's personnel file on the date of the inspection. Count III Ms. King testified that on or about October 12, 2010, the Department received a complaint that Ms. Jackson had been arrested for domestic violence but was still working at Tiny Blessings. Ms. King's investigation revealed that Ms. Jackson had been charged with domestic battery in violation of section 784.03(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2010), on October 6, 2010, and had pled no contest to the charge on October 7, 2010. The county court in Jacksonville withheld adjudication and placed Ms. Jackson on 12 months of probation with early termination contingent upon her completion of the Safe Families program and her having no contact with the victim. Under the provisions of section 435.04(3), Florida Statutes (2010), a plea of nolo contendere to an offence that constitutes domestic violence as defined in section 741.28, Florida Statutes, is an offence that disqualifies a person from occupying a position for which a Level 2 Background Screening is required. Ms. King testified that on October 12, 2010, she advised Ms. Jackson that her plea constituted a disqualifying offence. Ms. Jackson did not accept Ms. King's statement. Ms. King put Ms. Jackson on the phone with staff in the Department's background screening office, who confirmed Ms. King's statement. Ms. Jackson testified that she entered her plea only upon the assurance by the court and the assistant state attorney that the domestic violence charge was not a disqualifying offense and the plea would not affect her child care license. On November 3, 2010, Ms. Jackson's counsel filed in the county court a motion to vacate and set aside the judgment. In the motion, counsel stated as follows, in relevant part: The Defendant, by and through her undersigned counsel, raised the issue of the Defendant's fear of losing her daycare license as a result of pleading to the charge of Battery. The State Attorney and the judge both advised the undersigned counsel that the daycare license would not be affected. Upon reliance on same, the Defendant entered a plea of nolo contendere to the charge of Battery and was sentenced on the same day. On or about October 15, 2010, the Defendant was visited by an agent from the Department of Children and Families and advised that due to her plea of no contest to the battery charge and being sentenced on same, the Defendant's daycare license was subject to forfeiture and ineligibility. This came as a result in a change of law that took effect in July 2010 that mandates that either an adjudication of guilt or a withhold [sic] of guilt on a domestic charge, such as Battery, makes the license holder ineligible to run a daycare.3/ As of the date of the hearing in the instant case, the county court had not acted on Ms. Jackson's motion to vacate. On May 24, 2011, the court denied a May 17, 2011 motion filed by Ms. Jackson to "amend the record."4/ The Department sent Ms. Jackson a certified letter, dated December 1, 2010, advising her of her disqualifying offence and of the process contained in chapter 435 for Ms. Jackson to seek an exemption from disqualification. The post office tracking slip indicated that the letter was returned unclaimed on December 31, 2010. Ms. Jackson knew or should have known, no later than December 31, 2010, that she was disqualified from operating a day care facility. Ms. Jackson has never filed an application for an exemption from disqualification. Count IV K.J. is a four-year-old autistic boy. He has a six- year-old sister, A.S. Their mother is Annette Wiggins. K.J. and A.S. attend Oak Hill Elementary School ("Oak Hill"). During the period relevant to this proceeding, K.J. was enrolled in pre-kindergarten and A.S. was in kindergarten. During the latter part of September 2010, K.J. and A.S. were enrolled for day care at Tiny Blessings. Ms. Wiggins would normally drop off K.J. and A.S. at Tiny Blessings, and Tiny Blessings would transport the children to Oak Hill. Two days per week, Ms. Wiggins would pick up the children from school at the end of the day. Three days a week, Tiny Blessings would pick up the children when Oak Hill dismissed its students, and then Ms. Wiggins would pick up the children from Tiny Blessings. K.J.'s teacher at Oak Hill, Amalia Santiago, an autism specialist, testified that at the beginning of the school year, Ms. Wiggins was "heavily dependent" on the day care to provide transportation for the children. Ms. Wiggins works at Point West