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 issue in the case is whether the application for registration of the Tonya Rodreguez Registered Family Day Care Home (Respondent) should be denied.
Findings Of Fact Since 1994, and at all times material to this case, Mrs. Rodreguez has operated the Respondent, which is located at 2736 Lemon Street, Fort Myers, Florida. On October 25, 2010, Mrs. Rodreguez filed an application with the Petitioner for registration of the Respondent. The previous registration had lapsed. Since 1992, and at all times material to this case, Mrs. Rodreguez has been married to her husband, Terry Rodreguez (Mr. Rodreguez). In 1990, Mr. Rodreguez was convicted of possession of a controlled substance and a concealed firearm. Mrs. Rodreguez was aware of her husband's criminal conviction. The registration application included a section where an applicant was directed to list "OTHER FAMILY/HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS." The application filed on October 25, 2010, by Mrs. Rodreguez disclosed only herself and her three children. Mrs. Rodreguez did not list her husband on the application. On June 23, 2010, a child protective investigator (CPI) commenced an unrelated investigation of the Respondent and went to the Lemon Street address. Mr. Rodreguez was present in the home when the CPI arrived. The CPI testified without contradiction that Mr. Rodreguez was uncooperative. She returned to the Respondent later that day accompanied by a law enforcement officer, but, when they arrived, Mr. Rodreguez was no longer present at the Respondent. On June 24, 2010, the CPI returned to the Lemon Street address, and Mr. Rodreguez was again present. During questioning by the CPI on that date, Mr. Rodreguez stated that he resided in the home. Additionally, Mrs. Rodreguez advised the CPI that she and her husband had separated, but acknowledged that she and her husband both resided at the home. At the hearing, Mrs. Rodreguez asserted that she has been separated from her husband for many years; however, she acknowledged that they remain legally married, that he uses her address as his legal address, and that her address is listed on his driver's license. She testified that he is homeless and that he returns to the house to see her children. Mr. Rodreguez was issued several traffic citations between January and July of 2010, and all of the citations identified his address as 2736 Lemon Street, Fort Myers, Florida.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Family Services enter a final order denying the application for registration of the Tonya Rodreguez Registered Family Day Care Home. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of April, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of April, 2011.
The Issue The issue in the case is whether the Petitioner's application for renewal of a family day care home license should be granted.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this case, the Petitioner owned and operated a licensed family day care home in Lakeland, Florida. On March 26, 2003, representatives of the Respondent arrived at the Petitioner's facility to assist in distributing materials that had been obtained by the facility. There were six children in the facility on March 26, 2003. The Petitioner was the only adult present and available to supervise the children. Upon arriving at the facility, one of the Respondent's representatives discovered an unsupervised "toddler" playing in the bathroom. The child's hands were in a toilet that was unclean and unflushed. One of the Respondent's representatives removed the child's hands from the toilet intending to wash the child's hands, but there was no soap or toweling available. It is unclear whether the Petitioner was aware that the child was in the bathroom, but in any event the child was unsupervised. Subsequently during the same visit, the Petitioner took the children outside into a play area and then returned inside to talk to the Respondent's representatives, leaving all of the children outside and unsupervised. The Respondent's representatives terminated their visit after advising the Petitioner to return outside and supervise the children. On March 27, 2003, a child protective investigator (CPI) employed by the Respondent arrived at the facility to investigate a report of inadequate supervision received on the previous day. Upon arriving, the CPI asked the Petitioner, who was the only adult present in the facility, as to the census and was advised that there were five children in the facility. The CPI observed the five children in a playroom. A few minutes later, the CPI responded to noise coming from the bathroom and discovered a sixth child, unsupervised and playing in the apparently-clean toilet water. The CPI removed the child's hands from the water. At one point, the Petitioner took another child into the bathroom and left him there. At another point, the Petitioner put infants into a room to nap, leaving the other children unsupervised while she did so, and then leaving the infants unsupervised while they napped. One child ran into an enclosed garage area without the Petitioner's knowledge. The Petitioner was unable to properly identify all of the children by name when requested to do so by the CPI. When asked to retrieve files on the children, the Petitioner left all the children unsupervised while she went to her automobile to get the files. The Petitioner asserted that the CPI had offered to watch the children while she went outside to get the files. The CPI denied having agreed to supervise the children. The greater weight of the evidence fails to support the Petitioner's assertion that the CPI offered to supervise the children during the visit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent enter a Final Order denying the Petitioner's application for renewal of licensure as a family day care home. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of September, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 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 September, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack Emory Farley, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 4720 Old Highway 37 Lakeland, Florida 33813-2030 Wanda Williams Williams Family Daycare Home 1630 Fruitwood Drive Lakeland, Florida 33805 Paul Flounlacker, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204B Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Josie Tomayo, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Jerry Regier, Secretary Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 1, Room 202 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondents violated provisions of Chapter 402, Florida Statutes,1 and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 65C-20, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Traceann Handy owns and operates Traceann Handy Family Day Care Home, a child care facility licensed by the Department. On May 26, 2009, the facility had been inspected by the Department and found to be in compliance with the rules of operation. Due to some missing documentation (CPR and first aid certificates), the facility was issued a Provisional License. As of the date the final hearing in this matter was concluded, the documentation had been submitted, and the facility had a valid license to operate.3 The Department is responsible for inspecting, licensing, and monitoring child care facilities such as the one operated by Handy. It is the Department's responsibility to ensure that all such facilities are safe and secure for the protection of children utilizing the facility. On Friday, June 5, 2009, the Department received a complaint concerning Handy's facility. The complaint alleged that two older children were asked to supervise a younger child without adult supervision and that transportation of the children had been provided without prior authorization. Based upon these complaints and in accordance with its rules, the Department commenced an investigation of the facility. Investigator Anderson (who was on call for the weekend) went to the facility the next day, Saturday, June 6, 2009. She knocked on the front door (although the entrance to the child care facility portion of the home was located on the side of the house). No one answered her knock, but a young man later came out of the house and advised Anderson that the facility was closed and that Handy was not home.4 Anderson called the investigator assigned to the case (Dayna Prevost) to report her findings. While Anderson was making the telephone call, the same young man came out to her car, banged on the car window and loudly repeated that Handy was not home. Anderson smelled an odor which she believed was marijuana while talking with the young man. (The young man was later identified as Handy's adult son, Trauquece Handy.) Anderson then left the premises. The investigation was recommenced on Monday, June 8, 2009. On that date, Investigators Wolbach and Prevost went to the Handy home and knocked on the side door of the home. When there was no answer to the knock, the investigators went to the front door and knocked. Again there was no answer, but they could hear what sounded like children inside the house. The investigators called Handy (who was not at home) and were told by Handy that she would have someone inside the house open the door. Despite the phone call and promise from Handy, no one opened the door, so the investigators called the police for assistance. When the police arrived, a man opened the front door, but the investigators were granted only limited access to the house. An adult female was seen inside the house, along with two small children. The female was questioned and said that she was a housekeeper and that the children inside the home at that time were her children. Upon receiving that information, the investigators again left the premises. On the next day, Tuesday, June 9, 2009, a team of investigators went back to the facility. This time Handy was present, and the team was allowed into the house. Handy's husband was also present at that time. While the team was inspecting the facility, Handy's son came into the house and went directly upstairs. The team reviewed Handy's records concerning attendance at the facility by various children. Handy was interviewed, and due to the previous suspicion of marijuana usage at the home, asked to provide a urine specimen for the purpose of conducting a drug screening test. (There was considerable discussion at final hearing as to how the urine specimen was taken, but that is not an issue in the present proceeding and will not be discussed further.) At one point during the investigative