The Issue Whether Respondent proved by clear and convincing evidence the allegations contained in its August 27, 2004, letter denying Petitioner's licensure renewal application.
Findings Of Fact Based upon observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying; exhibits admitted into evidence; stipulations and arguments of the parties; evidentiary rulings made pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes (2004); and the record complied herein, the following relevant and material facts are determined: The Parties Respondent is the state agency responsible for licensing, inspecting, and regulating child care facilities, including family day care homes. Respondent is authorized to inspect a family day care home at any time. Regular and routine inspections, as well as inspections resulting from complaints received, are conducted of licensed family day care homes to ascertain whether the home is in compliance with applicable statutes and promulgated rules. Violations (or "non-compliances") of statutes and rules and/or other problematic situations found during inspections are noted on a hand-written inspection report. The inspector takes those noted non-compliance items back to the office and transfers them to Respondent's "Family Child Care Home Inspection Checklist" (Inspection Checklist).1 Inspectors may or may not discuss each non-compliance item with the home operator at the time of the inspection. On those occasions non- compliance items are discussed with the home operator, those items capable of instant correction are corrected before the inspector departs the premises. When appropriate, the Inspection Checklist provides a time frame within which the operator must correct the cited non-compliance item(s) indicated on the Inspection Checklist. The Family Day Care Home Facility Ms. Lanier is the provider and licensed owner of Lanier Family Day Care Home ("the care facility") located at 1039 Madison Avenue, Lakeland, Florida. Ms. Lanier is a tenant at this location, and Angela Lisbon and/or her relatives are the landlord. The Inspections and Cited Violations Tim Graddy conducted a re-licensure inspection of the care facility on August 7, 2003. Re-licensure inspections are conducted when the family child care owner's current license is about to expire, and the owner's application for re-licensure has been filed. The non-compliance items recorded on the Inspection Checklist were: operator's training in first aid not current, operator's CPR training not current, litter (foam cups) in the children play area, access to a road and a four-foot fence was "not provided"--the gate needed repair, floor mats not covered with impermeable surface, evidence of rodents/vermin in the home, one broken window needs replacement, no operative landline telephone available-only cellular telephone available, and supplies missing from first aid kit. At the time of Mr. Graddy's re-inspection on August 18, 2003, all non-compliance items recorded on the Inspection Checklist dated August 7, 2003, had been addressed and corrected by Ms. Lanier, but for the vermin infestation. However, Ms. Lanier's request of her landlord to exterminate the property to address the reoccurring problem of vermin infestation had occurred. On March 31, 2004, Nianza Green, another inspector, completed a routine child care licensing inspection of the child care facility. The non-compliance items noted by Ms. Green on the Inspection Checklist were: unsafe storage of materials dangerous to children was observed in that cleaning supplies were in an unlocked cabinet and in the bathroom; water hose, dirty towels, and some mops on playground--play areas in home not clean; and evidence of rodents/vermin in home--"most [sic] have professional pest control before next visit. Copy of inspection to be faxed or mailed to licensing office"; all parts of the home and premises including furnishings and equipment were not kept clean and sanitary; all parts of the home and premises including equipment, furnishings and plumbing were not kept in orderly condition; meals and snacks supplied by the operator were not of a quantity and/or quality to meet the daily nutritional needs of the children; soiled items were not disposed of in a plastic lined, securely covered container; potty chairs were not cleaned and sanitized after each use; diaper changing surface was not cleaned with a sanitizing solution after each use--used as a storage, cords and other harmful items on shelves of changing table; first aid kit missing some supplies; monthly fire drills not conducted; written record of fire drills not completed; operator did not have record of drills for the past six months; and neither DH Form 680, Certification of Immunization, nor DH Form 681, Religious Exemption from Immunization, was on file for child(ren). On April 29, 2004, Mr. Graddy conducted a routine inspection of the care facility. Mr. Graddy listed the following non-compliance items on the Inspection Checklist: unsafe storage of materials dangerous to children was observed in that disinfectant was left on lower shelf of changing table, children in the outdoor play space had access to a trafficked road/street, and fencing a minimum of four feet in height was not provided--top rail of fence broken in front corner of fence, and evidence of rodents/vermin--live bugs observed in kitchen. On August 11, 2004, Mr. Graddy conducted a re-licensure inspection of the care facility and listed the following non- compliance items on the Inspection Checklist: front gate is not in good repair and does not close properly, live bugs seen in kitchen, loose pieces of ceramic title in kitchen, no operable smoke detector, up-to-date and age-appropriate immunization record missing, and DH Form 3040 not available. On May 6, 2004, by certified mail, Respondent issued an "Intent to Impose Administrative Action" letter, citing that repeated violations were revealed during four inspections conducted on August 7, 2003; August 18, 2003; March 31, 2004; and April 29, 2004. For those repeated violations, Respondent levied a $330 fine.2 Respondent's Cross-Examination re: Inspection Checklist Regarding his August 7, 2003, inspection, Mr. Graddy acknowledged that the inspection report indicated no children were present during the inspection, and, thus, no children were in any immediate danger as a result of the cited non- compliances. The cited non-compliance, fence was "not provided," was, in fact, the gate itself closed but the latch did not close properly. Therefore, no children were in immediate danger. Mr. Graddy acknowledged that the August 18, 2003, re- inspection Inspection Checklist listed a non-compliance item contained in the August 7, 2003, Inspection Checklist, and that the August 7, 2003, non-compliance items had been corrected, but for the vermin infestation. Mr. Graddy was informed by Ms. Lanier that the exterminator (landlord) had been contacted and that he/she would exterminate the care facility. No children were present at the care facility during the August 18, 2003, inspection and, therefore, were not subjected to any harm or immediate danger. Ms. Green acknowledged that her March 31, 2004, inspection did not accurately reflect the conditions of the daycare. Specifically, she described the non-compliance item as the property was "cluttered up"; yet, she failed to describe in the inspection report what she meant by that term. Ms. Green's report indicated that the potty chair was not cleaned after each use; however, upon cross-examination, Ms. Green admitted that she never saw the potty chair being used by the one child in the care facility at the time of her inspection. Likewise, she reported that the diaper changing table surface was not cleaned after each use although she never saw the diaper changing table being used and had no idea whether the allegation had a basis in fact. Ms. Green's Inspection Checklist noted, "[t]he center was not stocked with adequate supplies of food," but she never checked the food cabinets and other storage areas. Ms. Green testified that a bucket was present outside the facility and presented a hazard to children, but she