The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to an exemption from disqualification to work in a position of special trust.
Findings Of Fact On June 6, 1979, Petitioner went into a public restroom and attempted to use a urinal. To do so, he had to remove his sexual organ from his clothing. An adult male dressed in beach clothing called to him, "Come here," so Petitioner turned around and took half a step. The man asked, "What do you like?" Petitioner responded, "Women. Excuse me," and faced the urinal again. The other man, a plain-clothes law-enforcement officer, arrested Petitioner. Petitioner was charged with Section 800.03, Florida Statutes, "exposure of a sexual organ (by masturbation) -- misdemeanor." This was a misdemeanor charge at the time committed. Despite there having been no masturbation, in his opinion, Petitioner pled nolo contendere, and adjudication was withheld; he was assigned six months unsupervised probation and paid a fine. It is only on the basis of the foregoing 1979 plea that Petitioner has been disqualified from working in a position of special trust. He was notified by an April 18, 1996 letter that, pursuant to Sections 402.302(8) and 435.04(2), Florida Statutes [1995], he is disqualified as a household member in a family day care home. (Agency Exhibit 1) Petitioner also was arrested in 1982. The record is unclear as to what statute he was charged under at that time, but he did plead guilty and was fined. The circumstances surrounding the 1982 incident were established solely by Petitioner's testimony. He was in a department store restroom. There was a hole cut in the wall between two stalls "and apparently there was someone on the other side, the next stall that prompted me to put my sex organ through the hole in the wall." The person in the next stall was not a law enforcement officer. (TR 37-41, 43-45)1 Petitioner was arrested upon exiting the restroom. He has not been arrested since 1982. Petitioner has been happily married for 27 years. He and his wife have three children and five grandchildren. He and his wife are well-loved by their own children and grandchildren. They have a history of welcoming the troubled friends of their children into their home. The neighborhood children and Petitioner's grandchildren have always affectionately called Petitioner, "Grand-daddy" and have called Petitioner's wife, "Nanny." Their home is, and always has been, a gathering place for the neighborhood children. Petitioner's wife runs a licensed family day care home out of the family home from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Although she did not know about Petitioner's 1979 incident before it was disclosed through the agency screening process, she does not believe Petitioner presents a danger to children. She believes the 1979 incident constituted "entrapment". By a second letter dated April 18, 1996, Petitioner's wife was notified that, pursuant to Sections 402.302(8) and 435.04(2) Florida Statutes [1995] (Agency Exhibit 2), Petitioner was forbidden from having contact with any children in her family day care home and that if he is allowed to have contact with children in her care, she would be subject to an administrative fine and possible criminal penalties. The four children currently paying to attend Petitioner's wife's day care home are respectively aged one, two, three, and four years of age. For the last eight years, due to his trade as a self- employed leather worker, Petitioner has traveled a wide circuit from flea market to flea market throughout the week. He is only present in the family home from 10:30 p.m. Fridays to 3:00 a.m. Mondays. His wife's day care home does not operate during those periods that Petitioner is typically at home. Petitioner is a devout Seventh Day Adventist and an elder of his local church. He is the church's Sabbath School Superintendent. Petitioner's daughter and former daughter-in-law wrote letters entered in evidence and also testified that the family home is warm and loving and that Petitioner is a great "Grand- daddy." They rely on Petitioner and his wife for baby-sitting services. In their mutual opinion, Petitioner is not a danger to children, however some of their testimony minimized Petitioner's problems as only being "past mistakes." Neighbors' letters to the effect that Petitioner does not pose a threat to children, is active in his church, and travels except on weekends were admitted in evidence without objection, as was a statement by his pastor that Petitioner is a man of "impeccable character." However, none of these persons was available for cross-examination, and their letters do not clearly show that they had knowledge of Petitioner's past lewd acts or any reason or opportunity to know if he had committed any subsequent ones.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is , reluctantly, RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Families enter a Final Order removing Petitioner from the registry of disqualified persons.RECOMMENDED this 6th day of March, 1997, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax FILING (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of March, 1997.
The Issue Should the Petitioner's application for registration to operate a family day care home be approved?
