The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether the Respondent committed the offenses described in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what is the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Child Care 2000, Inc. No. 2, is a licensed child care facility located in Wildwood, Florida. Clark Henning is employed by the Department and is responsible for overseeing child care facilities in Wildwood, Florida. Mr. Henning went to Respondent's facility on January 25, 2005, to perform a routine inspection. While conducting the routine inspection, he observed a group of 11 children of mixed ages and one staff member. He observed two of the children, which he believed to be between one and two years old, in the group of 11. The inspection report reflects that there were a total of 15 children and two staff members in the day care facility at the time of the report. When making inspections, Mr. Henning counts the children present and, if he has any question as to a child's age, he checks the facility's records to determine the child's age. He is not certain that he checked the facility's records on January 25, 2005, but believes there is a "high degree of possibility" that he did so. As a result of his observation of what he believed to be two one-year-olds in the group of 11 children, Mr. Henning found Respondent to be in violation of the required staff-to- children ratio. The staff-to-children ratio was the only category which he found to be in non-compliance on his written inspection checklist. He signed the inspection checklist and gave it to a staff member. The section of the inspection report entitled "Due Date" states, "Correction made at time of inspection." According to Mr. Henning, he did not seek to impose a fine because the Department does not routinely impose a fine on a first violation. Michelle Mayo is the staff member who signed for the January 25, 2005, report. Ms. Mayo disagrees with Mr. Henning's observations regarding the ages of the children present in the group of 11 children on January 25, 2005. Ms. Mayo was caring for four of the 15 children in the infant room. She took an infant and three one-year-olds with her to the infant room, leaving no children in the group of 11 under the age of two. Mr. Henning did not ask Ms. Mayo about the ages of the children. While both Mr. Henning's and Ms. Mayo's testimony were equally credible, Ms. Mayo was in a position of knowing first- hand the ages of the children she was caring for. Accordingly, the weight of the evidence does not establish that a staff-to- children ratio violation existed on January 25, 2005. On or about January 31, 2005, the Department received a complaint regarding Respondent's facility. On February 4, 2005, Mr. Henning went to Respondent's facility to make a surprise inspection. During the February 4, 2005, inspection, Mr. Henning found no evidence to support the allegations raised in the complaint he was investigating. However, he did observe fifteen children and only one staff member present. Mr. Henning identified the children's ages to be one infant, one one-year- old, and three two-year-olds. According to Mr. Henning, there should have been three staff members for this group of children for an appropriate child-to-staff ratio. His written report of the February 4, 2005, complaint inspection found Respondent to be in violation of staff-to- children ratio requirements. Again, the section of the report entitled "Due Date" states, "Correction made at time of inspection." A staff-to-children ratio violation is classified as a Class 2 violation in that there is potential harm to the children. As a result of his finding a class 2 violation, he issued an Intent to Impose Administrative Action which was again signed for by Ms. Mayo. Mr. Henning recommended imposing a fine upon Respondent to his supervisor, Diana McKenzie, because he found this to be a second violation of the same type. Ms. McKenzie made the final decision to impose a fine of $100 against Respondent. While the Administrative Complaint only references the February 4, 2005, incident, it is clear from the evidence presented that the Department's decision to impose a fine was based on the finding that this was a second violation of the same type. Alicia Barrett is President of the corporation which owns Child Care 2000, Inc. Ms. Barrett acknowledges that there was a brief period of time on February 4, 2005, when the facility was out of compliance concerning the staff-to-student ratio. According to Ms. Barrett, the problem was the result of a staff member whose car broke down on the way to work. One staff member arrived to open the facility. A second staff member was scheduled to arrive ten to 15 minutes later. However, it was that staff member whose car broke down. A third staff member arrived and left briefly to pick up the second staff member whose car had broken down nearby. Mr. Henning arrived after the staff member left to pick up her co-worker. After the February 4, 2005, incident, Ms. Barrett fired the staff member who left the facility to pick-up her co- worker while she should have been watching the children in her care. Prior to the incidents described herein, Respondent's facility had not received a citation for a staff-to-children ratio violation. The Department's Enforcement Fact Sheet reads in pertinent part as follows: The Department is given enforcement authority by sections 42.310, 402.311, 402.312, [sic]and 402.313, 402.3131, Florida Statutes, and shall take the following actions in accordance with the following guidelines: Require corrective action. -Corrective action plan documents all standards cited for non-compliance with corrective action, task, and due dates. * * * Impose an administrative fine. -If corrective action is not completed within specified time frame, an administrative fine may be levied.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Children and Family Services enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint issued against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of August, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BARBARA J. STAROS 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 3rd day of August, 2005.