review at the home, a team member approached the inside stairwell and pushed open the gate located at the bottom of the stairs. The gate had been placed there by Handy in response to prior concerns by the Department about children having access to the upstairs portion of the house. The gate was apparently unlatched, although there were no children present at that time near the stairwell. (There was one child present in the home, but that child was in another part of the house.) As the investigator started up the stairs, Handy's husband said that Handy would likely not appreciate them going into her private quarters. As the investigator continued up the stairs, Handy came into the room and voiced her opposition to anyone going upstairs. Handy had been previously advised by the Department that if a gate was in place to keep children from going upstairs, it would be unnecessary for the Department to inspect that area during every regular inspection. It is unclear from the testimony whether Handy misunderstood the Department or whether the Department was only talking about its annual licensure inspection. No matter, Handy told the investigator that she did not want the investigator to go upstairs. The investigator took that remark as a direct order that she not go upstairs, so she did not do so. Instead, the Department sought injunctive relief in Circuit Court to gain access to the upstairs portion of the house. A hearing on the Department's motion was held the next day, Wednesday, June 10, 2009. Handy received notice of the hearing less than an hour before the hearing was scheduled to commence. She called the Circuit Court Judge's assistant to seek a continuance, but was told that the hearing must proceed. The court gave Handy the option of appearing via telephone, if she so desired. Handy wanted to attend the hearing in person, so she went to the courthouse. There was one child at the day care facility at that time. Handy could not find her approved substitute on such short notice, so she called the child's parent (who was Handy's cousin) and asked if it would be okay for Handy's husband to watch the child while Handy attended the hearing. The parent approved that arrangement. The Circuit Court entered an Order requiring Handy to allow the Department "a one[-]time inspection . . . of the private part of [the] home." Based upon that Order, the Department sent a team of investigators back to the facility on June 10, 2009, to complete its inspection. Upon completion of its investigation, the Department issued the Administrative Complaint relevant to this proceeding. The Administrative Complaint addresses two alleged violations by Handy: First, that Handy refused to allow the Department access to the entire home during the inspection. Second, that Handy allowed a person who was not currently screened to supervise a child in her care. An administrative fine of five hundred dollars ($500.00) was proposed for each of the two violations.5 Handy does not believe she instructed the investigator not to go upstairs during the June 9, 2009, inspection. She remembers only telling them she did not want them to go upstairs, that it was unnecessary, and that her understanding from prior discussions was that the upstairs would not be inspected. The investigator believes she was specifically and forcefully told not to go up the stairs. In either case, it is clear a court order was obtained to gain access. (At the hearing in Circuit Court, Handy had reiterated that she did not want the investigators to go upstairs.) The gate in question was put in place to prevent children from having access to the upstairs portion of the house. However, the gate was either broken or unlatched (the testimony on this issue is not clear) when there was a child present in the house. Handy's husband did not have a valid background screening in place on June 10, 2009, that would allow him to act as a provider of child care services in the facility. He had been previously screened, but had not had his background screening updated when it expired in June 2008. He had not been re-screened because he and Handy were separated, and he did not intend to be at her house to supervise children any longer. The two are still married, but he only visits the house to do maintenance and repairs as needed. It is clear that Handy's husband was watching the child only due to the exigent circumstances surrounding the court hearing and the unavailability of Handy's approved substitute. Further, the child's parent was made aware of the fact and had acquiesced to this arrangement. Nonetheless, Handy's husband was not technically qualified to watch children attending the child care center at that time.
Recommendation Based on 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 imposing an administrative fine of $200 against Respondent, Traceann Handy. It is further RECOMMENDED that Handy be ordered to attend remedial classes on the operation and management of a child care facility. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of January, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of January, 2010.
The Issue Whether Petitioner's license to operate a family day care home should be disciplined, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the testimony and evidence received at the hearing, the following findings are made: The Parties Petitioner is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating child care facilities, including family day care homes. Petitioner routinely conducts inspections of licensed family day care homes to determine whether the home is in compliance with the applicable statutes and rules. Any problems found during the inspections are noted on a report which is provided to the home's operator immediately following the inspection. When appropriate, the inspection report provides a time frame within which the problems must be corrected. Regular inspections are conducted approximately twice a year. More frequent inspections--monthly or every six weeks-- are conducted on family day care homes which have a provisional license rather than a standard license. Petitioner also conducts inspections in response to complaints it receives, and it has the authority to inspect family day care homes at any time with or without notice. Respondent is the owner and operator of a licensed family day care home located at 2406 Winter Ridge Drive, Auburndale, Florida (hereinafter "Respondent's facility" or "the facility"). Respondent resides at that address as well. Respondent has operated a day care home at the above address for approximately five years, and she has been involved in child care for approximately ten years. Respondent has taken all required training in order to be licensed. As a result, she is, or should be, familiar with the rules regulating family day care homes. Respondent keeps children in her home, and children also play in Respondent's backyard. This area is enclosed by an approximately three and a half foot high chain-link fence. Respondent also owns a one-acre parcel behind her house and yard, which is apparently not fenced. Inspections and Resulting Actions by Petitioner Respondent's facility was inspected on April 16, 2003, and several areas of non-compliance were identified during this inspection. Noted as violations included Petitioner's son and husband who were in the home without a completed background screening on each of them; a fence surrounding the property had protruding chicken wire and was less than four feet in height; children's floor mats were torn and not properly covered; a bathroom sink was missing and needed replacement; no paper towels were in the bathroom for the children; one child's immunization records had expired and one child's required physical examination was out of date; and there were eight preschool children over the age of one year old in the home, where the maximum allowed was six. A re-inspection was conducted on April 23, 2003. On January 22, 2004, Petitioner's inspector Mr. Pickett went to Respondent's family day care home to carry out a routine inspection. Several areas of non-compliance were identified. Ms. Gainey's husband, Jerry Gainey, was staying in the home, but he had no letter on file showing he had been properly screened; there were too many children in the home (three children under 12 months old) when the maximum allowable is two; there were seven preschool children in the home when the maximum allowable is three; hazardous containers, a gas can and a paint can, had been left near the front door easily accessible to small children; a glass sliding door had a metal obstacle that could cause children to trip and fall; and three of the children in the home had no enrollment information on file--even their names and parents' names could not be found or names of anyone to call in case of an emergency. After Pickett completed his inspection, he discussed the results with Respondent and provided Respondent a copy of the inspection report. Pickett then went back to his office and discussed the results of the inspection with his supervisor, Ms. Hamilton. Based upon the results of the January 22, 2004, inspection and the prior incidence of non-compliance at Respondent's facility, Ms. Hamilton determined that Respondent's license should be revoked. Petitioner did not give Respondent an opportunity to bring her home into compliance with the minimum standards in Petitioner's licensing rules and standards. Thereafter, on January 26, 2004, Pickett 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. At the hearing, Ms. Hamilton testified that she was particularly concerned about Respondent's repeat violations, namely Respondent's husband not being screened for nearly nine months and the repeated ratio violations, that is, too many children in the home. She characterized these as serious child safety violations. These were the primary reasons she recommended that Respondent's child care license be revoked. Respondent, in her testimony, did not deny committing the violations noted in the inspections of April 16, 2003, and January 22, 2004. However, she did demonstrate that a re-inspection of her facility on April 23, 2003, listed her to be in compliance with all violations listed in the April 16, 2003, report, except for the background screening requirement for her husband. Respondent insisted that her son, Jerry L. Gainey, who is 28 years old, lives down the street from her and does not regularly watch the children in her home. Due to an emergency situation, she was required to leave her home in order to pick up some children from school, and she called upon her son to watch the children until her return. Respondent asserts that her son has not