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 The issue in this case is whether Petitioner is entitled to issuance of a license to operate a family day care home, pursuant to chapter 402, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C-20.008.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner, Shaguandra Ruffin Bullock, is an applicant for a family day care home license for the Ruffin Bullock Family Day Care Home. Respondent is the state agency responsible for licensing family day care homes in Florida. § 402.312(1), Fla. Stat. Events Giving Rise to this Proceeding A "family day care home" is an occupied residence in which child care is regularly provided for children from at least two unrelated families and which receives a payment, fee, or grant for any of the children receiving care, whether or not operated for profit. § 402.302(8), Fla. Stat. On or about July 6, 2017, Petitioner filed an application to operate a family day care home. Respondent reviewed the application and determined that it was incomplete, pending completion of the background screening required by sections 402.313(3), 402.305, and 402.3055.2/ On or about December 8, 2017, Respondent sent Petitioner a Notice of Intent to Deny Family Day Care Home Licensure ("NOI"), informing her of Respondent's intent to deny her application for a family day care home. The NOI stated, in pertinent part: On October 10, 2017, the Department received background clearance letters from child care personnel at Respondent's Family Day Care Home. Pursuant to Section 402.313(3), Florida Stat., childcare personnel in family day care homes are subject to applicable screening provisions. Pursuant to Section 402.302(15), Florida Stat. and Section 39.201(6), Florida Stat., The Department assessed the background of child care personnel at Respondent's family day care home including, but not limited to information from the central abuse hotline. The Department's assessment revealed the Respondent did not meet minimum standards for child care personnel upon screening which requires personnel to have good moral character pursuant to Section 402.305(2)(a), Florida Stat. The foregoing violates Rule 65C- 22.008(3), Fla. Admin. Code,[3/] Section 402.305(2)(a), Fla. Stat. and Section 402.313(3), Florida Stat. Based on the foregoing, Ruffin Bullock Family Day Care Home's, [sic] pending licensure application will be denied. Evidence Adduced at the Hearing At the final hearing, Respondent acknowledged that the background screening for Petitioner and her husband, Marlon Bullock, did not reveal that either had ever engaged in any of the offenses identified in section 435.04, Florida Statutes, which establishes the level 2 screening standards applicable to determining good moral character in this proceeding, pursuant to section 402.305(2)(a).4/ Rather, Respondent proposes to deny Petitioner's license application solely based on two confidential investigative summaries ("CIS reports") addressing incidents—— one involving Petitioner that occurred over 11 years ago, and one ostensibly involving Marlon Bullock that allegedly occurred almost 11 years ago. The CIS report for Intake No. 2007-310775-01 addresses an incident that occurred on or about January 16, 2007. Petitioner acknowledges that the incident addressed in the CIS report for Intake No. 2007-310775-01 occurred. Petitioner testified, credibly and persuasively, that at the time of the incident, Petitioner and her then-husband, Bernard L. Johnson, were going through a very difficult, emotionally-charged divorce. Petitioner went to Johnson's home to retrieve their minor children. An argument between her and Johnson ensued, and she threw a car jack through the back window of Johnson's vehicle. As a result of this incident, Petitioner was arrested. However, she was not prosecuted, and the charges against her were dropped. Respondent's witnesses, Ann Gleeson and Suzette Frazier, both acknowledged that they did not have any independent personal knowledge regarding the occurrence, or any aspects, of the incident reported in the CIS report for Intake No. 2007-310775-01. The other CIS report, for Intake No. 2007-455485-01, addresses an incident that ostensibly took place on September 7, 2007, involving Marlon Bullock, who is now Petitioner's husband. Petitioner was not married to Bullock at the time of the incident reported in the CIS report for Intake No. 2007- 455485-01. She credibly testified that she was completely unaware of the incident, and had no knowledge of any aspect of it, until she saw the CIS report in connection with this proceeding. Gleeson and Frazier both acknowledged that they did not have any independent knowledge regarding the occurrence, or any aspects, of the incident addressed in the CIS report for Intake No. 2007-455485-01.5/ The CIS reports and their contents are hearsay that does not fall within any exception to the hearsay rule.6/ The CIS reports and the information contained therein consist of summaries of statements made by third parties to the investigators who prepared the reports. The investigators did not have any personal knowledge about the matters addressed in the reports. It is well-established that hearsay evidence, while admissible in administrative proceedings, cannot form the sole basis of a finding of fact in such proceedings. § 120.57(1)(c), Fla. Stat. Accordingly, the CIS reports do not constitute competent, substantial, or persuasive evidence in this proceeding regarding the matters addressed in those reports. Thus, Petitioner's testimony constitutes the only competent substantial evidence in the record regarding the matters addressed in the CIS report for Intake No. 2007-310775-01, and there is no competent substantial evidence in the record regarding the matters addressed in the CIS report for Intake No. 2007-455485-01. Respondent has not adopted a rule defining the