Findings Of Fact In August 1998, Petitioner, Yolanda Cheesmon, registered her home at 1012 Yates Avenue in Panama City, Florida, as a family day care home with Respondent, Department of Children and Family Services. In September 1998, Michelle Barsanti, the Department's Licensing Counselor, attempted to reach Ms. Cheesmon at her home by telephone. She was unable to do so because the telephone had been disconnected. Because the Department's day care standards required day care homes to have telephones, Ms. Barsanti continued to try an reach Petitioner. She eventually contacted Petitioner by phone, found she had moved, and sent her a new application to 920 Thomas Avenue, Panama City, Florida. On October 23, 1998, Ms. Barsanti attempted to visit Ms. Cheesmon at her new home. It was only then that she noticed that Ms. Cheesmon's address had changed. She obtained directions to the new home, and went there to discuss with Ms. Cheesmon licensing her home as a family day care home. During this visit, Ms. Barsanti reminded Ms. Cheesmon that it was the home and not the operator which was licensed or registered; and, therefore, the Department had to be notified whenever the operator of a family day care home changed residence. Ms. Barsanti discussed with Ms. Cheesmon during this meeting that Ms. Cheesmon would have to procure a written statement form the landlord approving the use of the property as a family day care home. The facts reveal a mix up between the Petitioner and the investigator regarding almost every aspect of Petitioner's application. As both women endeavored to perfect the application, more and more things arose which needed to be done. All of this occurred under circumstances in which the Petitioner's income was reduced because she had quit her job to care for children. Ms. Cheesmon filed her application and a letter which purported to be from her landlord giving Ms. Cheesmon permission to operate a family day care home on the property. Ms. Barsanti received an anonymous letter alleging the permission letter was a forgery. After being confronted by Ms. Barsanti Ms. Cheesmon admitted that she had forged the permission letter. Ms. Cheesmon testified that she forged the letter which she gave to Ms. Barsanti in order to get the application processed and obtain insurance which the landlord required as a condition for approval. The landlord did not disapprove of the child care activity. The landlord wanted insurance to hold her blameless. The Petitioner needed approval by the Department to obtain insurance. Petitioner's forgery was not so much a false statement of the landlord's position, as an improper means to accomplish what the landlord wanted. By the time of hearing, the Petitioner had moved back to her original address into property which she does not rent.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department enter a final order which would deny the current application as moot. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of June, 1999, 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 14th day of June, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Yolanda Cheesmon 1012 Yates Avenue Blountstown, Florida 32424 John R. Perry, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 2639 North Monroe Street, Suite 252A Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2949 Gregory D. Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John S. Slye, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Should the Petitioner, Nikki Henderson, d/b/a Henderson Family Day Care Home, be granted a license to operate a family day care home pursuant to section 402.313(3), Florida Statutes (2015)1/ because she does not satisfy the screening provisions of sections 402.305(2) and 402.3055?
Findings Of Fact Ms. Henderson is the mother of four children. She has been a good parent, seeing to their education. She volunteers as the minister of music in a church. She has also taken college courses. Ms. Henderson wants to start a family day care center. On September 12, 2014, the Department granted Ms. Henderson an exemption from disqualification from working with children and other vulnerable populations due to a criminal conviction. This means that just over a year before the hearing, the Department determined that Ms. Henderson proved by clear and convincing evidence that she was rehabilitated and should not be disqualified from employment. § 435.07, Fla. Stat. In the exemption process, the Department could consider the person’s history since the disqualifying criminal offense and “any other evidence or circumstances indicating that the employee will not present a danger if employment or continued employment is allowed.” § 435.07(3)(a) Fla. Stat. A family day care home is an occupied residence, in which child care is regularly provided for payment. The children served under the age of 13 and from at least two unrelated families. § 402.302(8), Fla. Stat. The Department is the licensing authority for family