watched the children since that date. Respondent also asserts that her husband, who has had a stroke and is cognitively impaired and walks with the aide of a cane or scooter, does not reside with her full-time but, in fact, lives with his sister in Arkansas. The testimony in regard to her husband's permanent place of resident is not credible, since he was in the home on at least two occasions--April 16, 2003, and January 22, 2004--when it was inspected. It is undisputed that Respondent was not at the facility when Mr. McClary arrived in the early afternoon of April 16, 2003. Her husband and son were watching the children. Respondent's testimony indicated that her husband was physically impaired and not capable of supervising the children. Therefore, only her son was left in charge of the facility and the children that afternoon, and her son was not authorized to supervise the children. As a result, the children were effectively left unsupervised when Respondent left the facility that afternoon. Respondent's testimony is credible, especially when bolstered by her client's testimony, that she is a loving and caring person who goes out of her way to care for the children she keeps in her home. Respondent explained that at the time of the April 16, 2003, inspection, the sink was missing because the entire bathroom was being renovated, and the renovation has been complete for some time. Respondent also stated that she did not understand the need for Petitioner's insistence on strict compliance with the four-foot height requirement for the chain- link fence, especially since she owns the one-acre parcel in the back of her yard. Respondent also explained that the reason she had exceeded the maximum allowable number of children in her home on two occasions was concern for the custodial parents' inability to find suitable child care when they worked odd hours or the swing shift and that she was willing to inconvenience herself in order to provide this service. This testimony was corroborated by several parents and grandparents who testified in Petitioner's behalf. The evidence is clear and convincing that Respondent violated several code provisions, including failure to properly screen her husband, having too many children in the home, and failure to have current enrollment on file for each child. The evidence is not clear and convincing that Respondent violated the code provisions relating to minimum fence height requirements; improper floor mats; failure to have a functioning sink in the children's bathroom; no paper towels in the bathroom for the children; expiration of a child's shot records or that a child's physical examination was outdated. Respondent has shown mitigating evidence that she is a concerned and loving caregiver which demonstrates that her license as a family day care home license should not be revoked.
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 as follows: Finding Petitioner guilty of violating the provisions of Florida Administrative Code Rules 65C-20.009(3)(a) (one count), 65C-20.010(1)(b) (one count), and 65C-20.011(4); and Subsection 402.032(7), Florida Statutes (two counts). Finding Petitioner not guilty of violating the provisions of Florida Administrative Code Rules 65C-20.010(1)(o), 65C-20.010(1)(f), and 65C-20.011(1) and (2)(a). Issuing Respondent a provisional license and imposing an administrative fine of $250.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of June, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of June, 2004.
The Issue The issues in this case are: (a) Whether Petitioner's license as a family day care home should be renewed; (b) Whether Petitioner was required to list her son, Stephen Randall, as a household member on her annual registration application for a family day care home for 2000 and 2001; and (c) Whether Stephen Randall was a member of Petitioner's household at any time in 2000 and 2001.
Findings Of Fact Based on the testimony and demeanor of the witnesses and the documentary evidence presented, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner's application for license for a family day care home dated October 20, 1997, was received by Respondent on November 20, 1997. Listed among the "household members" on the application was Petitioner's son, Stephen H. Randall, whose date of birth is March 28, 1981. On January 10, 1998, Petitioner submitted her application for registration for a family day care home; the application was received by Respondent on January 14, 1998. Stephen Randall is also listed as a household member on this application. On January 15, 1998, Respondent wrote a letter to Petitioner acknowledging her desire to withdraw her application for license as a family day care home. On February 18, 1998, Petitioner was registered as a family day care home for one year effective February 28, 1998. The letter advised: To maintain your registration in accordance with Section 402.313, Florida Statutes, you must do the following: * * * (3) Send in background screening forms including fingerprints for household members who become 18 years of age, or for adults who move into your home, or when your substitute changes and has not been screened. On October 26, 1998, Petitioner forwarded a renewal application for registration as a family day care home which listed Stephen Randall as a "household member." As a result of a December 9, 1998, inspection by Respondent, it was determined that an adult who had not been screened was living in the registered day care home and, therefore, Petitioner was notified that screening was to be accomplished "ASAP." On January 12, 1999, Respondent sent Petitioner a Certified Letter reminding her that "Adult members residing in the family day care home must go through a background screening process in accordance with Florida Statutes, " On January 28, 1999, Petitioner telephoned Respondent indicating that she "changed her mind about daycare." This telephone call was followed by a letter from Respondent to Petitioner dated January 29, 1999, indicating, "Per your request January 28, 1999, we have withdrawn your Family Day Care license application and closed your registration effective this date." On April 9, 1999, Petitioner submitted an original registration application which listed her 18-year-old son, Stephen Randall, as living in the home which was to become the registered family day care home. On July 6, 1999, Petitioner, by letter, advised Respondent that "My son Stephen H. Randall is no longer living with me (Maxine Torres)." On July 20, 1999, Respondent mailed Petitioner a letter advising that "The Department of Children & Family Services has registered your Family Day Care Home for one year effective July 30, 1999." The letter also advised Petitioner of the necessity of advising Respondent when unscreened adults move into the home in the same language as contained in paragraph 4, supra. On September 23, 1999, Respondent sent Petitioner a Certified Letter which stated: We have received your letter dated July 7, 1999 in reference to your son, Stephen Randale [sic], moving out of your home. Should he return, he must be background screened within ten (10) days. Please remember that all household members must be screened in accordance with F.S. Section 202.303 and 402.305. Failure to do so in a timely manner may result in administrative action, which could result in a fine, suspension, or revocation. On October 31, 2000, the Circuit Court in and for Orange County, Florida, in Case Number CR-O-00-4737/A adjudicated Stephen Henry Randall, Petitioner's son, guilty of violating the following criminal statutes: Subsections 806.13(1)(b)1, 810.02(3), and 812.014(2)(c)5, Florida Statutes, two of which offenses are felonies, and sentenced him to one day in jail and three years' probation. Stephen Randall had been arrested in April 2000 for the criminal offenses he committed. The offenses occurred at a residence two residences away from Petitioner's home, the registered family day care home. Petitioner submitted an application for re-licensure dated May 14, 2000, in which she was required to disclose the name of "everyone who lives in your home." By signing the application, Petitioner attested that the information on the application was "truthful, correct, and complete." Stephen Randall was not listed as living or residing at Petitioner's home. Respondent's investigators and independent witnesses presented credible testimony indicating that Stephen Randall was residing in Petitioner's residence (the registered day care home) during the calendar year 2000. In particular, an abuse report of an incident in January 2000, indicates that Petitioner reported that she "left her teenage son in the home" purportedly to supervise the children left in Petitioner's care; in June 2000, Petitioner again told an investigator, that if she wasn't there her son, Stephen Randall, her daughter or husband watch the children. In addition, independent witnesses, whose children were at the day care home, reported repeatedly seeing Stephen Randall there. Stephen Randall was living in the residence of Petitioner, which was a registered day care home, during the calendar year 2000 and had not been screened as required by Florida Statutes because Petitioner did not advise Respondent that he had returned and was residing in the home. Respondent investigated two Florida Protective Services abuse hotline complaints against Petitioner and determined the complaints to be well-founded. In both instances, Petitioner failed to properly supervise children left in her care and, as a result, failed to ensure the safety of the children. Independent witnesses confirmed the abuse hotline complaints and presented other complaints, all confirming that Petitioner failed to properly supervise children left in her care and failed to ensure their safety.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Family Services deny Petitioner's application for re-licensure of her family day care home. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of May, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JEFF B. CLARK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of May, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard Cato, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 400 West Robinson Street Suite S-1106 Orlando, Florida 32801-1782 James Sweeting, III, Esquire 506 West Washington Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Paul Flounlacker, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204B Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Josie Tomayo, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent should have granted Petitioner a license to operate a family day care home.