term "good moral character." Therefore, it is required to determine an applicant's "good moral character" based on the definition of that term in statute. As noted above, section 402.305(2)(a) provides that "good moral character" is determined "using the level 2 standards for screening set forth in" chapter 435. Ann Gleeson reviewed Petitioner's application for a family day care home license. She testified that based on her review of the CIS reports for Intake No. 2007-310775-01 and Intake No. 2007-455485-01, she "didn't feel comfortable" recommending approval of Petitioner's application for a family day care home license, and she recommended that the license be denied. As noted above, Gleeson did not have any personal knowledge of any of the matters in the CIS reports. She relied on the reports and their contents in making her recommendation to deny Petitioner's application. Suzette Frazier, Gleeson's supervisor, made the ultimate decision to deny Petitioner's application for the license. At the final hearing, Frazier testified that she determined that Petitioner's license should be denied based on the matters addressed in the CIS reports. Frazier testified that Petitioner's application raised particular concerns because of the two CIS reports, even though the CIS report for Marlon Bullock contained a "Findings – No Indicator" notation.7/ Frazier testified that it is Respondent's "policy" to deny an application for a family day care home license in every case in which the background screening for the applicant reveals an incident addressed in a CIS report. According to Frazier, this policy applies even if the background screening shows that the applicant does not have a history involving any of the offenses listed in section 435.04. Further to this point, when Petitioner asked Frazier at the final hearing what she (Petitioner) could do to demonstrate that she has good moral character for purposes of obtaining her license, Frazier told her that although she could reapply, she would never qualify to get the license because of the CIS reports. Frazier testified that, in her view, the CIS reports contain information indicating that both Petitioner and Marlon Bullock have a "propensity" toward violent behavior. Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 11th edition,8/ defines "propensity" as "a natural inclination or tendency." A "tendency" is "an inclination, bent, or predisposition to something." Id. An "inclination" is a "tendency toward a certain condition." Id. A "predisposition" is a "tendency to a condition or quality." Id. Frazier's view that Petitioner and Marlon Bullock have a "propensity" toward violent behavior is not supported by the competent, substantial, or persuasive evidence in the record. To the extent Frazier relies on the information contained in the CIS reports to conclude that Petitioner and Marlon Bullock have a "propensity" toward violent behavior, neither of these reports constitutes competent substantial evidence regarding the matters addressed therein. Furthermore, to the extent Petitioner acknowledges that she engaged in the conduct addressed in CIS report Intake No. 2007-310775-01, the competent, substantial, and persuasive evidence shows that this incident——which was an isolated event that occurred in the context of an extremely emotional and difficult personal event in Petitioner's life——simply does not establish that she has a "tendency" or "inclination" or "predisposition" toward violent behavior. To the contrary, the competent, persuasive evidence shows that this was a one-time event that happened over 11 years ago, that Petitioner did not have any instances of violent behavior before then, and that she has not had any instances of violent behavior since then. Far from showing a "propensity" toward violent behavior, the competent, persuasive evidence shows that Petitioner has exhibited an otherwise completely non-violent course of conduct throughout her life. Additionally, as previously noted, the evidence shows that neither Petitioner nor Marlon Bullock have any history involving any of the offenses listed in section 435.04. There is no competent substantial evidence in the record showing that Petitioner has engaged, during the past 11-plus years, in any criminal or other conduct that would present a danger to children, and there is no competent substantial evidence in the record establishing that Marlon Bullock has ever engaged in any criminal or other conduct that would present a danger to children. To the contrary, the competent substantial evidence establishes that Petitioner and Marlon Bullock are law-abiding citizens. Petitioner is employed as the manager of a department for a Wal-Mart store. Marlon Bullock is, and has worked for 23 years as, a chef. Petitioner credibly and persuasively testified that she is a Christian who attends, and actively participates in, activities with her church. Petitioner also credibly and persuasively testified that she has raised her four sons from her previous marriage to be law-abiding, upstanding citizens. None of them has ever been arrested or involved in any criminal behavior, and her three adult children are all gainfully employed. Petitioner posits, persuasively, that her children are testaments to the stability of her character and her ability to provide a safe, nurturing environment for the care of children. Frazier testified that Respondent's review of Petitioner's application showed that apart from the good moral character requirement, Petitioner's application met all other requirements to qualify for a family day care home license.9/ Findings of Ultimate Fact Although Respondent has adopted a rule, detailed in its Handbook, which establishes the background screening process for purposes of determining good moral character, Respondent has not adopted a rule defining "good moral character" or establishing, apart