day care homes. It considers an applicant’s criminal history, as well as any reports concerning abuse or neglect maintained in the Department’s statewide database, Florida Safe Families Network (FSFN), formerly known as HomeSafeNet, in licensing decisions. The Department received Ms. Henderson’s completed application to operate a family day care home on June 25, 2015. By letter dated September 2, 2015, and served September 4, 2015, the Department announced its intent to deny the application based upon two verified reports of inadequate supervision of her children and three reports of complaints all closed with “no indicators” or “not substantiated” conclusions. The reports named Ms. Henderson as the caregiver responsible for the children involved. When using either HomeSafeNet or FSN, investigators input information as they collect it. But they do not input all of the information immediately. The information is much more than what the investigators have observed. Most of the information is recitations of statements of others about what the others observed. The FSFN and HomeSafeNet databases contain records of the following reports involving Ms. Henderson: 1999-089863-01 (Ex. C), 2002-136612-01 (Ex. D), 2004-420815-01 (Ex. E), 2005- 323618-01 (Ex. F), and 2012-126218-01 (Ex. G). These are the reports that the Department relies upon to support denying Ms. Henderson a license. The reports set forth activities of the agency’s investigators, stating what they did. What the investigators did was interview people and report what those people said or what they said someone else said. The reports contain very little directly observed by the reporters. The information contained in the reports that the Department relies upon is largely hearsay or hearsay reports of hearsay. The reports consist mostly of summaries of records reviewed by the reporter or summaries of statements by other individuals. They are not reports of information about which the reporter has direct knowledge. The reports do not identify who the investigator obtained the information from. In short all of the statements in Respondent’s Exhibits C through G about anything Ms. Henderson did or did not do are hearsay recitations of statements made to and summarized by the reporters or summaries of documents reviewed. §§ 90.801 & 90.802, Fla. Stat. Hearsay alone cannot support a finding of fact. § 120.57(1)(c), Fla. Stat. The reports also are not competent or persuasive evidence that the assertions in them are accurate. Ms. Henderson disputes the reports. Her live testimony, subject to cross examination, is more persuasive than the words of the reports. The reports do not satisfy the requirements for the business record hearsay exception of section 90.803(6), or the public record exception of section 90.803(8). See, e.g., Lee v. Dep't of HRS, 698 So. 2d 1194, 1200 (Fla. 1997) (investigative report of pregnancy of woman with a disability residing in a state facility not subject to the public record exception). See also, Brooks v. State, 918 So. 2d 181, 193 (Fla. 2005), cert. den., Brooks v. Fla., 547 U.S. 1151, 126 S. Ct. 2294, 164 L. Ed. 2d 820 (2006); M.S. v. Dep't Child. and Fams., 6 So. 3d 102 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). Application of the hearsay rule is no mere legal technicality. The hearsay rule is one of the oldest and most effective means of ensuring decisions that determine people's lives and fortunes are based on reliable information. Florida's Fifth District Court of Appeal described the importance of the rule as follows: Rules governing the admissibility of hearsay may cause inconvenience and complication in the presentment of evidence[,] but the essence of the hearsay rule is the requirement that testimonial assertions shall be subjected to the test of cross examination. 5 Wigmore on Evidence, § 1362 (Chadbourne Rev. 1974). As stated by Professor Wigmore, the hearsay rule is "that most characteristic rule of the Anglo- American law of evidence -- a rule which may be esteemed, next to jury trial, the greatest contribution of that eminently practical legal system to the world's methods of procedure." 5 Wigmore on Evidence, at § 1364. Dollar v. State, 685 So. 2d 901, 903 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). A complaint on July 18, 1999, triggered the investigation resulting in Report 1999-089863-01 (update date November 16, 2000). (Dept. Ex. C). The report summarizes the investigation of an allegation that Ms. Henderson (then Nikki Stanley) “left [her child] Deuteronomy in his carrier sear [sic] on the steps of the alleged Dad’s home,” knocked on the door and drove away. The allegations continue that the adults were inside and that the alleged father’s mother found the child on the steps. Ms. Stanley, who testified and was cross-examined at the hearing, went with Ms. Henderson to leave the child at the father’s home. Ms. Stanley personally placed the child in the hands of an adult at the house. Ms. Stanley