Findings Of Fact In January 1992, Petitioner operated a foster home for dependent children. The foster home was licensed by Respondent's predecessor, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (hereinafter referred to as Respondent). In January 1992, Respondent received a report that Petitioner and her husband, Jim Shell, had meted out bizarre and excessive punishments to the children in their foster home. The report also alleged that Petitioner tied the younger foster children into their cribs at night. This report resulted in an investigation by Respondent. In the year prior to the initiation of the investigation, the following children stayed in Petitioner's foster home: H.S. (d.o.b. 4-6-89); S.S. (d.o.b. 10-1-86); T.H. (d.o.b. 5-3-89); S.A.C. (d.o.b. 9-18-88); B.Y. (d.o.b. 11-2-80) and G.Y. (d.o.b. 12-2-82. H.S. and S.S. were sisters. S.A.C., B.Y. and G.Y. were siblings. T.H. was mentally retarded. Petitioner gave B.Y. more household duties in the home than would be expected as chores for a child of her age. These responsibilities included housecleaning, laundry and child care. Additionally, Petitioner often kept B.Y. home from school to do housework. To excuse B.Y.'s absence, Petitioner would write notes to the school, falsely stating that B.Y. had a doctor's note and stayed home sick. B.Y. and G.Y. were forced to do push-ups as punishment for minor infractions. Petitioner's testimony that the children were required to do these push-ups as a joke or game is not persuasive. Mr. Shell spanked G.Y. for mis-reciting spelling words. This occurred once a week. On one occasion, B.Y. observed Mr. Shell hit G.Y. on the buttocks with a two by four. On another occasion, Mr. Shell jerked S.A.C. off a trampoline in the backyard, spanked her and threw her onto the ground. As a result of this rough treatment, S.A.C.'s head struck a tree. Petitioner regularly tied H.S.; S.S.; T.H.; and S.A.C. into their cribs at night because they would get up after being put down for the night. When B.Y. untied the children, Petitioner told her that when the children are tied up, they are supposed to remain that way. There was great strife in the Shell household. Petitioner and her husband often argued. For example, on B.Y's first night in the home, Petitioner hit Mr. Shell on the head with a frying pan. It is contrary to Department policy to physically restrain or punish children in foster care. Foster parents learn this in the training they receive before receiving their foster care licenses. Notwithstanding Petitioner's claim that she is separated from her husband, they continue to live under one roof. The house they live in is on the same property where Petitioner intends to operate a family day care home. The foregoing facts, among others, were set forth in the Respondent's final investigative report, Florida Protective Services System Abuse Report Number 92-007405. On April 22, 1992, the Respondent sent a certified letter to Petitioner informing her that the investigative report had been classified as proposed confirmed, that she had the right to request that Respondent amend or expunge the report, and that any such request would be considered only if received by Respondent within sixty days of her receipt of the April 22, 1992 letter. The letter contained the following language: If you do nothing, your right to appeal the classification of the report will be completely barred. By not choosing [to ask for amendment or expungement], this report will automatically be classified as CONFIRMED. This means that you do not contest the department's right to maintain the report findings as stated, including your identification as a perpetrator. A perpetrator in a confirmed report of abuse, neglect or exploitation may be disqualified from working in certain positions of trust, including working with children, disabled adults or aged persons. (Emphasis supplied). Petitioner signed the acknowledgment of receipt for the April 22, 1992, letter on April 27, 1992. She never requested amendment or expungement of the investigative report. Because neither amendment nor expungement of the report was sought, the confirmed classification became final agency action sixty days after Petitioner's receipt of the letter on April 27, 1992. In other words, the agency action became final on June 26, 1992. No appeal was taken from this action.1 In 1994, the Agency for Health Care Administration granted Petitioner an exemption from disqualification from employment in positions covered by Section 400.512, Florida Statutes. That section discusses the requirement for employment screening, using level 1 standards, for home health agency personnel, persons referred for employment by nurse registries, and persons employed by sitter, companion, or homemaker services registered under Section 400.509, Florida Statutes. The record does not indicate whether the Agency for Health Care Administration conducted an evidentiary hearing before making its decision to grant Petitioner the exemption.
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 denying the application of Petitioner Patricia Shell to operate a registered family day care home. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of November, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of November, 1998.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner's application for licensure to operate a family day care home should be denied.