The Issue Whether Respondent, Tender Loving Care Christian Learning Academy, violated section 402.305(4), Florida Statutes (2012),1/ and Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C-22.001(4)(a), regarding proper staff-to-child for a child care facility; and, if so, the appropriate penalty. Whether Respondent violated section 435.04(1), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C-22.006, by not having proper documentation of Level II background screening for a staff member; and, if so, the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact The Department is statutorily charged with the licensing and regulation of child care facilities. See § 402.301, et seq., Fla. Stat.; and Fla. Admin. Code R. ch. 65C-20 and 65C-22. Respondent operates a child care facility located at 1234 North Martin Luther King, Jr., Avenue, Lakeland, Florida, and holds state license number C-10PO0380. On August 27, 2012, Ms. Richmond, an investigator for the Department inspected Respondent's child care facility. The inspection was the result of a complaint made against Respondent that stemmed from a child custody dispute. Ms. Richmond arrived at Respondent's facility at approximately 2:40 p.m., where she saw six children being cared for by one staff member. Ms. Richmond saw two children asleep in bouncy-seats. One of the children sleeping in a bouncy-seat appeared to Ms. Richmond to be less than one year of age. Ms. Richmond asked the staff member the age of the child, and the staff member told her that the child was six months old. Ms. Richmond informed the staff member that the room was out of compliance for staff-to-child ratio for supervising an infant. The staff member then removed the sleeping child from the bouncy-seat and took the child to the infant room, placing the sleeping child in a crib. The Department did not bring forward any other evidence showing the age of the child that Ms. Richmond believed was less than one year of age. Ms. Ross-Waring credibly testified that the child in question was her grandchild, and that the child's age was over one year of age. Ms. Ross-Waring explained that the child was small for her age because the child had been born prematurely. During the inspection, Ms. Richmond recognized one of Respondent's staff members as a former employee with a different child care facility. Moreover, Ms. Richmond knew that the staff member had a prior disciplinary history with the other facility. Ms. Richmond testified that staff members with a disciplinary history are required to disclose the prior discipline to the current employer. In order to determine if the staff member had disclosed the prior discipline, Ms. Richmond reviewed Respondent's employment file for the staff member. In reviewing the employment file, Ms. Richmond found that the staff member's records contained Level II background screening from the Agency of Health Care Administration (AHCA), but not one from the Department. Ms. Richmond informed Ms. Ross-Waring, the owner and operator of the child care facility, and Ms. Poe, the director of the child care facility, that the staff member did not have the proper documentation. As a result, the staff member immediately left the premises, and did not return until she secured the Level II background screening from the Department. The staff member obtained the required background screening and returned to work on August 30, 2012, two days after the inspection. Ms. Ross-Waring explained that she believed that the background check provided by the AHCA addressed the same information required by the Department. Therefore, she relied upon the AHCA background check. A past inspection of Respondent's child care facility dated October 7, 2011, resulted in the finding that Respondent did not have background screening documentation for a staff member, D.S., despite D.S. being hired on August 15, 2011. Respondent did not dispute the finding of the lack of proper documentation. As a means of correcting the error, the Department provided Respondent with technical support concerning the required proper background screening documentation. Respondent's failure to have the proper background screening documentation at the August 28, 2012, inspection was Respondent's second violation within two years.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Families enter a final order finding that: Respondent did not violate section 402.305(4) and rule 65C-22.001(4) concerning the staff-to-child ratios; and Respondent violated rule 65C-22.010, failure to keep proper records, and that Respondent be fined $50.00 for non- compliance pursuant to rule 65C-22.010(1)(e)2.b. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of April, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S THOMAS P. CRAPPS 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 30th day of April, 2013.