and Ms. Henderson also delivered Pampers and milk. Ms. Henderson’s credible and consistent position has always been that she did not leave the child unattended at the house where the child’s father lived. The testimony of Ms. Stanley and Ms. Henderson is consistent with some statements in the report and more credible and persuasive than the allegations recited in the report. The Department closed the investigation with verified findings of inadequate supervision and no indicators of physical injury. The Department did not provide Ms. Henderson an opportunity for a hearing to contest the findings. The Department filed a dependency petition against Ms. Henderson because of the report. It gave her a case plan, requiring the provision of protective services supervision by the Department. The Department did not remove the child from Ms. Henderson’s care. The Department did not prove by the preponderance of the evidence that Ms. Henderson left Deuteronomy alone on the steps on July 18, 1995. She did not. Report number 2002-136612-01 chronicles the investigation of allegations received on August 23, 2002, described as “Physical Injury,” Substance Exposed Child,” “Inadequate Supervision,” and “Environmental Hazards.” (Dept. Ex. D). The report is a confusing document and contains no information about environmental hazards or a child being exposed to a substance. It is not a credible report of anything involving alleged harmful conduct by Ms. Henderson or conduct endangering a child. In fact although the case started as an investigation of her, it ended with the suspected father of the child identified as the possible perpetrator, not Ms. Henderson. Representative paragraphs are reproduced here. ALLEGATION NARRATIVE: ON A RECENT NIGHT, THE MOTHER BROKE WINDOWS AND CAUSED PROBLEMS AT THE HOME OF THE ALLEGED PATERNAL GRANDMOTHER, BARBARA BROWN, WHERE GEORGE [the child apparently involved] WAS AT THE TIME. THIS OCCURRED ABOUT 3:00 A.M. MOTHER HAD CALLED THE ALLEGED FATHER, ALVIN WALLACE (MS. BROWN’S SON/NO DNA TEST DONE YET TO DETERMINE PATERNITY), EARLIER IN THE EVENING. SHE TOLD HIM SHE WAS GOING TO JAIL, AND SHE TOLD HIM TO GET GEORGE, WHICH HE DID AT 3:00 A.M., MOTHER SHOWED UP WANTING GEORGE. LAW ENFORCEMENT WERE CALLED. THEY ADVISED THE MATERNAL GRANDMOTHER, SHARON STANLEY, TO LET MR WALLCE AND MS. BROWN KEEP GEORGE. MOTHER AND GEORGE LIVE AT ADDRESS A WITH THE MATERNAL GRANDMOTHER, ABOUT WHOM CONCERN WAS EXPRESSED BECAUSE SHE HAS SEIZURES. PATERNAL GRANDMOTHER HAS NOW GOTTEN AN INJUNCTION AGAINST MOTHER. MOTHER DID NOT HAVE TO GO TO JAIL. ITS UNKNOWN WHY SHE THOUGHT SHE HAD TO GO. MOTHER’S LIFESTYLE AND BEHAVIOR ARE SAID TO BE ““QUESTIONABLE.”” MS. BROWN AND MR. WALLACE LIVE AT ADDRESS B. 24 HOUR. ALLEGATION NARRATIVE: RIGHT NOW, GEORGE IS AT THE HOME OF THE ALLEGED PATERNAL GRANDMOTHER, BARBARA BROWN, ADDRESS B. NO DNA TEST HAS BEEN DONE. SO IT HAS NOT BEEN DETERMINED TH[A]T MS. BROWN’S SON IS GEORGE’S FATHER. GEORGE SPENT THE WEEKEND AT MS. BROWN’S HOME, AND MS. BROWN NOW REFUSES TO GIVE GEORGE BACK TO THE MATERNAL GRANDMOTHER. ALLEGATION NARRATIVE: MR. WALLACE SHOOK GEORGE TODAY AROUND 7 PM. MR. WALLACE WAS OUTSIDE WITH GEORGE. GEORGE WAS CRYING. MR. WALLACE THREW GEORGE INO THE HAIR [SIC] AND SHOOK HIM. IT IS UNKNOWN IF GEORGE SUFFERED ANY INJURIES AFTER BEING SHOOK. MR. WALLACE HAS A HISTORY OF SELLING AND USING COCAINE AND MARIJUANA. HE WILL SELL THE DRUGS FROM HIS HOME AND ON THE STREETS. IMMEDIATE. INVESTIGATIVE DECISION SUMMARY: BACKGROUND INFORMATI0N: THE FAMILY HAS ONE PRIOR FROM 1999 WHERE PROTECTIVE SERVICES WERE INVOLVED DUE TO VERIFIED INADEQUATE SUPERVISION. ADJUDICATION WAS WITHELD [sic]. THE MOTHER AND HER TWO CHILDREN INVOLVED IN THE PRIOR LIVE WITH THE GRANDPARENTS AND THE NEW BABY IN LAKELAND. PS CLOSED IN 2001. THE MOTHER HAS A CRIMINAL HISTORY THAT INCLUDES A BATTERY CHARGE FROM 2002. CONCERNS OVER THE ALLEGED FATHER ALVIN WALLACE. DUALING [sic] INJUNCTIONS SUBJECT INFORMATION: THE CASE APPEARS TO BE CUSTODY RELATED. THERE WERE CONCERNS OVER THE ALLEGED FATHER ALVIN WALLACE. DUALING [sic] INJUNCTIONS BETWEEN MOM AND PROSPECTIVE FATHER WERE FILED AND BOTH DISPUTED OVER THE CUSTODY OF THE CHILD. JUDGE SMITH GRANTED AN INJUNCTION AGAINST THE ALLEGED FATHER AND GAVE CUSTODY TO THE MOTHER. LATER, THE RESULTS OF THE DNA SCREEN SHOWED THAT MR. WALLACE WAS NOT THE FATHER. HE IS NO LONGER A THREAT AND DOES NOT HAVE CONTACT WITH THE BABY. SHAKING OF CHILD ALLEGATION WAS BOGUS. LEGAL CONTACT: JUDGE SMITH OF D/V COURT GAVE CUSTODY TO MOM AND GRANTED INJUNCTION AGAINT MR. WALLACE WHO TURNED OUT NOT TO BE THE FATHER AFTER A DNA TEST. FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SUPPORT: MOM HAS DV INJUNCTION AND FAMILY SUPPORTS. SERVICES AND REFERRALS: I.E NOTIFIED. CASE APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN CUSTODY RELATED. MR. WALLACE WAS LATER PROVED NOT TO BE THE FATHER AND NO LONGER HAS ANY CONTACT OR RIGHTS TO THE CHILD WHO LIVES WITH THE MOTHER, GP’S AND OTHER SIBLINGS. HE