Findings Of Fact On June 6, 2008, Petitioner applied for a license to operate a family day care home in Bartow, Florida. As part of the licensure process, the Department is required to conduct an inspection of the home where Petitioner's proposed family day care would be operated. The inspections are conducted by the Department's family safety counselors. Patricia Step was the family safety counselor initially responsible for conducting the licensure inspection of Petitioner's home. On February 20, 2009, prior to conducting the actual inspection, Ms. Step completed a preliminary walk-through of Petitioner's home. The purpose of the walk-through was to advise Petitioner of areas of her home and property that were not in compliance with required standards and needed to be corrected or addressed prior to the licensure inspection. After completing the initial walk-through, Ms. Step listed the areas that needed to be corrected or addressed prior to the licensure inspection in preliminary review notes, which she gave to Petitioner. Those areas were as follows: (1) a fence at least four feet high was needed around the playground area in the backyard; (2) the alarm on one of the two doors in the master bedroom, specifically, the master bathroom door leading to the pool, needed to be repaired; (3) the screen door needed to be locked from the inside so that a child playing outside could not access the swimming pool5; and (4) locks needed to be placed on kitchen cabinets containing cleaning supplies and other harmful items, and knives needed to be placed in upper cabinets. On February 27, 2009, a week after the initial walk-through, Ms. Step conducted a licensure inspection of Petitioner's home. This date was mutually agreed upon by Petitioner and Ms. Step on February 20, 2009, after Petitioner indicated that she could have the four areas of non-compliance corrected or addressed in a week. During the licensure inspection, Ms. Step determined that Petitioner had addressed and/or corrected three of the four items listed in the preliminary review. The one item that had not been addressed was the "pool alarm on the [master bathroom] door" leading to the swimming pool. The alarm on the master bathroom door was part of Brinks' alarm system that included all the other doors in the house which led outside or to the pool area. Petitioner and her husband had this "high tech" alarm system installed after the April 23, 2006, incident discussed below. The alarm system could be programmed to allow each interior door to cause either the alarm to sound or a "chiming sound" when anyone opened the interior door to exit the house. At the time of the inspection, all the interior doors leading to the pool were programmed so that when the alarm system was turned on, the alarm would sound if anyone opened those doors.6 Except for the master bathroom door, the alarm on all the other doors leading to the pool were working properly. Ms. Step recorded the results of the February 27, 2009, inspection on the Department's Inspection Checklist form ("Inspection Checklist"). Of the 38 areas listed on the Inspection Checklist, Ms. Step indicated that Petitioner's application and/or home were non-compliant in two areas-- background screening and swimming pools. In the area of background screening, Ms. Step noted that there was no local criminal background check on file for Carlos Granados, Petitioner's cousin who was temporarily living in Petitioner's household. In the area of swimming pools, Ms. Step noted two areas of non-compliance: (1) the swimming pool at Petitioner's home was not properly maintained; and (2) the "pool alarm" was inoperable. Although the Inspection Checklist noted that the "pool alarm" was inoperable, Ms. Step never told Petitioner that a "pool alarm" needed to be in the swimming pool. Rather, Ms. Step spoke to Petitioner only about the need to repair the alarm on the master bathroom door that led to the pool.7 Based on Ms. Step's statements to Petitioner about the "alarm" and her preliminary review notes, both Ms. Step and Petitioner understood the reference to "pool alarm" on the Inspection Checklist to mean the alarm on the master bathroom door. The Inspection Checklist completed on February 27, 2009, specified that the "due date" to correct the non-compliant areas was April 3, 2009. After completing the licensure inspection on February 27, 2009, Ms. Step intended to return to Petitioner's home to determine if the non-compliant areas had been brought into compliance. However, Ms. Step never returned to Petitioner's home. Instead, Vicki Richmond, a family safety counselor, followed up on Petitioner's progress in addressing the non-compliant areas8 while she was at Petitioner's home conducting a complaint investigation.9 On March 13, 2009, nine months after Petitioner submitted her licensure application, Ms. Richmond conducted a Central Abuse Hotline search on Petitioner and her husband as part of the application review process. The Department is required to search the records of the Central Abuse Hotline for reports of abuse, neglect, or abandonment. This search provides information as to whether Petitioner's name appears in those records, and, if so, whether there were "verified" indicators of maltreatment of children. Both Petitioner and her husband consented to this search. The Central Abuse Hotline search revealed a verified report for inadequate supervision by Petitioner and her husband and some indicators of maltreatment, asphyxiation. The report involved an incident that occurred on April 23, 2006, in which Petitioner and her husband's then three-year-old daughter almost drowned. On or about March 13, 2009, Ms. Richmond notified Ms. Step of the report and advised her that the verified findings needed to be addressed prior to proceeding with the license. On March 20, 2009, while driving across Highway 60 in the Bartow area, Ms. Richmond saw a sign with the name of Petitioner's prospective family day care home and her address and telephone number. Concerned that the sign did not include a license number, Ms. Richmond contacted the licensing office to verify whether Petitioner's home was a licensed family day care home. She was advised that Petitioner's licensure application was "pending" and had not been approved. Ms. Richmond then called Ms. Step to check the status of Petitioner's licensure application. During that conversation, Ms. Step reminded Ms. Richmond that this was the applicant for whom she (Richmond) had recently done the Central Abuse Hotline search. On March 23, 2009, as part of the complaint investigation about Petitioner's sign, Ms. Richmond made an unannounced visit to Petitioner's home. Ms. Richmond advised Petitioner that it was illegal for her to post a sign advertising her home as a family day care home before it was licensed. In response, Petitioner informed Ms. Richmond that after the February 27, 2009, licensure inspection, she (Petitioner) had been told that she could put a sign up and start a waiting list of people interested in day care services. After hearing Petitioner's explanation, Ms. Richmond then told Petitioner that "if" she put up a sign prior to licensure, the sign had to "at least" include in bold letters, "License Pending." On March 23, 2009, immediately after addressing the "sign" issue, Ms. Richmond conducted an unannounced or inspection walk-through of Petitioner's home and discussed issues with Petitioner that Ms. Richmond believed were of concern to the Department. During the walk-through, Petitioner advised Ms. Richmond that the "door alarm" had not yet been repaired. Among the issues Ms. Richmond raised and discussed with Petitioner were: (1) the need to install either a pool alarm or portable pool barriers; (2) the pool was not clean and was only partially filled with water; (3) the spa in the backyard needed a cover; (4) the local criminal background check for Petitioner's cousin had not been received. Ms. Richmond described to Petitioner and her husband two options related to the swimming pool--the "portable pool barriers" and a "pool alarm." In describing the "pool alarm," Ms. Richmond indicated that it was a device that was placed in the pool. She further explained that with this type of "pool alarm," if a child fell in the swimming pool, the alarm would sound. Although the alarm on the master bathroom door was not working on March 23, 2009, Petitioner's husband was making efforts to get the door alarm repaired. However, that day, Ms. Richmond told Petitioner and her husband that even if the alarm on the master bathroom door was repaired, they still needed to have an alarm in the pool. In response to this directive, Petitioner agreed that they would install a "pool alarm" in the swimming pool. After completing the March 23, 2009, walk-through, Ms. Richmond informed Petitioner that the items she had discussed needed to be corrected prior to a license being granted. However, no written documentation was provided to Petitioner regarding the areas of non-compliance discussed during the walk-through or inspection. Ms. Richmond returned to Petitioner's home on March 27, 2009, for her second unannounced visit, which was described as a follow-up to her "complaint investigation." Once there, Ms. Richmond observed that the sign advertising the family day care home was still displayed. However, Petitioner's husband came home while Ms. Richmond was there and immediately took down the sign. During the March 27, 2009, unannounced complaint investigation visit, Petitioner told Ms. Richmond that the alarm on the master bathroom door was not working. About that time, Petitioner's husband arrived and told Ms. Richmond that he had purchased a pool alarm and even showed her the alarm. The "pool alarm" was purchased in response to Ms. Richmond's directive during the March 23, 2009, walk-through but had not been put in the pool, because the pool had not yet been cleaned.10 At the end of the March 27, 2009, unannounced visit, Ms. Richmond talked to Petitioner and her husband about the verified abuse/neglect report regarding the April 23, 2006, incident in which their daughter almost drowned. The findings in the report were "verified" for inadequate supervision by Petitioner and her husband. Given the implications