from the standards set forth in section 402.305(2)(a), any other substantive standards for determining "good moral character." Accordingly, pursuant to the plain language of section 402.305(2)(a), the level 2 screening standards set forth in section 435.04 are the standards that pertain in this proceeding to determine good moral character. Pursuant to the foregoing findings of fact, and based on the competent, substantial, and persuasive evidence in the record, it is found, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Petitioner and Marlon Bullock are of good moral character. Conversely, the competent, substantial, and persuasive evidence in the record does not support a determination that Petitioner and Marlon Bullock do not have good moral character. As noted above, Respondent determined, in its review of Petitioner's application, that other than the good moral character requirement, Petitioner met all other statutory and rule requirements for a family day care home license. Because it is determined, in this de novo proceeding under section 120.57(1), that Petitioner and Marlon Bullock meet the good moral character requirement, Petitioner is entitled to issuance of a family day care home license pursuant to sections 402.305(2)(a), 402.312, and 402.313 and rule 65C-20.008. Finally, it is noted that Respondent has not adopted as a rule pursuant to section 120.54(1)(a), its "policy" of denying applications for family day care home licenses in every case in which the background screening for the applicant reveals an incident addressed in a CIS report. Accordingly, pursuant to section 120.57(1)(e)1., Respondent cannot rely on or apply this "policy" to deny Petitioner's application for a family day care home license.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order granting Petitioner's license for a family day care home. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of April, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of April, 2018.
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 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
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 Whether the Department of Children and Family Services ("Department") properly revoked the Petitioner's, Elena Highland's, family child care home registration because her husband, a member of the household, has a verified abuse of report of sexual abuse of a child.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Elena Highland, is registered to operate a family day care home, located at her home. She has been so registered since March 1, 2002. W.H., the husband of Mrs. Highland, lives with her in their home where she operates the family day care home. W.H. also works outside the home. W.H. is the designated substitute for the family day care home. In March 1992, the Union County Sheriff's Department investigated the circumstances of an attempted suicide and sexual battery of a 15-year-old female victim in Case No. 92-46- CFA. During the investigation W.H. admitted to John Dempsey that he had sexual relations with the girl on one occasion, but it was consensual. W.H. was 21 years old at the time. W.H. was later arrested. The Department also investigated the case and verified Abuse Report No. 92-035063, against W.H. for the March 1992, sexual molestation of the 15 year-old victim for the following reasons: W.H. admitted to Deputy Dempsey that he had consensual sexual relations with the girl on one occasion. The victim was not dating W.H., was not "sweet" on him, and he was dating her aunt. The victim denied that the sex was consensual. The victim's suicide note and subsequent statements indicated that her suicide attempt was because W.H. had been forcing her to have sex over a three-year period. The victim's statements were consistent throughout the investigation, and she was severely depressed because of the abuse. The victim remained hospitalized for two months. The victim's mother had found her daughter's dresser blocking the door on one occasion, which was consistent with the girl's statement. The victim told her mother her brothers were bothering her. Another household member had seen W.H. supposedly ironing in the dark at the home on one occasion. W.H. stayed at the victim's home and at her grandmother's home on occasion. His family lived in the same projects complex as the victim's family. The prosecution of W.H. was dropped because the victim was to fragile and did not want to testify. Sandy Looney, day care licensing supervisor, testified that the Department's policy is never to register or license and/or revoke the registration or license of family day care homes with a household member who has a verified abuse report for sexual abuse in order to protect the children. Ms. Looney stated that Mrs. Highland's receipt of a family day care registration in March 2002 was a Department error. W.H. denied at hearing that he ever had sex with the victim and that he ever stated to Deputy Dempsey that he had consensual sex with the girl.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Administrative Complaint be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of April, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 21st day of April, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Elena Highland 1823 Southwest Judy Lane Lake City, Florida 32025 Lucy Goddard-Teel, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services Post Office Box 390, Mail Sort 3 Gainesville, Florida 32602-0390 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's license to operate a family day care home should be revoked.