IS NO LONGER A POSSIBLE THREAT TO THE CHILD. CLOSE CASE AS BACKLOG. CONVERTED ICSA SAFETY ASSESSMENT 06/15/2006 *ICSA INITIAL OVERALL SAFETY ASSESSMENT* RISK IS LOW. ALLEGED PERP [Mr. Wallace] WAS DETERMINED NOT TO BE THE DAD AND IS NO LONGER HAVING CONTACT WITH CHLD. *ICSA UPDATED OVERALL SAFETY ASSESSMENT* RISK IS LOW: ALLEGED PERP WAS DETERMINED NOT TO BE THE DAD AND IS NO LONGER HAVING CONTACT WITH CHILD. The Department closed the investigation with no indicators for any of the alleged mistreatment. The report did not conclude that Ms. Henderson acted improperly or did not act when she should have. The Department initiated case number 2004-420815-01 on September 29, 2004, in response to an allegation that Ms. Henderson was leaving her four children at home alone at night. (Dept. Ex. E). At the conclusion of the investigation, the Department determined that there were no indicators of inadequate supervision. The summary concluded: “The Mother has made adequate arrangements for the children while she works thus not causing a concern for safety and/or permanency.” On February 8, 2005, the Department received a complaint alleging that Ms. Henderson was leaving the children at home alone and coaching them to tell people that she was home, but asleep. The Department started an investigation resulting in report number 2005-323618-01 (Dept. Ex. F). The Department closed this investigation with verified findings of inadequate supervision. It filed another dependency petition to obtain court-ordered protective services supervision. The court ordered a case plan that included a requirement to complete a parenting program. During this open case, Ms. Henderson demonstrated some lack of responsiveness to the Department’s preferred eight-week in-home parenting program. She took a one-day program at the Polk County Courthouse instead. The court, whose order Ms. Henderson was to comply with, accepted this class as satisfying the parenting program, over the Department’s objection. Basically the Department is second-guessing the court’s ruling and treating Ms. Henderson as if she had not met the court’s requirements when she did. On May 31, 2012, Ms. Henderson reported to the Department that a school intern inappropriately touched the breasts of Ms. Henderson’s 14-year old daughter. This initiated report number 2012-126218-01. (Dept. Ex. G). Ms. Henderson was not the subject of the investigation. The intern was. Ms. Ebrahimi was the child protective investigator supervisor at the time of this report. She has personal knowledge of some of the facts in that report and testified about them. Ms. Henderson was very upset about the incident. She acted vigorously and promptly to protect her daughter. Ms. Henderson immediately picked up her daughter and reported the incident to the Department and the school. She insisted that the school remove her daughter from the intern’s class. She also arranged for her daughter to attend a different school the next year. Only one week was left in the current school year. She obtained a temporary injunction against the intern. Ms. Henderson also sought to obtain a permanent injunction to protect her daughter. Ms. Henderson did everything lawful that a loving protective parent could do for her child. The day after the incident Ms. Henderson spoke to Detective Rose. He told Ms. Henderson that the authorities did not perceive sufficient evidence to take actions to protect her daughter, including obtaining an injunction. Even Ms. Ebrahimi concedes that Ms. Henderson was very cooperative with the Department and protective of her child. Ms. Ebrahimi faults Ms. Henderson for, in Ms. Ebrahimi’s view, not following through on the permanent injunction and failing to return phone calls from the Department’s investigator. Ms. Henderson did not receive calls or messages from the investigator. Ms. Ebrahimi does not have personal knowledge of whether the investigator called Ms. Henderson. Ms. Henderson’s testimony about not receiving calls from the investigator is more credible and persuasive than the cryptic notes in the report. Ms. Henderson’s actions were entirely reasonable and protective of her daughter. A person in authority told her that she could not obtain an injunction. So she took no further actions on that front. Ms. Henderson acted immediately to have the offender removed from contact with her child. She arranged for her child to be transferred to a different school. The Department’s investigative summary itself shows the reasonableness of Ms. Henderson’s actions and the difficult circumstances she faced, including a lack of support from responsible authorities, when her 14-year-old daughter reported an intern fondling her breasts at school. The report says: The child states that the intern touched her breast. She disclosed that she told the teacher who did nothing about it. Stated she also told her mother who made a report to law enforcement. The intern is no longer in the child’s classroom but