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint and if so, what penalties should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for certifying and regulating public school teachers in Florida. Respondent is licensed in the fields of elementary education and pre-kindergarten education. She holds Florida Educator's Certificate No. 544004, which was valid through June 30, 2009. During the time relevant to these proceedings, Respondent was employed as a kindergarten teacher at Oceanway Elementary School in the Duval County School District. Criminal Charges On August 7, 2002, Respondent was arrested for contributing to the delinquency of a minor and with failure to comply with the compulsory school attendance law. These charges stemmed from excessive absences from school by her daughter, A.F. During the 2001-2002 school year, A.F. missed 66 days of school. Respondent did not dispute the allegations regarding the excessive absences. She stated that her daughter did not want to attend school, and she took her out of the public school system during the 2002/2003 school year to home school her. Prior to her removal, she missed 13 days of the 2002-2003 school year. Upon her return to school for the 2003-2004 year, Respondent's daughter missed another 43 days of school. On September 3, 2002, Respondent's entered her neighbor's property while he was not at home. She climbed up on a chair to tamper with the mounting of a security camera affixed to the neighbor's garage, removing caulk or putty from around the mounting. Respondent was arrested for trespass and criminal mischief with respect to this incident. On January 17, 2003, Respondent pleaded no contest to the charge of failing to comply with school attendance laws, and adjudication was withheld. Respondent was placed on probation for a period of twelve months, and a fine of $148.00 was imposed. The charge of contributing to the delinquency of a minor was nolle prossed. Respondent's probation with respect to the school attendance violation was terminated on July 8, 2003. Four days later, on January 21, 2003, Respondent pleaded nolo contendere to the trespass charge, and adjudication of guilt was withheld on this charge as well. The criminal mischief charge was nolle prossed. Application for Renewal of Educator's Certificate On April 14, 2004, Respondent filed an application for renewal of her Florida educator's certificate. The application for renewal contained the following question: Have you ever been convicted, found guilty, had adjudication withhold, entered a pretrial diversion program, or pled guilty or nolo contendere (no contest) to a criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation (DUI is NOT a minor traffic violation)? A YES or NO answer is required by Florida law. If you check the YES box, you must give the information requested for each charge. Please attach a separate sheet with your name and social security number if you need more space. Respondent answered the question "no." The application contains and Respondent signed the following certification, which is sworn and notarized: I hereby certify that I subscribe to and will uphold the principles incorporated in the Constitutions of the United States of America and the State of Florida. I understand that Florida Statutes provide for revocation of an Educator's Certificate if evidence and proof are established that the certificate has been obtained by fraudulent means. I further certify that all information pertaining to this application is true, correct, and complete. The information provided on the application for recertification was not true, correct and complete, as it did not include information regarding the two misdemeanor offenses of trespassing and failing to comply with the school attendance law, to which Respondent pled nolo contendere. Inappropriate Student Discipline During 2007-2008 school year, Respondent was teaching kindergarten at Oceanway Elementary School. At this time, she was known as Robin Bush. During at least part of the school year, she was assisted by Roseanne Jones and Irene Szeremi, paraprofessionals who worked in her classroom. While these women worked with Respondent at different times, their testimony about the atmosphere in the classroom was consistent. Respondent was heard threatening the students in her class and yelling at them in a loud, angry manner. According to the paraprofessionals, Respondent yelled at the students almost every day. This behavior would cause some students to become upset and cry, and students appeared to be afraid of Respondent. Respondent punished at least one child, J.H., by making him sit underneath a computer table, amidst the electrical cords, for long periods of time. The area where the child was directed to sit for time-out had not only electrical cords, but electrical outlets readily accessible to small children. On one occasion, Ms. Szeremi observed Respondent discipline J.H. by making him stand up with his nose pressed to the wall at eye level. When Respondent left the room for a moment, the crying child dropped to the ground, protesting that he could not continue. When Respondent returned, she lifted him back to a standing position, using her knees to propel him up. Respondent's loud, threatening behavior was upsetting to the students. At least one student, A.D., had been a happy student during her pre-kindergarten experience. However, within a few weeks of attending Respondent's kindergarten class, she started crying when it was time to go to school and did not want to attend. She had nightmares, complained of an upset stomach, and did not want to be out of her mother's sight. After Respondent was removed from the classroom, A.D.'s behavior improved and she no longer dreaded going to school. In May of 2008, M.D., A.D.'s mother, contacted Mr. Cobb, the principal at Oceanway Elementary, regarding the atmosphere in Respondent's classroom and her concerns about inappropriate discipline taking place in the classroom. The two paraprofessionals working with Respondent had also voiced concerns about her behavior. As a result of these concerns, an investigation was conducted by Leroy Starling, the Duval County School District professional standards investigator. Before his retirement, Mr. Starling was the professional standards investigator for the School District for 17 years, following a 25-year career with the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office. As part of the investigation, Mr. Starling interviewed several of Respondent's students in Mr. Cobb's presence. The students were interviewed individually in a non-leading fashion. Based upon the interviews of the students and of the paraprofessionals working with Respondent, the School District determined that the allegations of inappropriate discipline were substantiated. On September 10, 2008, the School District issued a letter of reprimand to Respondent, based on the allegations of inappropriate discipline. Respondent denied using inappropriate discipline, accused one of the paraprofessionals of "being bipolar" and having Alzheimers' Disease, and claimed that J.H. sat under the computer table because that is where he wanted to be. Respondent's testimony is rejected. She also claimed, although she was not present for any of the interviews, that Mr. Starling and Mr. Cobb led the students to say bad things about her. It is considered abuse for a teacher to require a student to stand with his or her nose against a wall for a substantial period of time. Such a punishment could have a significant psychological impact on a child. The same could be said for consistently yelling at kindergarten students, and punishing students by making them lie or sit under a table. Persuasive evidence indicates that instead of creating an atmosphere for learning for these five and six-year-old students, Respondent's classroom had an atmosphere of fear that would interfere with the ability to learn.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Education Practices Commission enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of Counts One, Two, Three, Four, Five and Seven of the Administrative Complaint; dismissing Count Six of the Administrative Complaint; and permanently revoking her education certificate. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of December, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON 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 18th day of December, 2009.