did not note this particular non-compliance on her Inspection Checklist. Ms. Green was unable to confirm that Ms. Lanier was even aware of the "bucket" non-compliance. Ms. Green's Inspection Checklist noted fire drills "had not" been conducted, when, in fact, she was fully aware that fire drills had been conducted on a monthly basis. Ms. Green knew the approved capacity of the care facility was ten children, but only one child was present during her inspection. She could not articulate whether the "missing" immunization records were missing for a particular child or children, if any. After her walk-through, Ms. Green spent little time in the care facility and chose instead to "work" (list her non- compliance items) in her car because she "was concerned about bugs" she believed to have been in the facility might adversely affect her computer. When asked if she advised or discussed with Ms. Lanier her problems and concerns, Ms. Green stated that her job was to "inform the supervisor of the inspecting." At the time of this inspection, Ms. Green had worked as an inspector for only three months. Regarding the April 29, 2004, inspection, Mr. Graddy noted one child present and that child "did not have access to disinfectant near the changing table." His notation, the "top rail of the fence broken in the far corner," was not a repeated violation of an existing problem previously noted. Mr. Graddy also testified that any gaps that existed in the fence were not in sections of the fence less than the required four feet height; therefore, no children were placed at risk or were endangered in any manner by the alleged condition of the fence. Regarding "vermin in the facility," Mr. Graddy acknowledged that he only saw "more than two," acknowledging more than two was not "infestation." Regarding the August 11, 2004, inspection, Mr. Graddy testified that his notation, "the fence [gate] would not lock," on the Inspection Checklist was made without him actually attempting to lock the gate, and, thus, he acknowledged his notation was speculation. He added that this particular problem was different from prior fence problems and did not constitute a repeat violation. The "broken tile" problem noted on this Inspection Checklist had not previously existed; likewise, this non-compliance was not a repeat violation. Mr. Gaddy's non-compliance notation, "smoke detector missing," was that in reality the smoke detector was "present," but the battery may have run down. Mr. Graddy gave Ms. Lanier until the next day to correct this problem, but he never checked back for compliance. Likewise, Ms. Lanier contacted the telephone company and had the landline telephone that was present in the care facility activated which corrected the "no landline telephone" non-compliance item. Regarding the medical records for children non- compliance items noted by Mr. Graddy, he did not check whether the missing medical records on file were for the four children present on the day he noted this item or other children who were not present. Thus, he was unable to identify any specific medical records that were missing. According to Mr. Graddy, "he always goes over the inspection report with the provider, gives them a date after which the noted infractions need be corrected." His above self- imposed inspection standard was later qualified by his admission that he did not provide Ms. Lanier an opportunity to correct/comply with non-compliances contained on his Inspection Checklist before declining renewal of her current license number F14PO0266. Immediately after the August 11, 2004, inspection, the Department determined to deny Ms. Lanier's license renewal application request. The $330 fine issued against Ms. Lanier by the Department on May 6, 2004, was based upon five facility inspections that had occurred on August 7, 2003; August 18, 2003; March 31, 2004; April 29, 2004; and August 11, 2004. Ms. Lanier paid the $330 fine on August 26, 2004. The Department accepted and deposited Ms. Lanier's $330 fine despite the obvious fact that the Department had decided to deny Ms. Lanier's pending license renewal application at the time it levied the fine and accepted her $330 payment of the fine. Ms. Lanier's testimony that she paid the $330 fine on August 26, 2004, with the understanding that her license renewal application would be granted, went unchallenged by the Department. On this particular point, the lack of challenge by the Department regarding this ambiguous statement, whether Ms. Lanier's understanding was induced by suggestion or silence or was assumed in the absence of explanation to the contrary by accepting the $330 fine, is resolved in favor of Ms. Lanier. Patricia Hamilton, child care licensing supervisor, did not personally perform inspections of this facility. She compiled the five inspection reports submitted by the inspectors, charted those inspections, and assumed each non- compliance item on each subsequent inspection was a repeated non-compliance item; when, in fact, they were not. Ms. Lanier testified that upon notice of vermin, she contacted her landlord who sprayed for bugs on regular monthly intervals. Ms. Lisbon, landlord's representative, confirmed that Ms. Lanier made more than one request for additional extermination of the property. Ms. Lanier testified that she addressed/corrected non- compliance items identified by the Department's inspector(s) during their several inspections of her facility. Many small items were corrected by the close of business on the day noticed. Items such as floor mats were replaced, foam cups and other debris in play area were removed, food supplies were available in storage in the house (during spring break the kitchen itself was not stocked as it would be during a normal school week), broken window was repaired, smoke detector battery was replaced, and first aid supplies were replenished. The continuous efforts demonstrated by Ms. Lanier evidenced a sincere intent and cooperative desire to comply with the Department's rules and regulations, noted and interpreted by the several inspectors at the time they inspected the facility, to provide a safe and necessary family day care home for working parents in her immediate community. The Department proved that the facility had a reoccurring bug problem. Without more, a "reoccurring bug problem," common in many areas, does not, ipso facto, equate to infestation.3 When noticed, Ms. Lanier did not fail or refuse to address this issue, she secured extermination and, from the property owner, requested monthly treatments thereafter. The Department did not allege nor introduce evidence of any probability that death, serious harm to the health or safety of any person would, could, or had resulted, nor evidence of the severity, the actual or potential harm, and the extent to which Sections 402.301 through 402.319, Florida Statutes (2004), had been violated. There is no evidence of record whatsoever that any child was harmed or evidence that a particular or a combination of specific non-compliance items, not timely corrected, presented a hazard to the children observed in the facility. The Department's post-hearing argument in vague terms such as "understandably concerned" and "were justified in expecting," "did not rehabilitate her or correct her propensity to violate," and "Department justifiably had enough" are statements open to more than one interpretation and does not constitute direct evidence of an objective standard by which to evaluate appropriate conduct or lack thereof.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order issuing to Petitioner a provisional license until the following conditions are met to the satisfaction of Respondent: Petitioner provides documentation that a licensed extermination service has serviced the facility for vermin. Petitioner provides documentation of a quarterly, semi- annually, or monthly service agreement between Petitioner and a licensed extermination service. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of April, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FRED L. BUCKINE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of April, 2005.