is still at the school per the mother. CPI to update as more information is received. UPDATE: Risk low. Several statements in the report substantiate Ms. Henderson’s recall of events and buttress the determination that she is more persuasive than the document. It also demonstrates that the alleged calls were for the bureaucratic process of closing the case, not furthering the investigation to protect Ms. Henderson’s daughter. In addition, it is difficult to imagine what additional information the DCF investigator could obtain from Ms. Henderson. She had already told DCF all she knew about the assault. The summary also supports Ms. Henderson’s testimony that a police officer told her the police would not pursue the case. It states: “Other children reportedly also reported witnessing, then recanted to Lakeland Police Detective. Lakeland Police not pursuing further, did not find alleged victim credible.”
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent, Department of Children and Families, enter a final order granting the application of Petitioner, Niki Henderson d/b/a Henderson Family Day Care Home, to operate a family day care home. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of May, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN D. C. NEWTON, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of May, 2016.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner is entitled to have her home licensed and registered as a family day care home under the provision of Chapters 402 and 435, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact On October 17, 2001, Petitioner, Betty Baumstark, submitted an application for a license to operate a family day care home at her residence. On November 29, 2001, the Department conducted an institutional staffing meeting to consider Petitioner's application. During the institutional staffing, the staff recommended that Petitioner's application for a license to operate a family day care home at her residence be denied. Although the institutional staffing committee made a recommendation regarding Petitioner's application, the Department's licensing specialist and supervisor made the final decision regarding the family day care home license. More than two months after the Department's institutional staffing, on February 8, 2002, the Department notified Petitioner by letter that her application to operate a family day care home was denied. The denial letter advised Petitioner that the family day care home license was denied based on the following grounds: (a) Abuse Report 2000-045218 indicated that Petitioner gave temporary custody of her son to friends on or about August 8, 1999, and that Petitioner's friends stated that they asked for the child because Petitioner "could not and would not care" for him; (b) Abuse Report 1999-095828 was closed with some indicators of inadequate supervision with caretaker present; (c) a domestic violence injunction was issued in 1997 against Petitioner's fiancé, Michael Canty; and (d) Petitioner had stated that she had experimented with drugs. The Department does not allege any other basis for denial of the license. Accordingly, it is found that, except for any requirements and minimum standards covered by those allegations, Petitioner met all the requirements and minimum standards necessary for licensure as a family day care home. With regard to the allegations in the 2000 Abuse Report, Petitioner did, in fact, give temporary custody of her son to Greg Davis in August 1999, while she was pregnant with her second child. The reason Petitioner gave Mr. Davis temporary custody was because her son acted out his hostility and became unmanageable. Concerned about her son, Petitioner actively sought assistance from various community resources to help her son, but was unsuccessful in doing so. After becoming aware of the situation with Petitioner's son, Mr. Davis, a friend of Petitioner and Michael Canty, offered to allow Petitioner’s son to live with him in an effort to improve the boy’s behavior and performance is school. Because Petitioner had been unsuccessful in obtaining any assistance to address her son's problems, she agreed to allow him to stay with Mr. Davis because she believed it was in her son’s best interests. In fact, during the time Petitioner’s son has lived with Mr. Davis, there has been a significant and positive improvement in the boy’s behavior and his grades in school. Petitioner's son is still living with Mr. Davis and has continued to do well in that setting. Given her son's progress and improvement, Petitioner has allowed him to remain with Mr. Davis. However, Petitioner has not abandoned her son and is still very involved in his life. Petitioner has a good relationship with her son and has maintained contact with him through regular visits and telephone conversations. Petitioner never stated that she could not and would not care for her son. The 1999 Abuse Report of inadequate supervision is based on a limited