The Issue Whether or not on or about November 8, 1977, a licensing worker of the Petitioner visited and encountered several violations of the staff ratios in the facility of the Respondents, (among these, five infants completely unsupervised in one room, and eighteen children in two connecting rooms without supervision), in violation of Rule 10C-10.22(2)(e), Florida Administrative Code. Whether or not on January 24, 1978, the visit by an employee of the Petitioner to the facility of the Respondents disclosed that the infant area was short one staff member, in violation of Rule 10C-10.22(2)(e), Florida Administrative Code. Whether or not on March 8, 1978, an employee of the Petitioner visited the Respondents' facility and found seventeen infants, eleven of whom were under one year of age, supervised by only one staff worker, in violation of Rule 10C- 10.22-(2)(e), Florida Administrative Code. Whether or not on March 8, 1978, an employee of the Petitioner visited the Respondents' facility and discovered one child alone in a room in the facility completely unsupervised, in violation of Rule 10C-10.22(2)(e), Florida Administrative Code. Whether or not on March 15, 1978, an employee of the Petitioner in a visit to the Respondents' facility found two children in a room completely unsupervised, in violation of Rule 10C-10.22(2)(e), Florida Administrative Cede. Whether or not on March 15, 1978, an employee of the Petitioner visiting the licensed facility of the Respondents found eleven infants in one room supervised by one staff person, in violation of Rule 10C-10.22(2)(e), Florida Administrative Code. Whether or not on March 15, 1978, an employee of the Petitioner while visiting the Respondents' facility discovered on the outside part of the premises, four infants with a group of about fifteen older children being supervised by only two staff persons of the Respondents, in violation of Rule 10C-10.22(2)(e), Florida Administrative Code. Whether or not subsequent to March 15, 1978, an employee of the Petitioner visited the Respondents' facility on three separate occasions and found less than the minimum required staff on duty in violation of Rule 10C- 10.22(2)(e), Florida Administrative Code. Whether or not on April 5, 1978, an employee of the Petitioner visited the Respondents' facility and found nine infants completely unattended in the infant area of Respondents' licensed premises, in violation of Rule 10C-10.22 (2)(e), Florida Administrative Code. Whether or not on that same date, an employee of of the Petitioner visited the facility of the Respondents and discovered that a mattress and springs of one of the cribs had become dislodged in one corner, so that the corner of the mattress and springs had fallen to the floor causing one of the nine infants that was in the crib to be trapped between the mattress and the bottom of the crib.