Cluster, a nursing home. Her regular work hours are from 7:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. Ms. Wiggins did not drop off her children at Oak Hill unless one of the children was sick, she was not working that day, or there was some special occasion. Ms. Wiggins testified that she always let Ms. Jackson and Ms. Santiago know whether she would be taking the children to Oak Hill. Ms. Santiago confirmed that Ms. Wiggins was scrupulous in informing her of the children's transportation arrangements. Ms. Santiago and Ms. Wiggins had a close working relationship because of their mutual concerns with K.J.'s autism. Ms. Santiago testified that in her experience, Ms. Wiggins had never dropped her children off at Oak Hill without personally leaving K.J. with her. Sharon McKahand is K.J.'s grandmother and Ms. Wiggins' mother-in-law. Ms. McKahand was sometimes responsible for picking up K.J. from school or from day care but never for dropping him off in the morning. Nancy Garrett is a fifth grade teacher at Oak Hill. She also is the extended day director at Oak Hill for early and after-school care. Ms. Garrett's responsibilities include overseeing children who are brought to Oak Hill between 7:00 a.m. and 8:05 a.m. because their parents have to go to work early. Ms. Garrett stated that there were approximately 55 children who stayed in early care during the early part of the 2010-2011 school year. Ms. Garrett is assisted by a paraprofessional named Barbara Johnson. Neither K.J. nor A.S. was enrolled in the early care program at Oak Hill. One day near the end of September 2010,5/ Ms. Garrett found K.J. and A.S. in a hallway at Oak Hill at a time close to 7:00 a.m. The children were not accompanied by an adult. Ms. Garrett did not know the children's names and had no idea how they got there. Philip Gardner, a special education teacher who specialized in autistic children, recognized K.J. and took the children to his classroom. Ms. Garrett noted that it was not quite light outside when the children were dropped off. She was there for early care, and Mr. Gardner was a well-known "early bird," but aside from them, there were very few people on the Oak Hill campus at seven in the morning. Ms. Garrett reasonably believed that because the children were "tiny," and K.J. had special needs, an adult should have been with the children. A couple of days later, Ms. Garrett was at Oak Hill at about the same time in the morning and heard "little knockings going on in the hallway." Upon investigation, she discovered K.J. and A.S. again alone in the hallway. This time, Ms. Garrett took the children to Ms. Santiago's classroom. Ms. Santiago and Ms. Garret asked the children who had dropped them off. K.J.'s language deficits were such that he was unable to answer. A.S. told Ms. Santiago that they had been dropped off by "the day care." Ms. Garrett then informed Ms. Santiago that this was not the first time she had found the children alone in the hallway. Ms. Santiago phoned Ms. Wiggins to alert her that her children had been found roaming the campus unattended and that A.S. said that the day care had dropped them off. Ms. Santiago testified that Ms. Wiggins was "livid" when she learned that her children had been wandering the campus unattended. Ms. Wiggins was at work when Ms. Santiago called her. Because she was unable to leave work to address the issue, Ms. Wiggins contacted Ms. McKahand and asked her to go to Oak Hill and make further inquiries into the situation. Ms. McKahand immediately went to Oak Hill. The receptionist at Oak Hill could not tell Ms. McKahand who had dropped off the children that morning. Ms. McKahand next went to Tiny Blessings. Ms. McKahand testified that Ms. Jackson stated that Tiny Blessings had dropped off the children that morning, but that they had dropped the children off on time and would never drop them off early. Ms. King testified that she learned of this incident while investigating a report that staff of the day care was physically abusive to a school-age child who arrived at Tiny Blessings early in the morning. Ms. King arrived at the day care early on the morning of October 13, 2010, to interview parents as they dropped off their children. She saw Ms. Wiggins dropping off K.J. and A.S. Ms. King noted that A.S. appeared to be of school age. She asked Ms. Wiggins whether the day care was transporting A.S. to school. This was significant to Ms. King because Tiny Blessings had told the Department that it did not