of the abuse/neglect report, Ms. Richmond explained that although Petitioner needed to address the areas of non-compliance, the most pressing and immediate concern was the abuse/neglect report. Petitioner's husband testified credibly that during the conversation described in paragraph 23, Ms. Richmond told him and Petitioner that because of the abuse/neglect report, there was "no way" Petitioner would get a family day care home license. Based on that comment, Petitioner and her husband reasonably believed that Petitioner's application would be denied because of the abuse/neglect report. On March 27, 2009, after being told about the abuse/neglect report and the ramifications of that report, Petitioner and her husband "stopped moving forward" on the areas of non-compliance related to the swimming pool (i.e., cleaning the pool and installing the pool alarm).11 Believing the abuse/neglect report would result in denial of her licensure application, Petitioner and her husband began to focus on issues related to the report. They were also concerned and had questions about the Department's licensing process as it related to the abuse/neglect report. Ms. Richmond's third visit to Petitioner's home was on April 7, 2009. The sole purpose of that visit was to answer the "real" questions that Petitioner and her husband had about the abuse/neglect report and the licensing process. Ms. Richmond answered their questions as best she could, but recommended that they schedule an appointment with the licensing supervisor at the licensing office.12 That same day, Petitioner and her husband scheduled a meeting and met with Sheila Nobles, administrator and supervisor for child care licensing, to discuss, ask questions about, and review the abuse/neglect report. On April 8, 2009, Ms. Richmond finalized her "report" on the complaint investigation regarding the sign. Ms. Richmond's notes in the "comment" section of the pre-printed "Notice to Cease and Desist" form described the events of March 20, 23 and 27, 2009, as they related to the sign issue.13 Decision to Deny Application As the family safety counselor responsible for reviewing Petitioner's application and conducting the licensure inspections, Ms. Step recommended to Ms. Nobles that Petitioner's license be denied. Ms. Step's recommendation was based on the verbal reports provided to her by Ms. Richmond, which indicated that the areas of non-compliance on the Inspection Checklist had not been corrected. Prior to making a decision about Petitioner's application, Ms. Nobles reviewed the application file, the abuse/neglect report, the Inspection Checklist and the preliminary review notes. Ms. Nobles testified that she considered the "five different inspections"14 of Petitioner's home and property by the two licensing counselors, the areas of non-compliance that had not been corrected, and the abuse/neglect report with a "verified" finding of inadequate supervision. The Central Abuse Hotline Report Applicants seeking licensure to operate a family day care home are required to undergo a Level II screening. That screening included a check to determine if the applicant had a report in the Central Abuse Hotline. Due to concern for the safety of children, the Department is authorized to deny a family day care home license if the applicant has a verified abuse/neglect report. Because of its concern about the safety of children in Petitioner's care, the Department alleges that the abuse/neglect report revealed during a Central Abuse Hotline search is ground for denying Petitioner's license. As it relates to the abuse/neglect report, the denial letter states in relevant part: The Department has documented a verified abuse neglect report whereby your then 3-year-old daughter was not supervised correctly on June 21, 2006.[sic][15] These actions allowed your child to wonder [sic] outside the family swimming pool were [sic] she was found after an undetermined time under water and not breathing. During the investigation it was determined that the lock to get access [presumably to the pool] had been broken for a few days. The abuse/neglect report was initiated when a call was received by the Central Abuse Hotline on April 23, 2006. According to the intake-report, an incident occurred at Petitioner's and her husband's home in which their then three- year-old daughter ("child") almost drowned. Jermaine Turner, a child protective investigator ("CPI"), was assigned to investigate the incident. As the investigator, CPI Turner was responsible for making contact with the family of the child and other appropriate individuals. During the investigation, CPI Turner worked under the supervision and direction of Terry Lynn Reinhardt, a child protective supervisor. As CPI Turner's supervisor, Ms. Reinhardt had contact with CPI Turner and gave him directives related to follow-up activities on case-related matters. The abuse/neglect report includes a summary of notes which purport to summarize interviews CPI Turner conducted with Petitioner and her husband on May 18, 2006, about a month after the subject incident. Petitioner's husband recalled that this interview was conducted by telephone. Ms. Reinhardt testified that CPI Turner interviewed the child's parents and also made telephone contact with them to follow-up on an issue involving a "broken door." Ms. Reinhardt was not present at the interviews that CPI Turner conducted with Petitioner and her husband. Thus, she had no first-hand knowledge of what, if anything, they said to CPI Turner. Rather, Ms. Reinhardt relied on CPI Turner's verbal reports to her and the notes and summaries in the abuse/neglect report attributed to him. CPI Turner did not testify at this proceeding. Moreover, no competent evidence was presented regarding any entries (i.e., notes, comments, and/or interview summaries) in the abuse/neglect report attributed to CPI Turner. The case was closed on June 21, 2006, and the findings and conclusions in the matter were summarized in a two-page document titled, Investigative Summary. The Investigative Summary includes an "updated" note dated June 6, 2006, that provided: "The child . . . was left to watch cartoons; however, she was found face down in a swimming pool. The lock to get access from the pool to the house had been broke [sic] for approximately two day [sic]. They stated they planned to fix the lock but never got around to it." No evidence was presented as to who made the "updated" note or the source of the information in that note. After the investigation was complete, Ms. Reinhardt concluded that there were "some indicators" of maltreatment, asphyxiation, and verified findings of inadequate supervision as to both parents. In reaching that conclusion, Ms. Reinhardt relied on information provided by Mr. Turner and then applied the Department's CFOP 175-28 in reaching those conclusions. Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C-30.001(6) incorporates by reference the "Allegation Matrix" set forth in the Department's CFOP 175-28. Pursuant to that rule, the "Allegation Matrix" is a document that defines specific types of abuse, neglect or abandonment; guides staff in determining whether abuse, neglect or abandonment has occurred; and assists in ensuring that all factors are considered when assessing each type of maltreatment. The Department's CFOP 175-28 was not offered into evidence during this proceeding. Based on the conclusion reached by Ms. Reinhardt, the abuse/neglect report was closed on June 21, 2006, with the finding of some indicators of maltreatment, asphyxiation, and verified findings of inadequate supervision. Notwithstanding those findings, the Investigative Summary reflects that there was no prior history of abuse or neglect and no criminal history. Moreover, the Investigative Summary indicated that no intervention services were needed, no placement outside the home was required, and no judicial action was required. Finally, Petitioner and her husband were not given any safety plan to implement. The April 23, 2006, incident was also investigated by the Polk County Sheriff's Office ("Sheriff's Office"). That investigation included at least two or three detectives and/or officers taking and tape recording sworn statements from Petitioner, her husband, and her father-in-law. All of these sworn statements were "in-person" interviews taken within 24 hours of the incident. Petitioner's husband testified credibly that the written summaries of the sworn statements taken by the Sheriff's Office detectives, particularly that of Detective Wharton, accurately reflect not only the substance of the interviews, but also what actually occurred on April 23, 2006. Petitioner's husband testified credibly about the facts related to the April 23, 2006, incident and the accuracy of written summaries of the tape-recorded sworn statements taken by detectives as set forth below in paragraphs 51 through 60. On April 23, 2006, Petitioner was in the family pool with her then three-year-old daughter. While Petitioner and her daughter were in the pool, Petitioner's husband and his father arrived at the house. Petitioner then went into the house to prepare dinner and her husband stayed at the pool with the child. Shortly thereafter, Petitioner's husband removed the child from the pool, took off the floatation device the child was wearing while in the pool, took her into the house, and then closed and locked the bottom lock of the door. Once in the house, Mr. Best put on a movie for his daughter in her bedroom and then told his wife that the child was in the room watching a movie. The child left the bedroom and went to the kitchen where her mother was preparing dinner. For some time, the child went back and forth between the kitchen, playing near her mother and/or "helping" her mother, and the living room where she (the child) was sitting on the floor watching cartoons on television. The kitchen and living room were adjacent rooms with a large opening between them which allowed a person in one room to see into the other room. When Mr. Best and his daughter went into the house, his father (the child's grandfather) was taking a shower. A few minutes later, after taking his shower and getting dressed, the child's paternal grandfather got out his new video