Findings Of Fact This cause came on for consideration on the complaint letter of the Petitioner dated April 17, 1978, served upon Mr. Ted and Juanita Porth d/b/a Kiddie World. The petitioner, State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, is an agency of the State of Florida, charged with the duty of licensing and regulating "Child-care facilities" under the authority of Chapter 402, Florida Statutes. The Respondents, led and Juanita Porth are licensed by the Petitioner to operate a "Child-care facility" and under that license do business as Kiddie World at the location 8142 Lone Star Road, Jacksonville, Florida. This action has been brought by the Petitioner against the Respondent under the terms and conditions of Chapter 402, Florida Statutes. Section 402.301, Florid Statutes, sets out the legislative intent and declaration of purpose and policy and Section 402.302, Florida Statutes, defines "Child-care and "Child-care facility." The Respondents are providing "Child-care" within the meaning of that definition and are operating a "Child-care facility" within the definition set forth. The Respondents by Section 402.302, Florida Statutes, are within the meaning of the Section, the "Operators" of the "Child-care facility." Section 402.305, Florida Statutes, enables the Petitioner to establish certain licensing standards for the operation of a "Child-care facility." Among those are minimum standards, to include standards for personnel working in a "Child-care facility." Specifically, in Section 402.305(1), Florida Statutes, the language reads: 402.305 Licensing standards.-- The state minimum standards shall be designed to protect the health, sani- tation, safety, and well-being of all children under care by ensuring com- petent personnel, adequate physical surroundings, and healthful food. All standards established under this act shall be in accordance with the appro- priate minimum standards used by the state fire marshal for child-care facilities. The minimum standards for child-care facilities shall include the following areas: (1) PERSONNEL.-- Minimum standards for child-care personnel, whether employees or volunteers, which shall include minimum age requirements, periodic health exami- nations, minimum levels of training in first aid, and ratios of personnel to children. It is the minimum standards for personnel, in terms of the ratios of personnel to children, which is the underlying basis of action against the Respondents. The rule on minimum standards for personnel which the Petitioner claims to have been violated by the Respondents. is Rule 10C-10.22(2)(e), Florida Administrative Code, and it states the following: (e) Ratios of Personnel to Children: General The following staff ration is based on direct supervision of children: AGE OF CHILDREN RATIO Under 1 year of age 1 person for 6 children year of age 1 person for 8 children years of age 1 parson for 12 children years of age 1 person for 15 children years of age 1 person for 20 children years of age 1 person for 25 children The groups of mixed age ranges, where infants are included, one (1) person shall not be responsible for more than six (6) children of any age group. Where infants are not included, the staff ratio shall be based on the age of the majority of children in the group. There shall be an arrangement for another adult to be readily available to substitute for the adult in charge in case of emergency. If both non-handicapped and handicapped children are served, it may be necessary for the operator to make an adjustment in the staff ratio to insure adequate and propar care of the handicapped child . . . One further reference is necessary. In defining the meaning of "infant," reference is made to Rule 10C-10.22(1)(i), Florida Administrative Code, which defines "infant" as ". . . child less 24 months of age." For the alleged violation of the minimum standards established under the provisions of Section 402.305(1), Florida Statutes, the Petitioner is attempting to revoke the Respondent "Operator's" license to operate a "Child- care facility" as Kiddie World, at 8142 Lone Star Road, Jacksonville, Florida. The authority for such action and revocation is found in Section 402.310(1), Florida Statutes, which states: 402.310 Hearings upon denial or revocation of license.-- (1) When the department or local licensing agency, whichever is applicable, has rea- sonable cause to believe that grounds for the denial or revocation of a license exist, it shall notify the applicant or licensee in writing, stating the grounds upon which the license is being denied or revoked. If the applicant or licensee makes no written request for a hearing to the local licensing agency or the department, whichever is applicable, within 15 days from receipt of such notice, the license shall be deemed denied or revoked. The Petitioner by its letter of April 17, 1978, served upon the Respondents, has notified the licensees/Respondents of the grounds upon which the license is being subjected to possible revocation. In particular, the actionable part of the complaint letter is found, beginning on the first page where it points out selected alleged violations beginning with November 8, 1977, (inclusive of the beginning of the second page) through incidents alleged to have occurred on April 5 1978. The facts in the case show that on November 8, 1977, Nancy Corley, an employee of the Petitioner, working in the area of day-care licensing, went to the licensed premises to make a routine check. During the course of that inspection, she found five infants, (within the meaning of Rule 10C-10.22(1)(i), Florida, Administrative Code), who were unattended by any adult in the room in which the children were seen. This was a violation of the minimum standards for ratio's of the personnel to children, within the meaning of Rule 10C- 10.22(2)(e), Florida Administrative Code. On that same visit, the inspector found eighteen additional children in two connecting rooms, who were without supervision, again in violation of Rule 10C-10.22(2)(e), Florida