provide transportation. Ms. Wiggins told Ms. King that Tiny Blessings had been providing school transportation for both children since the start of the school year. Ms. King then asked Ms. Wiggins if she had any concerns about the care her children received at Tiny Blessings. Ms. Wiggins proceeded to tell Ms. King about her children being dropped off at Oak Hill by Tiny Blessings and later being found wandering in the hallway at the school. Ms. King informed Ms. Wiggins that she would have to make other provisions for the transportation of her children to school, because Tiny Blessings did not have an employee who met the licensing standards to transport children. Ms. Wiggins told Ms. King that in that event she would remove her children from Tiny Blessings. With Ms. Wiggins' permission, Ms. King interviewed A.S., who told Ms. King that "Joe" drove her and K.J. to and from Oak Hill. Joseph Williams is Ms. Jackson's son and an employee of Tiny Blessings. Ms. King interviewed Mr. Williams, who admitted transporting children in his mother's vehicle but denied ever dropping off the children without ensuring they were released to school staff at the curbside pick-up and drop-off location. Ms. Santiago, who assisted in the curbside pick-up, recalled that a "young man" frequently picked up the children after school. Mr. Williams did not testify at the hearing. At the hearing, Ms. Jackson denied that Tiny Blessings ever dropped the children off early. Ms. Jackson testified that on many days the children could not have been dropped off early at school because Ms. Wiggins did not drop them off at Tiny Blessings until around 8:00 a.m. Ms. Jackson introduced Tiny Blessings' parent sign-in sheets for the period from September 20, 2010, through September 29, 2010. On September 20, Ms. Wiggins dropped off the children at 8:04 a.m. On September 21, 2010, Ms. Wiggins dropped off the children at 8:11 a.m. On September 22, Ms. Wiggins dropped off A.S. at 7:59 a.m.; the sheet indicated that K.J. was not dropped off at the day care. On September 23, the date that Ms. Santiago believed to be the second date on which the children were found wandering the school, Ms. Wiggins dropped off the children at 7:09 a.m. On Friday, September 24, Ms. Wiggins dropped off the children at 7:04 a.m. On Monday, September 27, Ms. Wiggins dropped off the children at 7:36 a.m. On September 28, Ms. Wiggins dropped off the children at 8:02 a.m. On September 29, Ms. Wiggins dropped off the children at 7:11 a.m. Ms. Jackson testified that on days when the children were brought to Tiny Blessings at around seven, they were given breakfast at the day care before being transported to Oak Hill. On days when Ms. Wiggins was running late, Ms. Jackson would drive the children directly to school. School staff persons would be waiting at the curb to take the children from the vehicle. Ms. Jackson testified that she had one child whom she had to pick up from the child's home no later than 7:30 a.m. By the time she returned to the day care at around 7:45, it would be time to transport school-age children such as A.S. Ms. Jackson stated that, within the strictures of her morning schedule, it would make no sense for her to drive K.J. and A.S. to school before 7:45 a.m. Ms. Jackson testified that on the days in question, Ms. Wiggins must have dropped the children off at school herself. She noted that on September 22, Ms. Wiggins had not dropped both children off at Tiny Blessings because K.J. was sick. It is problematic that the Department could not definitely state the dates on which K.J. and A.S. were dropped off at the school. However, the Department has proven facts sufficient to establish Tiny Blessings' responsibility for the incident. Ms. Garrett and Ms. Santiago were absolutely clear that both K.J. and A.S. had been dropped off early at Oak Hill and been found wandering the halls of the school. Ms. Garrett witnessed this situation twice within a few days. These teachers had no motive to invent such a story. Ms. Santiago testified as to the shock and anger registered by Ms. Wiggins when she learned that her children had been found wandering the school, and that Ms. Wiggins always came in and spoke to her when she dropped off her children at the school. Ms. Wiggins' testimony was credible and consistent with Ms. Santiago's observations. Ms. Jackson's own records established that Ms. Wiggins left both children at Tiny Blessings on each weekday morning between September 20 and 29, with the