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony and evidence received at the hearing, the following findings are made: Parties The Department is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating child care facilities, including family day care homes. The Department routinely conducts inspections of licensed family day care homes to determine whether the home is in compliance with the applicable statutes and rules. Any problems found during the inspection are noted on a report which is provided to the home's operator immediately following the inspection. When appropriate, the inspection report provides a time frame within which the problems must be corrected. Regular inspections are conducted approximately twice a year. More frequent inspections -- monthly or every six weeks - - are conducted on family day care homes which have a provisional license rather than a standard license. The Department also conducts inspections in response to complaints it receives, and it has the authority to inspect family day care homes at any time with or without notice. Respondent is the owner and operator of a licensed family day care home located at 1218 Jordan Avenue in Orlando, Florida (hereafter "Respondent's facility" or "the facility"). Respondent and her husband reside at that address as well. Respondent has operated day care homes in Florida since 1992, and she has been involved in child care for approximately 21 years. As a result, she is or should be familiar with the rules regulating family day care homes. Respondent keeps children in the back portion of her home. The children also play in Respondent's backyard, which is enclosed by an approximately six-foot high wooden fence. A wooden gate in the fence connects Respondent's backyard to the backyard of the house immediately behind Respondent's home. That house has been rented by Annette Rodgers since November 2002. Respondent does not have a pool in her yard. Ms. Rodgers' yard does have a pool, which at the time of the Department's February 27, 2003 inspection (discussed below), was only partially filled with water. Ms. Rodgers' pool is not visible from Respondent's back yard because of the wooden fence and gate. The photographs and videotape received into evidence show that Ms. Rodgers' pool is now completely enclosed by a series of fences.4 The evidence does not clearly and convincingly establish that the fences were not in place on February 27, 2003. Indeed, the weeds and high grass which can be seen along the base of and around the posts of the chain-link fence and the discoloration on some of the fence posts indicate that at least that fence has been in place for quite some time.5 Previous Inspections of Respondent's Facility and Actions Taken by the Department Respondent's facility was inspected on May 28, June 14, and September 30, 2002. Several areas of noncompliance were identified during each of those inspections, including inadequate supervision of children, unsafe storage of chemicals, evidence of roaches in the home, and incomplete enrollment and health records for the children at the home. On each occasion, Respondent was given a period of time within which to correct the areas of noncompliance. The inadequate supervision for which Respondent was cited in June 14, 2002, involved several children playing unsupervised in Respondent's carport area, which has access to the street; several children playing in the backyard under the "supervision" of Respondent's mother, who was not an authorized caregiver; and several children playing unsupervised on the porch area in the vicinity of tools and small screws. The Department issued Respondent a provisional license on October 28, 2002, presumably as part of the license renewal process. The provisional license was based upon Respondent's history of noncompliance with the Department's minimum standards, and it was valid through April 2, 2003, unless Respondent applied for an received a change in license status (which she apparently did not) or "if the license is suspended or revoked by the Department." A provisional license is issued where the Department has continued concerns regarding the day care home's compliance with the applicable statutes and rules. A provisional license is issued in lieu of denying a license renewal or suspending or revoking the home's license. A provisional license gives the licensee an opportunity to correct the areas of noncompliance, and because such homes are inspected more frequently, the Department has an opportunity to monitor the licensee's progress. On October 29, 2002, Respondent was assessed an administrative fine of $100.00 based upon deficiencies identified during the May 28 and June 14, 2002, inspections. The fine was based primarily upon the incident described above involving inadequate supervision of the children at the home. Respondent apparently did not contest the administrative fine or the issuance of the provisional license rather than a standard license. Despite the provisional license and the administrative fine, the Department's inspections continued to identify areas of noncompliance at Respondent's facility. For example, the November 14, 2002, inspection identified "evidence of rodents/vermin in the home" as well as incomplete enrollment and immunization records for the children in the home. The December 18, 2002, inspection identified these same deficiencies, including "live roaches in the children's area and the kitchen," as well as the storage of plastic shopping bags and chemicals which can pose dangers to children in an unlocked cabinet accessible to the children. These violations were the same as or similar to those for which Respondent had been previously cited and which led to the imposition of the administrative fine and issuance of the provisional license. The Department did not take immediate action to suspend or revoke Respondent's license based upon the results of the November 14 and December 18, 2002, inspections. Instead, the Department continued to give Respondent an opportunity to bring her home into compliance with the minimum standards in the Department's licensing rules and statutes. Inspection