camera and went to the kitchen/living room area to videotape his granddaughter while she was playing. He videotaped her playing for several minutes and then went to the bedroom to put away the video camera. It took the child's grandfather about two or three minutes to put away his video camera and return to the kitchen area. When the grandfather returned to the kitchen/living room area, he asked Petitioner where the child was. Believing the child was in the living room, Petitioner told her father-in-law that the child was in the living room looking at television. Petitioner then went into the living room to look for the child and discovered she was not there. Petitioner then immediately went outside to the patio and saw the child laying face down in the pool. Petitioner screamed for help, jumped in the pool and lifted the child from the water. Petitioner's husband was close enough to the kitchen/living room area that he heard the exchange between his father and Petitioner about the child's whereabouts and Petitioner's subsequent scream. Within a few seconds, Petitioner's husband ran from the house, jumped in the pool, removed his daughter from the pool, and placed her on the pool deck. Once the child was on the pool deck, the child's father and her grandfather immediately began administering CPR while Petitioner called 911. They continued performing CPR on the child until the emergency medical services and the fire department arrived on the scene. Both parents reported to detectives investigating the incident that the child knew how to open and unlock doors. Based on the facts established at or near the time of the incident, it was concluded that the child slipped out of the house and went undetected for about two or three minutes. Petitioner and her husband described the child's "slipping out of the house" as unusual and something she had never done prior to April 23, 2006. Until that day, the child had never gone off on her own and had been fearful of and never gotten into the swimming pool at that house. (Petitioner and her family had moved to this house only two or three months before the incident.) Based on its investigation, which included sworn statements by Petitioner, her husband, and her father-in-law, the Sheriff's Office concluded that the April 23, 2006, incident was an accident. The Department does not disagree with the conclusion reached by the Sheriff's Office (i.e., the April 23, 2006, incident was an accident). Nevertheless, according to Ms. Reinhardt, irrespective of whether the incident was an accident or done on purpose, the Department still found "verified" indicators of inadequate supervision, because the child got out of the house and into the pool and almost drowned. The factual allegations in the report upon which the Department relied were not established by competent and substantial evidence. In absence of such evidence, the Department's verified finding of inadequate supervision has not been proven. The record in this case is devoid of any evidence to establish the Department's finding of any indicators of maltreatment. Therefore, the Department's findings that there were "some" indicators of maltreatment has not been proven. Alarm on the Master Bathroom Door The Department alleges that during the applicable time period, the swimming pool at Petitioner's home did not comply with the requirements in Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C-20.010(1)(i). That rule requires that swimming pools at least one-foot-deep have either a barrier at least four-feet- high around the pool, separating the pool from the house, or a pool alarm that is operable at all times when children are in their care. There was conflicting and inconsistent information provided to Petitioner as to whether a "pool alarm" that floats in the swimming pool was required instead of a door alarm, which is also apparently referred to as a pool alarm. Despite any confusion that may have been caused by the different representations made to Petitioner, it is undisputed that the preliminary review notes and the Inspection Checklist clearly indicate that Petitioner was required to repair the alarm on the master bathroom door which led to the pool. It appears that Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C-20.010(1)(i) refers to door alarms as pool alarms. Petitioner's husband testified credibly that he attempted to have the door repaired by service personnel of the alarm company that installed the alarm system, but has been unsuccessful in doing so. In light of these futile attempts, Petitioner's husband purchased a battery-operated door. However, it is unknown when the battery-operated door was purchased, whether it has been installed, and, if so, how it works. The alarm on the door of the master bathroom had not been repaired by the April 3, 2009, "due date" or any time thereafter, nor had any acceptable alternatives been installed. Maintenance of the Swimming Pool The Department alleges that the swimming pool at Petitioner's home was not clean and maintained as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C-20.010(1)(j). That Rule requires that if a family day care home uses a swimming pool, it shall be maintained by using chlorine and other suitable chemicals. Petitioner acknowledges that, at all times relevant hereto, the swimming pool at her home was not clean and properly maintained. Some time after the denial letter was issued, Petitioner's swimming pool was emptied, a full-processed cleaning was completed, and the pool was filled with water. However, a leak in a light in the pool was discovered. In order to repair that leak, the pool had to be emptied. At the time of this proceeding, the leak was being repaired. Once the leak is fixed, the pool can be filled with water and the "pool alarm" that floats in the pool can be installed. Local Law Enforcement Background Check The application process requires that each person living in the home that will serve as the family day care home have a background screening. Such background screening includes a check by the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI"), the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE"), and a local criminal history check. In February 2009, Petitioner's cousin, Carlos Granados, was living with Petitioner and her husband. Accordingly, Mr. Granados was required to have a local criminal history check, and a copy of that criminal history check was to be provided to the Department. Petitioner testified credibly that she submitted all the documents for completion of Mr. Granados' background checks and could not explain why the Department did not receive the local criminal history check for Mr. Granados.16 The evidence established that Mr. Granados no longer lives in Petitioner's home. Therefore, the Department does not need, and is not required to have, a local criminal history check for him.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Finding of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Department of Children and Family Services, enter a final order: (1) finding that Petitioner, Best Family Day Care Home, failed to meet the standards in Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C-20.010(1)(i) and (j); and (2) denying Petitioner's application for a family day care home on those grounds. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of February, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 9th day of February, 2010.
The Issue At issue in this case is whether Petitioner's application to register as a family day care home should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing, and the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: This case involves Petitioner's application to operate a registered family child care home. Petitioner had been registered as a family child care home from April 1989 to June 1992 and again from February 1995 to August 1998. The Department received Petitioner's most recent application on September 6, 2000. The Department regulates three types of day care facilities. In descending order of regulatory oversight, they are a licensed child care facility, a licensed family child care home, and a registered family child care home. Sections 402.305 and 402.313, Florida Statutes. While the first two categories of facilities require annual on-site Department inspections, background screening for all personnel, training, and more extensive paperwork, a registered family day care center involves no Department inspections and only requires that the operator complete a training course and provide to the Department certain paperwork and that the operator and other household members undergo background screening. The operator of a registered family day care home may care for no more than five preschool children from more than one unrelated family. Subsection 402.302(7), Florida Statutes. The application requires disclosure of "other family/household members." Petitioner's application identified David Barcelona as a household member and stated that his family relationship was "friend (roommate)." During her previous periods of registration, Petitioner had been the subject of numerous complaints to the Department. In May 1989, the Department notified Petitioner that she had been found to be caring for more than five preschool children. Petitioner acknowledged that she was operating above capacity, but assured the Department that the situation would be rectified by June 1, 1989. Nonetheless, complaints regarding the number of children at Petitioner's home persisted through at least June 1991. The Department also received several complaints concerning drug use in Petitioner's home. In September 1995, a complaint alleged that Petitioner and several other adults were seen smoking marijuana in the home. A complaint filed by a parent in February 1996 stated that the parent could smell marijuana on his children when he picked them up from Petitioner's home. A complaint from November 1996 stated that Petitioner was seen smoking marijuana in the presence of the children in her care. In each instance, the Department wrote a letter to Petitioner. The Department's letter of February 26, 1996, is representative and is quoted in relevant part: As a registered family day