Administrative Code. Ms. Corley waited in the office area of the licensed premises and made one of the Respondents aware of the violation and that Respondent agreed with the findings and indicated that corrections would be made. Ms. Corley testified that she made a later visit to the licensed premises on January 24, 1978, and discovered that the operators were short one adult in the infant room. No further testimony was offered in support of this ultimate face conclusion, therefore, no violation has been established of the requirement of ratios of personnel to children, as set forth in Rule 10C- 10.22(2)(e), Florida Administrative Code. On March 8, 1978, a new employee of the Petitioners working in the day- care licensing unit of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services went to the address of Kiddie World. That employee was Nora Hall. Her inspection was unannounced. (Neither one of the Respondents were at the licensed premises at that time.) In one room she discovered seventeen children being supervised by one adult and there were children in the group who were under the age of two years, thereby being classified as infants. Consequently, this was a violation of the ratios of personnel to children in that this mixed group which included infants could not have had a ratio of supervisory persons to children in which any one supervisory person was responsible for more than six children of any age group, as explained in Rule 10C-10.22(2)(e) 1.B., Florida Administrative Code. On that same visit, Ms. Hall found one child in the lobby who was completely unattended by a supervisory person, in violation of the ratios of personnel to children required by Rule 10C-10.22(2)(e), Florida Administrative Code. Ms. Hall spoke to the person working in the infant room and explained the violations and later explained the violations to the Respondent Mrs. Porth. On March 15, 1978, Ms. Hall returned to Kiddie World for a further inspection. She observed one staff member in one of the rooms attending eleven children two years old or younger. Again, this is in violation of Rule 10C- 10.22(2)(e), 1.B., Florida Administrative Code, which requires that groups with mixed age ranges which contain infants should have a ratio of supervisory personnel to children which has at 1oat one adult for every far every six children. On the outside, she found a group of twenty children, including four infants, which were being supervised by two persons. This was also a violation of Rule 10C-10.22(2)(e) 1.B., Florida Administrative Code, requiring a minimum of one personnel for every six children in a group of mixed age ranges whereby infants are in the group. There was a further allegation in the complaint letter that stated that on the same date, two children were in a room totally unsupervised. There was no testimony to that effect and no violation has been established. On March 17, 1978, on a further visit Ms. Hall again found some children unattended by personnel of the operators, in violation of Rule 10C- 10.22(2)(e), Florida Administrative Code. No other violations as alleged to have occurred subsequent to March 16, 1978 and before April 5, 1978 were proven. Ms. Hall made her next inspection on April 5, i978. At that time she discovered nine children in the so-called infant room of the operators' facility who had no adult in attendance. This is a violation of the requirements of ratios of personnel to children set forth in Rule 10C-10.22 (2)(e), Florida Administrative Code. It was several minutes before any adult came into the room. Testimony revealed that some of the children in the room were asleep; however, one of the children had become lodged between the mattress of the baby bed and the railing of that bed and was struggling to become free of this entanglement. Mrs. Porth was made aware of the observations of Ms. Hall on a visit subsequent to April 5, 1978. It was shown in the course of the hearing that a meeting was held between Mr. Porth, one of the Operators, and Bruce Rhodes, a day-care licensing supervisor employed by the Petitioner, on May 31, 1978, at which time discussions were entered into on the issue of the necessity to maintain proper personnel to children ratios within the Child-care facility. On July 21, 1977, Mr. Rhodes wrote to Respondents, as seen by Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 admitted into evidence. This letter apprises the Respondents of some problems with the ratios. Respondents replied by letter of July 28, 1977, indicating the corrective actions and the observations of Respondents. That letter of July 28, 1977, may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. Mr. Rhodes subsequently wrote to the Respondents on March 16, 1978, setting out some of the alleged violations which were the basis for the complaint letter of April 17, 1978, and which violations have been proven in the course of this hearing. These alleged violations alluded to in the March 16, 1978, correspondence from Mr. Rhodes to the Respondent were discussed in the meeting between Rhodes and the Respondents at a time prior to the April 17, 1978, complaint letter.
Recommendation After a full consideration of the facts in this cause and those matters in mitigation and aggravation, it is recommended that the license of the Respondents to operate a "Child-care facility" at 8142 Lone Star Road, Jacksonville, Florida, be revoked, but that that revocation be withhold pending the satisfactory completion of a two-year probationary period, during which time the Respondent shall abide by the provisions pertaining to their licensure as a "Child-care facility" with a condition of the probation being that the failure to abide by those requirements shall subject the Respondents to revocation. DONE and ENTERED this 21st day of September, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Robert M. Eisenberg Department of HRS District IV Counsel Post Office Box 2417F Jacksonville, Florida 32231 William Nussbaum 549 Florida National Bank Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202