of Respondent's Facility on February 27, 2003 The Department next inspected Respondent's facility on February 27, 2003. That inspection was conducted by Department employee Brandi Blanchard. Ms. Blanchard had been responsible for inspecting Respondent's facility since at least September 2002, so she was familiar with the layout of the facility and its history of noncompliance. Respondent testified that Ms. Blanchard, unlike the prior inspector, had been "very good to her." Ms. Blanchard arrived at Respondent's facility by car between 8:30 a.m. and 8:45 a.m. As she arrived, Respondent was pulling her car into the driveway/carport at the facility. Ms. Blanchard parked her car directly behind Respondent's car. Ms. Blanchard got out of her car as Respondent was getting out of hers, and she said, "Hello, Ms. Alli," to Respondent. Upon seeing Ms. Blanchard, Respondent quickly went into the house through the carport door. Ms. Blanchard followed Respondent into the facility. Ms. Blanchard lost sight of Respondent as she went down a hallway towards the back of the house where the children were located. The backdoor of the house was open, and by the time that Ms. Blanchard caught up with Respondent, Respondent was directing the children through the facility's backyard towards the back gate connecting Respondent's yard to Ms. Rodgers' yard. Several of the children, led by Ms. Rodgers' 14-year-old son carrying an infant in a car seat and Ms. Rodgers' 13-year-old son carrying a toddler had already reached Ms. Rodgers' yard. Ms. Blanchard told Respondent to stop and return to the facility with the children, which she did. Ms. Blanchard went through the open gate onto Ms. Rodgers' property and directed Ms. Rodgers' sons to return to Respondent's facility with the children, which they did. While on Ms. Rodgers' property, Ms. Blanchard saw a partially-filled swimming pool and other ongoing construction. Ms. Blanchard did not notice any fencing around the pool and saw one of the children, which she estimated to be three or four years old, walking in the construction area close to the edge of the pool. After the children had been returned, Ms. Blanchard assessed the situation and commenced her inspection of the remainder of Respondent's facility. Ms. Blanchard found roach droppings in the bathtub and in other locations in the facility. Respondent acknowledged a roach problem, but claimed that she had an exterminator working on the problem and that he was due to come out and treat the facility. Respondent did not present any documentation to Ms. Blanchard to corroborate her claims regarding the exterminator, nor did she introduce such documentation at the hearing. Ms. Blanchard found plastic bags in an unlocked cabinet accessible to the children. Respondent acknowledged at the hearing that the bags were in the cabinet and further acknowledged the suffocation danger that they posed to young children. Ms. Blanchard's review of the facility's records identified missing enrollment and immunization records for the children in the home. However, Ms. Blanchard did not document the children whose records were missing and she did not determine whether, as Respondent claimed at the time and in her testimony at the hearing, any of the missing records were for students who had enrolled in Respondent's facility within the prior two weeks. Ms. Blanchard documented the results of her inspection, including the events surrounding the movement of the children to Ms. Rodgers' yard on her inspection report. The inspection report identified each of the violations that she observed, including inadequate supervision based upon Respondent's absence from the facility, unsafe storage of materials dangerous to children (i.e., plastic bags) in a location accessible to the children, evidence of roaches, incomplete enrollment and immunization records, and more than the allowed number of children in the home. Ms. Blanchard also cited Respondent's facility for the dangers posed by Ms. Rodgers' pool since the children were being taken onto Ms. Rodgers' property. With respect to the citation for having too many children, Ms. Blanchard's inspection report did not include any detailed information about the children such as their names (or initials), ages, or descriptions. The report simply stated that Ms. Blanchard counted seven children at the facility -- i.e., "3 infants, 3 preschool and 1 school age child." Ms. Blanchard's testimony at the hearing referred to only two infants, which was consistent with Respondent's testimony on that issue. As a result, the evidence is not clear and convincing that there were seven children in Respondent's care at the facility rather than the authorized six children. During the course of her inspection, Ms. Blanchard did not see any adults (other than Respondent, who arrived as Ms. Blanchard was arriving) at the facility. It is undisputed that Respondent's husband, who is the designated substitute caregiver, was not at the facility that morning. There is no credible evidence that Respondent's 22- year-old son, Abdel, was at the facility that morning. He did not testify at the hearing, and, if as Respondent claims, Abdel was at the facility that morning, Ms. Blanchard would have seen him at some point during the commotion surrounding Respondent's rushing the children out the back door or during her subsequent inspection of the facility. In any event, Abdel was not the substitute caregiver designated by Respondent. He was not even authorized to watch the children because, although he had been background screened by the Department, he had not taken the Department's mandatory child care training program and was not certified in cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). It is more likely than not that Ms. Rodgers' teenage sons were actually left to supervise the children at Respondent's facility during the time