care home, you are not statutorily required to meet all the child care standards established in [then] Rule 10M-12 or 10M-10 of the Florida Administrative Code. In addition, Chapter 402.302-313 of the Florida Statutes does not provide the department with any statutory authority to regulate complaints of this nature within registered family day care homes. However, in the interest of safety and proper child care, we wanted to bring the complaint to your attention so that you might correct the issues as appropriate. Providing care for any child is very important. It is our hope that you are not engaging in any illegal or inappropriate activities which [sic] operating your child care business. During the Department's investigations of these complaints, Petitioner consistently denied that she used any illegal drugs. On August 10, 1998, the Department received a complaint that an unsupervised child was seen outside in the rain at Petitioner's house. On the same date, the Department received another complaint regarding Petitioner's live-in boyfriend, David Barcellona, and whether his presence rendered her home an unsafe environment for children. The complaint stated that Mr. Barcellona had not undergone background screening and had admitted to hitting one of Petitioner's own children. The complaint also stated that children reported witnessing Petitioner's use of marijuana and crack cocaine in the home. These complaints were resolved when Petitioner ceased providing child care. She sold her house and voluntarily relinquished her registration. A child protective services investigation was also commenced on August 10, 1998, by investigator Daniel McLean. His investigation confirmed that Mr. Barcellona had hit Petitioner's ten-year-old son "upside the head with an open hand" because the boy had called him a "faggot." Petitioner had given Mr. Barcellona permission to physically discipline her children. The children expressed a fear of living in the home with Mr. Barcellona. No observable injuries were found on either Petitioner's son or her eight-year-old daughter. Mr. McLean testified that Petitioner told him at least twice that she had smoked marijuana for 15 years. Mr. McLean attempted several times to obtain a drug screen from Petitioner without success. At length, Mr. McLean informed Petitioner that the Department would begin legal proceedings if Petitioner did not voluntarily surrender custody of her children to their natural father. On August 13, 1998, Petitioner signed the papers giving custody of the children to their natural father. She testified that "I picked the drugs over my children at that time." The evidence admitted at hearing established that, despite her denials, Petitioner had been a long-time user of marijuana. By her own admission, Petitioner was addicted to crack cocaine for a period of at least three months in 1998. Petitioner's sister, Lisa Lucius, estimated Petitioner's crack usage lasted for six months. Mr. McLean testified that Petitioner told him she had been using crack for seven months. At some point in 1999, Petitioner shoplifted a pair of tennis shoes, was arrested, and placed on one year's probation for petit theft. Her probation was conditioned upon her entering a 28-day live-in drug rehabilitation and counseling program at the Ruth Cooper Center in Fort Myers. Petitioner successfully completed this program. Another condition of her probation was her attendance twice weekly at Alcoholics Anonymous meetings. She complied with this condition. Finally, Petitioner's probation was conditioned upon providing random urinalysis drug tests. She complied with this condition, and her tests were all drug free. Petitioner testified that she has been drug free since completing the program at the Ruth Cooper Center. Since the conclusion of her probation in 2000, she has discontinued attendance at Alcoholics Anonymous or Narcotics Anonymous meetings. She testified that she no longer has a drug problem. In the registration application at issue in this proceeding, Petitioner listed David Barcellona as a family/household member. Both Petitioner and Mr. Barcellona were required to undergo Level 2 background screening as set forth in Subsection 435.04(1), Florida Statutes. Petitioner successfully passed the background screening and was so notified by a letter from the Department dated October 24, 2000. The letter informed Petitioner that she had passed the screening, but expressly cautioned: "Receipt of this letter does not automatically qualify you for the employment, specific position or license you may be seeking. That determination will be made [by] either an employer or licensing department." The background screening disclosed potentially disqualifying offenses for David Barcellona. As of November 6, 2000, the Department had sent Mr. Barcellona a letter offering him the opportunity to provide documentation as to the disposition of those offenses, but Mr. Barcellona had not responded. On October 31, 2000, Petitioner phoned Sarah Jarabek of the Department to inquire as to the status of her application. Ms. Jarabek told Petitioner that the Department had concerns about her history of substance abuse and about the presence of Mr. Barcellona in the home. They made an appointment to meet in Ms. Jarabek's office on November 6, 2000. On November 6, 2000, Petitioner and Ms. Lucius met with Ms. Jarabek, Nancy Starr, and Patricia Richardson of the Department. Petitioner provided evidence of the drug abuse treatment she had received while on probation. She also produced documentation that she had completed the required 30- hour Family Child Care Training Course, documentation of her church attendance and completion of a single parenting program at her church, and documentation that she had taken a technical training course for legal secretaries. Ms. Jarabek testified that she accepted all of Petitioner's representations at the meeting regarding her treatment and other matters, but that concerns remained because of Petitioner's history of denying her drug use and because the lonely, pressure-filled business of family day care might prove a poor rehabilitative environment. Ms. Starr testified that she believed more time should pass for Petitioner to demonstrate that she was not subject to a relapse. Petitioner had only been off probation since March 2000, and had yet to demonstrate her stability when her activities were not being constantly monitored. Ms. Starr was also concerned because Petitioner was not currently involved in any organized program to maintain her recovery and because Petitioner had denied using drugs when the complaints were filed in 1996 through 1998. At the November 6 meeting, the Department's representatives also raised the question of Mr. Barcellona's continued presence in the house. Petitioner told them that she had broken up with Mr. Barcellona and ejected him from her house, because she thought he was smoking crack cocaine. She told them that Mr. Barcellona had continued to harass her. He would bang on her door late at night, screaming, "I love you." He would spray his cologne outside her house, to "leave his scent." Petitioner and her children were "terrified" of him, and Petitioner was in the process of obtaining a restraining order against him. Ms. Jarabek believed Petitioner's statement that Mr. Barcellona was no longer living in the house, but remained concerned for the safety of children who would be staying at Petitioner's home, given Mr. Barcellona's erratic behavior. By letter dated November 14, 2000, David Barcellona was notified that he was ineligible for a position subject to background screening. Mr. Barcellona had not responded to the prior agency letter offering him the opportunity to provide documentation regarding the disposition of the disqualifying offenses. As the applicant for registration, Petitioner received a copy of the letter to Mr. Barcellona. By letter dated December 1, 2000, the Department notified Petitioner that her application to operate a registered family child care home had been denied. The letter cited the following as grounds for the denial: the history of at least 13 complaints regarding the operation of the home during Petitioner's previous registration periods, including six complaints related to Petitioner's use of marijuana and/or cocaine in the presence of her own or other people's children; the unreported presence of Mr. Barcellona in the home during Petitioner's previous registration periods; and the lack of sufficient time and evidence to demonstrate that Petitioner was capable of providing a safe and healthy environment for children in her care. Petitioner contended that the Department waived its ability to hold her prior complaints against her now because it repeatedly allowed her to re-register during the relevant years despite those complaints. Ms. Jarabek testified that this apparent anomaly was due to a change in Department policy since Petitioner was last registered. The Department previously took the position that it was required to ignore drug usage in a registered family day care home, because Section 402.313, Florida Statutes, did not expressly provide authority to deny or revoke a registration on that ground. Ms. Jarabek testified that the Department's current interpretation of its statutory authority to supervise the provision of child care permits it to consider drug usage in the home. The December 1 letter took note of the "positive changes" in Petitioner's life, but also noted that these changes were too recent to overcome the concerns about Petitioner's past behavior and future stability.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Family Services deny Petitioner's application for registration of her family day care home. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of May, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of May, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard D. Lakeman, Esquire Law Office of Richard D. Lakeman, P.A. Post Office Box 101580 Cape Coral, Florida 33910 Eugenie G. Rehak, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services Post Office Box 60085 Fort Myers, Florida 33906 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 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