exception of September 22, when only A.S. was left at Tiny Blessings. Therefore, Ms. Wiggins could not have dropped off the children at Oak Hill at around 7:00 a.m. on any of those mornings. The children could only have been left at Oak Hill by Ms. Jackson or some agent of Tiny Blessings.6/ The Department did not prove that the children were dropped off at the school by Mr. Williams. The hearsay statements of Mr. Williams and A.S. are the only evidence supporting a finding that Mr. Williams drove the children to school. Though she denied that anyone at Tiny Blessings would ever drop off the children without supervision, Ms. Jackson testified that she did most of the driving in the mornings. Mr. Williams drove mostly in the afternoons, picking up the children from Oak Hill. Counts V, VI, and VII Ms. King followed up her October 13, 2010, investigation with a visit to Tiny Blessings on October 14. During the follow up visit, Ms. King observed an individual named Trameka Monroe supervising the one-year-old children. Ms. King did not recognize Ms. Monroe and requested to see her personnel folder. The personnel folder showed no documentation that Ms. Monroe had undergone an employment history check, a part of the background screening the Department requires of child care personnel. Also, Ms. Monroe's folder contained no documentation of the required FBI/FDLE criminal records clearance. Ms. Jackson testified that Ms. Monroe had obtained background screening and that her local law enforcement clearance and FDLE/FBI clearance had been completed on October 13, 2010. She introduced a document produced by the Department stating that it had received Ms. Monroe's complete criminal history records and found nothing that would disqualify her from working for Tiny Blessings. The letter stated: "RESULTS VALID AS OF: 10/13/2010." However, the document also stated: "PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT CHECKS WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THE DETERMINATION/PROCESS." No evidence was presented that Ms. Monroe's background screening was ever fully completed. Ms. Jackson did not provide an employment history for Ms. Monroe. Ms. Jackson testified that Ms. Monroe was so anxious to start work at Tiny Blessings that she personally went to the Department's office on October 13 to have her background check completed. Ms. Jackson stated that the morning of October 14 was Ms. Monroe's first day on the job, and that it was a coincidence that this was the day Ms. King arrived at the facility. Ms. Monroe did not testify at the hearing. In the absence of any information in the personnel file confirming the status of Ms. Monroe's background screening, Ms. King instructed Ms. Monroe to leave the premises, which she did. Ms. Jackson testified that Ms. Monroe never came back "because of how rude Ms. King was." Ms. King also observed that the personnel file for employee Sarra Brown was incomplete. Ms. Brown had been employed previously at Tiny Blessings, but at some point she had been terminated and then rehired. Ms. Jackson provided no records to show the dates of the prior employment or how many days elapsed from the day Ms. Brown was fired to the date she was rehired. Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C- 22.006(4)(e)6. provides that child care personnel must be re- screened following a break in employment in the child care industry that exceeds 90 days. Because Ms. Brown's file lacked an employment history, Ms. King was not able to determine whether or for how long Ms. Brown had been out of the day care industry. Ms. King required Ms. Brown to leave the premises. The personnel files of both Ms. Monroe and Ms. Brown were missing completed Form 5131 and CS-FSP 5337, "Child Abuse & Neglect Reporting Requirements" ("Form 5337"). Ms. Monroe's file lacked the forms entirely; Ms. Brown's forms were incomplete. Ms. Brown later completed the forms in her file. Ms. Monroe did not complete the forms, possibly because she never came back to Tiny Blessings after Ms. King directed her to leave on October 14.
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 imposing a fine of $1,225.00 upon Lawanda Jackson d/b/a Tiny Blessings, and suspending License Number C04DU0799 until such time as the Department grants Lawanda Jackson an exemption from disqualification pursuant to section 435.07, Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of December, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of December, 2011.