The Issue Whether the Department of Children and Family Services, properly denied Gaye Brina Vestal's license application to operate a commercial day care facility, pursuant to Section 402.3055, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent's legal name is "Gaye Brina Vestal." Respondent is married to "Tony L. Vestal" a/k/a "Tony L. Mitchell." The name on Tony's birth certificate is "Tony Mitchell." When he was eight years old, his mother married a man named "Vestal." Thereafter, Tony went by the last name "Vestal." He attended school, obtained a driver's license and a Social Security account number, married, and had children under the name "Vestal." When he divorced, he began using the name "Mitchell" and obtained a different Social Security account number and driver's license under the name "Mitchell." At some point, Tony married Gaye Brina (Respondent) under the name "Vestal." They then remarried under the name "Mitchell." Respondent tried using the name, "Mitchell" with Tony, but due to hostility from Tony's mother, Respondent elected to return to using the name "Vestal." She was unable to persuade Tony to return to using the name "Vestal." 1/ By a September 16, 1997, application for registration of a family day care home in her home on Sisco Street in Pamona Park, Respondent and Tony listed "Tony Vestal" as Respondent's husband with his "Vestal" Social Security Number. "Shirley Vestal," is listed as a character witness for each of them. The forms clearly show "Shirley Vestal" as Tony's "ex-wife" and as Respondent's "friend." Among her own past employments, Respondent claimed to have been the manager of a pizza parlor; she listed her supervisor there as "Tony Mitchell." She also listed another previous employment as being the "owner" of a different pizza parlor which closed in 1996. Both pizza parlors were named "Tony-O's Pizza." The Sisco Street property was shown as belonging to "Tony Mitchell." Either at this point, or later, while Respondent was operating under provisional day care home licenses, Dede Sharples, a Department employee with responsibility to oversee home day care licensing, became concerned as to the true identity of Respondent's husband. She asked Respondent whether "Tony-O's Pizza" had been named for Respondent's supervisor or Respondent's husband. While there is considerable disagreement between the two witnesses as to exactly what was said, and while Ms. Sharples' questioning may have been tenuous and Respondent's response may have been intended to be humorous, Respondent still left the Department representative with the impression that there were two different "Tony's." On October 16, 1997, the Department did a home inspection. Respondent thereafter corrected the Sisco Street location for fire inspection purposes. By a December 18, 1997, application for a family day care home license at her Sisco Street home, Respondent listed "Tony Lee Vestal" as a household member and listed the owner of the property as "Tony Mitchell." In reviewing the December 18, 1997, application, Ms. Sharples told Respondent that Respondent would need to have Mr. Mitchell sign a letter saying that Respondent had his permission to run a day care facility on his property. 2/ Respondent told Ms. Sharples that "Tony Mitchell" was a good friend that had gone to Indiana and then elsewhere and that he did not want his address given out. She further stated that her home was in Mitchell's name because she had damaged credit and had an oral agreement with Mitchell to pay on the house until it was paid for and then Mitchell would sign the house over to Respondent and Respondent's husband. Ms. Sharples cautioned Respondent that this was a dangerous practice which could leave Respondent with no house and no recourse to her money expenditure for the house. Respondent was granted two six-month provisional family day care home licenses while awaiting Florida Department of Law Enforcement screening and abuse registry screening of herself and "Tony Vestal." On January 12, 1998, the Department received a clear background check/screening on Respondent but no information concerning "Tony Vestal." On February 12, 1998, Ms. Sharples inspected the home on Sisco Street for a compliance check. Respondent was notified of items to correct. On March 9, 1998, the Department sent a certified letter to Respondent because it had not received any communication from her that the noncompliance items had been corrected in anticipation of a second compliance visit. On April 8, 1998, Ms. Sharples secured a copy of the deed to the Sisco Street address. It showed the property to be owned by "Tony Mitchell and Gaye Brina Mitchell, his wife." Respondent admitted to Ms. Sharples that Respondent once was married to "Tony Mitchell," but Respondent did not volunteer that "Tony Mitchell" and "Tony Vestal" were one and the same person. By a November 25, 1998, application for a commercial day care facility license on Grove Avenue in Crescent City, Respondent listed her name as "Gaye Brina Vestal," her address as a post office box, and the owners of the Grove Avenue real property as "Tony L. Mitchell" and herself as "Gaye Brina Mitchell." Respondent signed the application as "Gaye Brina Vestal." Also on November 25, 1998, Respondent submitted an application fee of $25.00 by a check drawn on the account of "L & M Falling Tree Service" signed by "Tony Mitchell." Ken Barnett processes commercial family day care facility license applications for the Department. He is Ms. Sharples' supervisor. On November 18, 1998, the Department sent Respondent a letter verifying that she had not renewed her family day care home license because she was applying for a commercial family day care facility license and informing her that her family day care home must close on December 31, 1998. Respondent asked Mr. Barnett when she would be licensed for a commercial family day care facility license. He replied that if the final inspection went all right, Respondent would be licensed within two weeks of December 31, 1998. As a result of her conversation with Mr. Barnett, Respondent did not timely renew her family day care home license. Her day care home license has since expired. 3/ At some point that is unclear from the record, the Department discovered that "Tony Vestal" and "Tony Mitchell" were one and the same person with two different driver's licenses and two different Social Security account numbers. As a result, on February 4, 1999, the Department denied Respondent's pending application for a commercial day care facility license. At some date that is unclear from the record, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement background screening and the abuse registry screening came back clear on Respondent, "Tony Vestal," and "Tony Mitchell," e.g. "Tony" under both Social Security numbers. Tony testified that he originally had used the name "Mitchell" to hide his children by his first wife so that his first wife would not take their children to Mexico. Tony testified that he never used his Social Security card for a job; he only used it "privately," to keep his ex-wife from finding him. As of the date of the disputed fact hearing, Tony had not notified the Federal Social Security Administration that he had two Social Security identities/accounts. Since the Department's denial, but prior to the disputed fact hearing, Tony's driver's license in the name "Vestal" had been turned-in to the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (DHSMV) and his driver's license in the name of "Mitchell" had been revoked by that agency. 4/ Respondent asserted that DHSMV compromised what could have been harsher civil and/or criminal penalties upon its determination that Tony had no intent to defraud. However, Respondent introduced no corroborative evidence of this assertion. At all times material, Respondent knew about Tony's two Social Security cards and two driver's licenses in different names. Respondent and Tony signed all the departmental forms referred-to above pursuant to the penalty of perjury for not telling the truth thereon. Incredibly, Respondent testified that it did not occur to her that the use of different names on the documentation supporting her several applications would create confusion within the Department. Equally incredibly, Respondent testified that she had assumed that the preliminary background screenings and fingerprint checks would disclose all identities so that full disclosure would be made and all discrepancies explained.