portion of the investigation which reported that Petitioner was called to pick up her son from a treatment facility and that she failed to pick up her child. This report makes no claim that anyone from the Department or the treatment facility ever spoke to Petitioner and told her to pick up her son from the treatment facility. Moreover, the credible testimony of Petitioner is that she was never contacted and told her that her son was being discharged from the facility and needed to be picked up. During the time period covered in the 1999 Abuse Report, as noted in that report, Petitioner’s son was in the custody of his father and stepmother and not in the custody of Petitioner. The domestic violence injunction referenced in the denial letter names Michael Canty as a party in that proceeding. Mr. Canty was Petitioner’s fiancé at the time of the hearing and, in the event the license was issued, Mr. Canty, who lived with Petitioner, was listed as the person who would be present at the family day care home to assist in Petitioner’s absence. As alleged in the denial letter, a domestic injunction was issued against Mr. Canty in 1997. However, there is no indication of the underlying factual basis for issuance of that injunction. Nothing in the domestic violence injunction, dated November 6, 1997, mentions that any violence had occurred or that the interests of the children in question had been harmed. Moreover, in a subsequently issued order in that case, it is noted that Mr. Canty's ex-fiancée, the person who initiated the injunction proceedings, withdrew her supporting affidavit. According to the credible testimony of Mr. Canty, his ex-fiancée obtained an injunction so that she could take the couple’s children to another city and not because he had committed an act of violence against her. During the years Mr. Canty and his ex-fiancée lived together, there were never any complaints filed with the police that indicate that Mr. Canty engaged in conduct that constitutes domestic violence nor were the police ever called to their home. The Department presented no evidence to the contrary. At some point during one of the investigations, there was an accusation that Petitioner used drugs. In response to a question from someone from "HRS" who talked to her, Petitioner told the person that she had experimented with drugs. Petitioner's experimentation with drugs was limited to smoking marijuana when she was fourteen years old, twelve or thirteen years prior to the hearing in this proceeding. Since that time, Petitioner has not experimented with or used illegal drugs. In 1999, Petitioner submitted to drug testing as a condition of employment with the YMCA and both of the tests were negative. The Department’s notification of denial of Petitioner’s application was more than ninety (90) days from the date the Department received Petitioner's application. The Department made no written request to Petitioner for any additional information concerning her application, but claims that the request for additional information was made by a Department employee during a conversation that employee had with Petitioner. However, the Department employee who allegedly requested that Petitioner provide additional information on the domestic violence injunction involving Mr. Canty did not testify at hearing. Moreover, the Department employees who testified at hearing had not requested any additional information from Petitioner and did not know whether any other Department employee had requested such information from Petitioner. Contrary to the Department's claim, the credible testimony of Petitioner was that the Department never requested or asked her to provide additional information to supplement her application. The Department failed to act on Petitioner’s application within ninety days of receiving it. This statutory time period was not extended because the Department did not request that Petitioner provide additional information regarding her application. Having failed to timely act on Petitioner’s application, the Department is required to grant a family day care home license to Petitioner. Even if the Department had timely acted on Petitioner's application, the substantive bases upon which it seeks to deny the family day care home have not been established in this record.
Recommendation Base on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Children and Family Services enter a final order granting Petitioner a license to operate a family day care home. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of August, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 30th day of August, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: David P. Rankin, Esquire 14502 North Dale Mabry Boulevard Suite 300 Tampa, Florida 33618 Ralph J. McMurphy, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 1601 West Gulf Atlantic Highway Wildwood, Florida 34785-8158 Paul F. Flounlacker, Jr., 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