that Respondent was gone on the morning of February 27, 2003. Indeed, that is the most likely explanation of their presence at the facility and their involvement in the movement of the children to Ms. Rodgers' yard. However, the evidence on this issue is not clear and convincing. Respondent's explanation of her actions on the morning of the inspection -- i.e., that she hurried into the house upon her arrival and directed all of the children to Ms. Rodgers' yard so she could convey an important message to Ms. Rodgers -- is not credible. Her explanation of the roach droppings that Ms. Blanchard found in the bathtub -- i.e., that it was actually dirt from washing one of the children's feet -- is also not credible. By contrast, Respondent's explanation of the incomplete records -- i.e., that the missing records were for those children who had enrolled in the facility within the prior two weeks -- is reasonable. Because Ms. Blanchard's inspection report did not identify the children whose records were missing and did not document the date of their enrollment, the evidence is insufficient to prove this violation. Respondent admitted at the hearing that she "was taking a chance" by leaving the children at the facility without her husband, the designated substitute caregiver, being present. Respondent testified that she was gone only 15 minutes to drop one of her children off at school, and that she follows that same routine every day although her husband is usually at the facility while she is gone. After Ms. Blanchard completed her inspection, she discussed the results with Respondent and provided Respondent a copy of the inspection report. Ms. Blanchard then went back to her office and discussed the results of the inspection with her supervisor, Patricia Richardson. Based upon the results of the February 27, 2003, inspection and the history of noncompliance at Respondent's facility (both before and after the provisional license), Ms. Richardson determined that Respondent's license should be revoked. Thereafter, on February 28, 2003, Ms. Richardson sent a letter to Respondent informing her that her license was being revoked and advising Respondent of her right to "appeal" that decision through the administrative process.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Family Services issue a final order revoking Respondent's license to operate a family day care home. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of June, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of June, 2003.
The Issue The issue for disposition in this proceeding is whether Petitioner is entitled to licensure as a family day care home.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner resides in Lakeland, Florida. In the fall of 2002, she applied for a license to operate a family day care home in her residence. In the course of discharging its statutory responsibility of investigating applicants seeking licensure for family day care homes, a representative of Respondent, Gloria Mathews, an experienced child care licensing inspector, visited Petitioner's residence and discovered numerous instances of non- compliance with requirements of Sections 402.301 through 402.319, Florida Statutes (2002), and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 65C-20. Ms. Mathews talked with Petitioner, pointed out the various instances of non-compliance, and made suggestions regarding correcting the various instances of non-compliance. Ms. Mathews anticipated that upon Petitioner’s correcting the areas of non-compliance, Petitioner would notify her and request a re-inspection. She was not contacted by Petitioner for several months. On May 20, 2003, Francis Williams, an employee of Youth and Family Alternatives, a private, not-for-profit agency that contracts with Respondent to provide assistance to individuals seeking family day care licensure, went to Petitioner's home to provide guidance and assistance to Petitioner in her effort to obtain licensure. Ms. Williams determined that several instances of non- compliance continued. In addition, Ms. Williams noted that Petitioner was caring for five non-related children without being licensed and later discovered that a sixth child had gone unsupervised for more that 15 minutes while Petitioner, Ms. Williams, and five children were in the yard noting various non-compliant conditions and discussing required improvements. On July 28, 2003, Ms. Williams again visited Petitioner's home, found discrepancies, noted that Petitioner was caring for non-related children, and, in Petitioner's absence, discovered a substitute caregiver who had not been screened. On August 27, 2003, Ms. Mathews revisited Petitioner's home and discovered that she was not in compliance; she did not have health examination forms for all of the children. Ms. Mathews and Ms. Williams, both having extensive experience in family day care facilities, testified that they did not believe that Petitioner should be licensed based on her continuing disregard for the rules provided for the safety and protection of children. Petitioner had little to offer regarding the failure of her home to qualify due to the various instances of non- compliance and her violation of the prohibition of caring for non-related children without being licensed.
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 Petitioner's application for a family day care home license. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of February, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S 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 26th day of February, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack Emory Farley, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 4720 Old Highway 37 Lakeland, Florida 33813-2030 Cassandra Napier 1535 Peavy Court Lakeland, Florida 33801 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