Recommendation Upon 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 Respondent's application for a commercial day care facility license. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of November, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 2nd day of November, 1999.
The Issue The issue is whether the renewal application for a family day care home license filed by Petitioner should be denied based upon alleged violations of Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C-20.10(1)(f), stated in Respondent's letter of proposed denial dated August 3, 2005.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the observation of and the demeanor of the witnesses while testifying, documentary materials in evidence, stipulations of the parties, and evidentiary rulings during the hearing, the following relevant, material, and substantial facts are determined: Petitioner was initially granted her first family day care home license to operate a family day care home at 2829 Kathryn Drive, Lakeland, Florida 33805, on August 3, 2003, and her family day care home license was renewed by Respondent for operation at the above address for one additional year on August 3, 2004. At the time of the 2004 family day care home license renewal, Petitioner was in compliance, with no noncompliant items noted in her record from 2003 through 2004 that would have justified denial of the license renewal. On an unspecified date prior to August 3, 2005, Petitioner made an application to renew her family day care home license. On August 3, 2005, Respondent notified Petitioner by letter of the proposal to deny her application for renewal of her family day care home license. Petitioner contested the proposed denial resulting in this administrative hearing on November 7, 2005. The denial letter of Respondent indicated that the decision was based upon, "[y]our inability to ensure the safety of children in your care." The letter continued stating: "Your Family Day Care Home was found to be out of compliance in regards to the fencing requirements as stated in 65C-20.10(1)(f), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), on 07/28/03, 03/22/04, 01/12/05, 01/20/05, and 06/10/05." Petitioner acknowledged that the fence was missing a few boards during the above period. It is undisputed that the January 12, 2005, inspection by Timothy Graddy, child care licensing inspector, found numerous violations. Upon reinspection by Mr. Graddy on January 20, 2005, the violations noted during his January 12, 2005, inspection were corrected, but for repair of the fence around the home and the undated fire extinguisher inspection certification. Mr. Graddy was not called to testify regarding the severity of the noncompliance violations, the probability of harm to health or safety of the children nor actions taken by Petitioner to correct the cited violations. No other witness testified regarding these mandatory items. It is likewise undisputed that Respondent imposed an administrative fine on Petitioner for noncompliance items identified during an undated inspection in 2004. Petitioner, without requesting a Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, hearing, paid the administrative fine of $100 on December 9, 2004, for violations noted in compliance inspections that occurred between January and December of 2004. It is likewise undisputed that the Department imposed a second administrative fine on Petitioner for those violations noted from inspections that occurred between January 1, 2005, and June 21, 2005. Again, and without requesting a Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, hearing, Petitioner paid the administrative fine of $250 on June 1, 2005. William Wright, child care licensing inspector and a member of the license application review committee, reviewed the relicensing application filed by Petitioner, voiced as his primary concern a July 2005 central abuse hotline report of an incident that occurred July 11, 2005. In the abuse report, a two-year-old male child was reported to have had bruises on both facial cheeks. The allegations narrative reflected the child received the bruises by falling/tripping over his shoes. Petitioner called the father of the child, who came by, observed the bruise on his child's cheeks, signed an incident statement prepared by Petitioner, and took his child home. The father did not return his child to Petitioner's family day care home. During the subsequent investigation of the abuse incident, bruises were found on the child's thigh(s). Two or three days after the July 11, 2005, incident report, a subsequent investigation by local law enforcement and follow-up investigation by Respondent's personnel resulted in conflicting and unresolved accounts of how the child received the bruises, where the child received the bruises, and who was at fault for the bruises. It was unclear to the investigators where and how the child received the bruises on his thighs. What is clear is that the child did not receive thigh bruises while in Petitioner's family day care home. Respondent closed the abuse report with "[S]ome indicator of bruises, welts and marks. No intervention services were needed." There is insufficient evidence to conclude, infer or establish that while in Petitioner's care the child sustained bruises on his thighs that were discovered several days after the July 11, 2005, abuse report and, thus, to conclude the child's safety was at risk while in Petitioner's family day care home. Another review committee member, Patricia Hamilton, child care licensing supervisor, opined the proposed denial was based upon "the Department's belief" that Petitioner was not able to operate a day care without violating one or more Florida Administrative Code rules. It is her belief that children in Petitioner's family day care home would not be safe because the historical inspection record compiled by Respondent, in her opinion, demonstrated Petitioner could not consistently comply with the rules of operating a safe family day care home. This is a reasonable inference drawn from a historical review of Petitioner's family day care home inspection record. Petitioner, as of November 28, 2005, filed a Notice of Change of Address. Petitioner now resides at 7354 Beaumont Drive, Lakeland, Florida. By moving to a new residence, Petitioner effectively withdrew the family day care home license application for license of the residence at 2829 Kathryn Avenue, Lakeland, Florida 33805, the subject of this case.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law hereinabove, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Family Services enter a final order dismissing the petition filed by Tarsha Seay, d/b/a Seay Family Day Care Home. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of February, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FRED L. BUCKINE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of February, 2006.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence allegations contained in its Proposed Revocation of Respondent's Family Day Care License No. 907 dated January 21, 2004.
Findings Of Fact Based upon observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, exhibits admitted into evidence, stipulations and arguments of the parties, evidentiary rulings made pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes (2003), and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant and material facts are determined: 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 that 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 without notice. Respondent is the provider and licensed owner of a licensed family day care home located at 965 Waldon Avenue in Bartow, Florida (hereinafter “Respondent’s facility” or “the facility”). Respondent’s facility consists of a family residence with a connecting door to the converted garage. The number of children Respondent may have in “care” each day depends upon: (1) the ages of the children in care and (2) the number of qualified caregivers available to supervise the children in various age groups. This restrictive requirement, referred to as the “child care ratio,” is mandated by statute, the violation of which creates a dangerous situation and a dangerous condition for the safety and well-being of the children in care. The Inspection and violations On March 12, 2003, Respondent’s facility was inspected by Gloria Mathews (Ms. Mathews) and Tricia Step (Ms. Step), and several areas of non-compliance were identified during this inspection. The following non-compliant items were noted on Petitioner’s Family Child Care Home Inspection Checklist: unsafe storage of materials dangerous to children was observed in the bathroom drawers, litter was observed in areas where children play, equipment or plumbing not in working order (item was a baby crib and toilet with tissue the children had not flushed), no operable smoke detector or fire extinguisher, the surface of the diaper changing area was not impermeable, no record of fire drills for the past six months, and an up-to-date and age-appropriate immunization record was missing for one child. Two other non-compliant items, Ipecac not labeled with poison control phone number and seven pre-school age children ages 12 months and older were in the facility. Respondent may provide care to only six children in this age group. The extra child was taken home, and this item was corrected at the time of inspection. On December 18, 2003, Respondent’s facility was inspected by Ms. Mathews and Ms. Step, and the following non- compliant items were noted on the Family Child Care Home Complaint: Respondent had 18 children in the facility three of which were infants. Respondent was not present at the time of inspection, and the substitute caregiver was in charge. Petitioner could not determine whether screening of the substitute caregiver, Elizabeth Ricks, had been completed. Ms. Mathews and Ms. Step remained at Respondent’s facility until the parents picked up their children. James Hayes (Mr. Hayes), Respondent’s husband, took one child home. On January 21, 2004, Petitioner informed Respondent by certified mail of the proposed revocation of her family day care license initially issued in March 2002. Petitioner alleged that the decision to revoke Respondent’s license to operate a family child care facility was based on her failure to ensure that the children' substitute caregivers were adequately screened and because Respondent's home was over capacity and out of ratio. The notice stated: On December 18, 2003, there were eighteen (18) children in your day care home. Three (3) of the children were under the age of twelve (12) months. With 3 infants in your care, your license permits you to care for a maximum of six (6) children. The number of children in your home far exceeds the number of children allowed. During an inspection on March 12, 2003, seven (7) preschool age children ages 12 months and older were observed in your home. You are permitted six (6) children in this age group. This violates section 402.302(7), F.S. You also failed to insure [sic] that the substitute care persons in your home caring for children were properly screened in accordance with section 402.313, Florida Statutes. At the final hearing, Petitioner’s inspectors, Ms. Mathews and Ms. Step testified that when they arrived at Respondent’s facility on December 18, 2003, Mr. Hayes was in the facility. Based upon the testimony of the inspectors, Petitioner argued in its post-hearing submittal that Mr. Hayes had not been screened and that he had a criminal record. Petitioner presented no evidence to substantiate the claim that Mr. Hayes had a criminal record. The testimony and argument regarding this issue is hearsay without corroboration and disregarded. Respondent's Evidence Respondent testified that she was out of town on December 18, 2003, and that her substitute caregiver had begun training classes, but apparently had not completed the course and, therefore, had no background check performed. According to Respondent, non-compliant items identified by Petitioner’s inspectors were corrected as soon thereafter as possible. Respondent testified that she was confused regarding the infant and pre-school child-to-caregiver ratio because it was never explained to her in the manner testified to by both Ms. Mathews and Ms. Step. Continuing, Respondent testified that her substitute caregiver(s) had completed the required training and are now qualified to assist her. She contended that submission of the names and certification of training completion had been provided to Petitioner and that she was awaiting Petitioner's response. This testimony was not disputed by Petitioner. Respondent, to counter allegations that her facility and personnel presented a significant or potential risk of harm to the children, provided four testimonial letters from parents who were regular patrons of her facility. Each of the four parents expressed confidence in the assurance of safety and the ready necessity of Respondent’s child care services during the work week and often times during the weekend. Respondent presented photographs of her facility evidencing the facility’s configuration, carpeting, equipment, beds, and other furniture. Respondent testified that Mr. Hayes does not enter the facility during the time children are present. To ensure separation between the family’s living area and the attached rooms used for child care, Respondent installed a door between the room leading from the family’s living area to the anteroom and the garage. Respondent corrected every non-compliant item identified by Petitioner during their two inspections of her facility. Many, if not all, corrections were made when identified; i.e., the clogged toilet was flushed. The non- compliant items, individually or collectively, were minor and did not directly create an unsafe situation for the children in care. These efforts demonstrated a sincere intent and desire to comply with Petitioner's rules and regulations and to continue to provide a safe and necessary family day care home for working parents in her immediate neighborhood. Violations Proven by Petitioner Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence that on March 12, 2003, there were seven preschool children ages 12 months and older in the facility, Family Day Care License No. 907 permits a maximum of six children in care, an amount in violation of Subsection 402.302(7)(c), Florida Statutes (2003). Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence that on December 18, 2003, there were 18 children in Respondent's facility in violation of Subsection 402.302(7)(b), Florida Statutes (2003).
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Finding of Facts 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 Subsection 402.302(7), Florida Statutes (2003), twice. Finding Petitioner not guilty of violating Section 402.313(3), Florida Statutes (2003). Setting aside the revocation of Respondent's family day care home license. Suspending Respondent's family day care home license until such time that the following conditions are met to the satisfaction of the Department: Respondent's substitute caregivers are identified, trained, qualified, and approved by Petitioner. Respondent demonstrates an understanding of the required child-to-child caregiver ratios. Respondent has trained each of her substitute caregivers on the child-to-child caregiver ratios and provides written instructions to be followed by her caregivers each day when the children in care in a specific age group are out of ratio to the number of caregivers present. That all conditions hereinabove are completed to the satisfaction of Petitioner as the condition for lifting the suspension. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of September 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FRED L. BUCKINE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of September, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack Emory Farley, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 4720 Old Highway 37 Lakeland, Florida 33813-2030 Theresa Hayes Arielle's Angel Care 965 Waldon Avenue Bartow, Florida 33830 Paul F. 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 in this case is whether Petitioner should have her application to renew her childcare facility license denied by Respondent, Department of Children and Families (“Department”), for the reasons set forth in the Amended Denial of Application to Renew Child Care Facility License.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Roslyn Smith, holds license No. C07V00140, by which she is licensed to operate the Rising Stars childcare facility pursuant to chapter 402, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 65C-22. Petitioner has operated the Rising Stars childcare facility for 12 years. She serves very low-income children in the Daytona Beach area. There is no question but that Petitioner offers superior service to the children under her care. Petitioner maintains a clothing bank to ensure that the children in her care are adequately clothed. Petitioner prepares wholesome, homemade, nutritious meals for the children, eschewing the more common chicken nuggets and corn dogs offered up at other facilities. The children are encouraged in their classrooms, with appropriate and well-kept educational materials. The facility is clean and well maintained. Petitioner’s husband frequents the facility to perform maintenance and upkeep. The children in her care love Petitioner, a feeling that she returns in kind. On September 20, 2010, Petitioner and the Department entered into a Settlement Agreement to resolve several background screening and training violations. The agreement resulted in Petitioner’s license being placed on probationary status for a period of six months. The Department’s denial of Petitioner’s license renewal was based solely on alleged violations discovered during an inspection conducted on November 3, 2010, and on an alleged violation discovered on February 2, 2011. The November 3, 2011 inspection was conducted by Patricia Medico. Ms. Medico began working for the Department on May 18, 2010. The November 3, 2010 inspection was her first at Rising Stars. Despite having been trained since her hire, and having had a small caseload in DeLand, Ms. Medico considered herself to be “a very new counselor starting at [Petitioner’s] place in November.” Ms. Medico made it a practice to inspect facilities without first reviewing any information or previous Department inspection reports, a common practice with other inspectors. She believed that by going out “cold,” it allowed her to be more objective, and to have no preconceived notions or prejudices. On November 18, 2010, a re-inspection of the facility was performed by Ms. Medico. All deficiencies identified during the November 3, 2010 inspection had been resolved, and no further violations were discovered. Since the November 3, 2010 inspection, Rising Stars has been in substantial -- if not almost perfect -- compliance with all childcare facility standards. From November 3, 2010 through the August 26, 2011 inspection, the only violations discovered were Quinetta Edwards’ missing affidavit of good moral character discussed below, one classroom without a posted lesson plan in March 2011, a minor attendance roster discrepancy in March 2011 that was corrected during the inspection, and one time when the posted lunch menu was not dated. The evidence demonstrates that Petitioner made substantial, effective, and sufficient progress toward compliance since the entry of the settlement agreement on September 20, 2010, and it is so found. The specific violations that form the basis for the denial of Petitioner’s license renewal are as follows: Training Violations Veronica Dickson The Department listed, as a basis for the denial of Petitioner’s license renewal, that Petitioner did not have documentation in the employment file of Veronica Dickson showing that she had started her 40-clock-hour training within 90 days of commencement of her employment at Rising Stars. The evidence suggests that the documentation of Ms. Dickson’s training was in her file since at least October 8, 2010, and another copy was printed from the Daytona State College website and provided to Ms. Medico during the inspection. Ms. Medico stated that she had no recollection of having seen Ms. Dickson’s training records during the inspection. At various times, Ms. Medico admitted that due to her large caseload, she was unclear as to the specifics of any given inspection. However, she indicated that the inspection report is her contemporaneous statement of the facts. She further indicated that it was her practice to print out a copy of the report and go over it with the licensee before having the licensee sign it. When Ms. Medico left a facility, the inspection report provided to the licensee “isn’t necessarily the written in stone inspection.” Rather, it is subject to review, occasionally with items that were found to be non-compliant changed to being compliant, and items that were found to be compliant changed to being non-compliant. If items were changed, Ms. Medico would call the licensee to advise them of the change. Contrary to Ms. Medico’s description of the process, Petitioner testified that, as the normal practice, Ms. Medico did not go over the inspection reports point-by-point. Rather, she indicated that she would receive an unsigned report from Ms. Medico after having accompanied her during the inspection and having discussed -- and oftentimes resolved -- problems at the time. She would sign the computerized signature block without reviewing the report, relying on the earlier discussions. If necessary, she would review the report after the inspection. Having personally provided Ms. Dickson’s training records to Ms. Medico, Petitioner did not realize that the training records were identified as a violation on November 3, 2010. Petitioner would have disputed the violation had she known at the time that she was being cited. The evidence as to whether the training documentation was in Ms. Dickson’s file is contradictory. However, the more persuasive evidence supports a finding of fact that the documentation was provided at the time of the inspection, but was either overlooked or forgotten by Ms. Medico. Therefore, there was no violation of any childcare standard associated with Ms. Dickson’s training records. Alicia Thomas The Department listed, as a basis for the denial of Petitioner’s license renewal, that Alicia Thomas had not started her 40-hour training within 90 days of having started employment in the childcare industry. According to the Department’s personnel records, Ms. Thomas was first employed in the childcare industry on April 5, 2010. There is no evidence to indicate by whom she was employed on that date. The Department provided no information as to how a licensee is to know when a person is employed “in the industry.” However, it is clear that a candidate for employment at a child care facility is to commence training within 90 days of employment at any licensed childcare facility, and that the employing childcare facility is responsible for obtaining documentation from childcare personnel. The evidence is undisputed that Ms. Thomas’s background screening was complete and clear. Furthermore, Ms. Thomas had completed her required in-service training by June 30, 2010. The Department personnel summary sheet indicates that Ms. Thomas started her employment at Rising Stars on May 5, 2010. However, the greater weight of the evidence indicates that Ms. Thomas was hired by Petitioner in July, 2010. From July through November, 2010, which was the period of Ms. Thomas’s employment at Rising Stars, she worked fewer than 30 days due to various medical issues. The evidence indicates that Ms. Thomas’s failure to commence her 40-hour training was not cited by the Department as a violation on November 3, 2010. The unsigned inspection report provided by Ms. Medico for Petitioner’s review did not list a violation related to Ms. Thomas’s training. Ms. Medico testified that she did not cite Petitioner for a violation related to Ms. Thomas on November 3, 2010. Rather, she indicated that “all I did was tell her in notes that Alisca needed to get this,” and that “the next time I went out, she would be cited if she did not correct that.” (emphasis added). Ms. Adams testified that “technically, [Petitioner] should have been cited additionally for Alisca Thomas not starting her training on time,” but that “I overlooked it, and I don’t know what [Ms. Medico’s] rationale was [for not citing], but I overlooked it.” Petitioner testified that Alisca Thomas never appeared on any inspection report that she received. The greater weight of the evidence demonstrates that Petitioner was not cited for a violation related to Ms. Thomas’s training status, and that the deficiency would be considered to be a violation only if it was not corrected by the November 18, 2010 re-inspection. By the time of the November 18, 2010 re-inspection, Ms. Thomas had commenced her training, documentation of which was in her file. Thus, Petitioner made sufficient progress toward compliance, and in fact completely resolved the issue, by the time Ms. Medico went back to the facility. Despite having come into compliance with her training requirements, Ms. Thomas was let go shortly after November 18, 2010 due to her ongoing health issues. Based on the foregoing, Ms. Thomas’s training status, having been completely resolved prior to it being cited as a violation, and its having had no proven effect on the health, safety, or child development needs of the children in Petitioner’s care, is not a sufficient basis for denial of the renewal license. Record-Keeping Course Violation The Department listed, as a basis for the denial of Petitioner’s license renewal, that Petitioner did not complete the Guide to Record Keeping online course or the CEU assessment as required by the September 20, 2010 settlement agreement. As part of the settlement agreement, Petitioner was required by the Department to take and pass the course, and get credit for the Continuing Education Units (CEUs). Petitioner had taken the course in 2009, and had received a certificate of completion. The certificate had not expired. Petitioner attempted to take the Guide to Record Keeping online course as required by the settlement agreement. When Petitioner tried to enroll for the course, the course provider refused to allow her to pay the fee or enroll. Such refusal is consistent with the warning on the course registration home page, which states that “[y]ou can only earn one certificate for each course, and you may not earn CEUs for a course you have previously taken.” Petitioner testified that she advised Ms. Medico and Ms. Adams of the problem with taking the online course. Ms. Adams had a recollection of meeting Petitioner in the lobby of the DCF building, and discussing Ms. Dickson’s and Ms. Thomas’s training issues with her, but did not mention discussing Petitioner’s difficulty in taking the record keeping class. Whether Ms. Adams was told of the problem or not is immaterial. The evidence is sufficient to demonstrate, at the very least, that Petitioner advised Ms. Medico, a representative of the Department, of the problem in taking the course. The Department should have known of the restriction on retaking the course at the time it imposed that requirement on Petitioner. Petitioner had no reason to expect that the Department’s required settlement condition could not be performed, and did not know of the restriction until she attempted to comply. Petitioner made a good faith effort to comply with the condition but, since the course provider prohibited Petitioner from retaking the course and receiving CEU credit, performance of that element of the settlement agreement was impossible. Based on the foregoing, Petitioner’s failure to take, complete, and receive CEU credit for the Guide to Record Keeping course, in light of the impossibility of doing so, is not a sufficient basis for denial of the renewal license. Untimely Meeting Violation The Department listed, as a basis for the denial of Petitioner’s license renewal, that Petitioner failed to meet with Susan Liebee, a coordinator at the Daytona State College, within 10 days of the date of the settlement agreement to discuss staff training requirements. The meeting was to have been held by September 30, 2010, but did not take place until October 8, 2010. Petitioner testified that she went to Ms. Liebee’s office to meet with her, but that she was not there. She subsequently called and made an appointment with Ms. Liebee to meet on October 8, 2010, and met as scheduled. Petitioner made every reasonable effort to meet the time frame for the meeting established in the settlement agreement, but due to reasons outside of her control was not able to meet until Ms. Liebee was available on October 8, 2010. Petitioner’s testimony on that point was credible, and there was no evidence to the contrary. Based on the foregoing, Petitioner’s failure to meet with Ms. Liebee due to circumstances involving Ms. Liebee’s schedule that were out of Petitioner’s control, is not a sufficient basis for denial of the renewal license. Affidavit of Good Moral Character Violation The Department listed, as a basis for the denial of Petitioner’s license renewal, that an Affidavit of Good Moral Character was not in the file of new hire Quinetta Edwards. Ms. Edwards was hired effective February 1, 2010. The inspection during which Ms. Edward’s employment file was reviewed was conducted on February 2, 2010. As stated by Ms. Medico, a new employee’s background investigation consists of the level 2 background screening required in Chapter 435, the Affidavit of Good Moral Character signed by the employee, the signed and notarized Child Abuse Reporting Form, the employee’s employment history, checked references for two years, and a supplemental statement that the employee has not had a child care license denied or revoked in the past. All of the screening requirements listed by Ms. Medico, and established in rule 65C-22.006(4), had been met but for the affidavit. Due to a simple oversight, Ms. Edwards failed to execute the Affidavit of Good Moral Character prior to her employment with Petitioner. Upon learning of the oversight, Ms. Edwards executed the Affidavit on February 8, 2010. Petitioner thereupon submitted the affidavit to the Department by facsimile on that date. There was no attempt to backdate the form, or to do anything other than honestly correct the oversight. Ms. Edwards has cleared all screening, meets all employee standards, and remains on the staff of Rising Stars without any problems to this day. The simple and unintentional oversight in having Ms. Edwards execute her affidavit one week after commencement of employment, given that all other background screening was completed without incident, had no effect on the health or safety of the children attending Rising Stars. That oversight was not a material violation of the Department’s licensing standards or of the settlement agreement, and is not a sufficient factual basis for the denial of Petitioner’s license renewal. Other Violations Not Pled In addition to the issues pled as reasons for denial in the Department’s Amended Denial of Application to Renew Child Care Facility License, the parties introduced testimony and documentary evidence regarding a number of alleged minor deficiencies at the Rising Stars facility discovered during the November 3, 2010 inspection. Both Ms. Medico and Ms. Adams admitted that the deficiencies did not form the basis for the Department’s proposed action. As to the facility violations -- which included among other minor deficiencies, a missing lesson plan; exposed “S” hooks on the swing set; worn electrical outlet covers; an exposed, but generally inaccessible screw point underneath a bench; uneven boards on a deck; and two forks in a drawer accessible but off-limits to children -- the evidence demonstrates conclusively that those deficiencies are “common problems” and that “those things, they happen everywhere.” The evidence further demonstrates that Petitioner’s husband keeps the facility well kept and maintained, and that Petitioner does a “wonderful job” with the Rising Stars facility. The evidence is undisputed that each of the alleged violations identified in the November 3, 2010 inspection report were either corrected on the spot during the inspection, or were corrected by the November 18, 2010 re-inspection. They have not recurred. To the extent that those alleged deficiencies are considered in the final decision regarding renewal of Petitioner’s license, despite having not been pled by the Department, it is found that the alleged deficiencies, have had no adverse effect on the health, sanitation, safety, and adequate physical surroundings for the children in Petitioner’s care, have had no adverse effect on the health and nutrition of the children in Petitioner’s care, and have had no adverse effect on the child development needs of the children in Petitioner’s care. Therefore, those alleged deficiencies do not form a sufficient basis for denial of Petitioner’s license renewal. Finally, evidence was received regarding the employment of Jennifer Geier by Petitioner during a period that she was disqualified from employment. Petitioner was not aware that Ms. Geier was subject to disqualification, especially since she had received a letter from the Department of Corrections dated September 9, 2009, stating that “there are no stipulations in her order that prevents her from employment in a child care facility.”1/ Upon discovering that the offense was, in fact, disqualifying, Ms. Geier was terminated. It is clear that at the time the Department issued its Amended Denial of Application to Renew Child Care Facility License on August 2, 2011, the Department was well aware of Ms. Geier and her relationship with Petitioner, with all aspects of her employment at Rising Stars having been resolved in the September 20, 2010 Settlement Agreement, and with her having received a Final Order from the Department granting an exemption from disqualification on January 3, 2011. Since all aspects of Ms. Geier’s employment were resolved by the settlement agreement, and since Ms. Geier’s employment by Petitioner was not pled by the Department, her previous employment does not form a sufficient basis for denial of Petitioner’s license renewal.
Recommendation Upon the consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Family Services enter a Final Order granting the renewal of license, No. C07V00140, to Petitioner Roslyn Smith for the operation the Rising Stars childcare facility. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of November, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of November, 2011.
The Issue Whether Petitioner's license to operate a family day care home should be renewed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the testimony and evidence received at the hearing, the following findings are made: The Parties Respondent is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating child care facilities, including family day care homes. Respondent routinely conducts inspections of licensed family day care homes to determine whether the homes are 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. Respondent 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. Petitioner is the owner and operator of a licensed family day care home located at 1502 North Kettles Avenue, Lakeland, Florida (hereinafter "Petitioner's facility" or "the facility"). Petitioner resides at that address as well. Petitioner has operated a day care home at the above address for approximately three years. Petitioner 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. Petitioner keeps children in her home, and children also play in Petitioner's backyard. This area is enclosed by a fence. Inspections and Resulting Actions by Respondent Petitioner's facility was inspected on February 4, 2003, by Respondent's inspector, Timothy Graddy, who found Petitioner caring for children. Several areas of noncompliance were identified during this inspection. Violations noted included unsafe and unsecured storage of materials dangerous to children, namely, bleach and other household cleaning chemicals were left out in the kitchen and a bathroom cleaning product was observed in the tub; paper and trash were littered around the home's back door which leads to the playground area; water that had collected in the sandbox, which presented a drowning hazard; no written evidence of a fire drill having been conducted on a monthly basis; and some of the children's immunization records were found to be out-of-date, which presented a health safety issue. A re-inspection was conducted on February 6, 2003, all violations had been corrected, and no fine or other penalty was imposed at that time. On August 26, 2004, Respondent's inspector, Tricia Step, went to Petitioner's family day care home to carry out a routine inspection, and she observed five children in the home at that time. Several areas of noncompliance were identified. The lock on a kitchen cabinet did not catch, allowing children access to household cleaning products stored there; the children's play area contained litter (empty chip bags and soda cans); an extension cord was lying on the ground in the playground area; the play areas in the home were not clean and stacked against a wall were toys and "stuff," which could fall on the children; at the time of the inspection, children were observed sleeping on blankets with no mats under them, which is in violation of the requirement that each child be provided with a mat, at least one inch thick, covered with an impermeable surface; Petitioner could not provide a record of fire drills being conducted within the previous six months; and an up-to- date and age-appropriate immunization record was missing for a child in her care. After Ms. Step completed her inspection, she discussed the results with Petitioner and provided Petitioner a copy of the inspection report. Petitioner made the corrections required prior to the due date listed on the report. Petitioner's premises were inspected for re-licensure by Mr. Graddy on January 15, 2004, and several areas of noncompliance were identified. Mr. Graddy observed a hammer, motor oil, and a plastic garbage bag on the front stoop area, which are hazardous and dangerous to children; litter, including aluminum cans and paper, was observed in areas where children play; a gap in the required 4-foot fence was observed, which would permit children in the outdoor play area access to a trafficked street; a written record of fire drills for the months of December 2003 and January 2004 were not provided; Petitioner was unable to produce a student health examination file on two children in her care; and the current enrollment information was incomplete on four children. The results of the inspection were discussed with Petitioner, and she was given a copy of the report. Graddy then went back to his office and discussed the results of the inspection with his supervisor, Patricia Hamilton. Based upon the results of the January 15, 2004, inspection and the prior incidents of noncompliance at Petitioner's facility, Ms. Hamilton determined that Petitioner's license should not be renewed. Although Petitioner attempted to do so, Respondent did not give Petitioner an opportunity to bring her home into compliance with the minimum standards in Respondent's licensing rules and standards before deciding to issue a letter of denial. Thereafter, on March 2, 2004, Mr. Graddy sent a letter to Petitioner informing her that her license was not being renewed and advising Petitioner of her right to "appeal" that decision through the administrative process. At the hearing, Ms. Hamilton testified that she was particularly concerned about Petitioner's repeat violations, namely Petitioner allowing the children access to toxic and other dangerous materials, repeated failure to conduct fire drills, and to keep health and enrollment records current. She characterized these as serious child safety violations. These were the primary reasons she recommended that Petitioner's child care license not be renewed. Petitioner, in her testimony, did not deny committing the violations noted in the inspections of February 4, 2003, August 26, 2003, and January 15, 2004. However, she did demonstrate that a re-inspection of her facility listed her to be in compliance with all violations listed in the report. Petitioner's testimony is credible, especially when bolstered by her friends, family, and client's testimonials, that she is a loving and caring person who goes out of her way to care for the children she keeps in her home. The evidence is clear and convincing that Petitioner violated several code provisions, including repeated violations of the rules regarding toxic and hazardous materials; trash and dangerous conditions in the children's play area; failure to conduct fire drills; and failure to have current health and enrollment records on file for each child. Respondent withdrew its allegation that Petitioner was not a person of good moral character. Petitioner has shown mitigating evidence that she is a concerned and loving caregiver and has demonstrated that her license for a family day care home should not be denied or revoked but that a lesser penalty should be imposed.
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-20.010(1)(b) (three counts), 65C-20.010(1(e) (three counts), and 65C-20.010(3)(b)4. (three counts). Finding Petitioner not guilty of violating the provisions of Section 402.301, Florida Statutes. Issuing Petitioner a provisional license. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of July, 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 30th day of July, 2004.
