The Issue The issues in this matter are whether Respondent, the owner of a child care facility, committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what is the appropriate sanction for the violation.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the complete record, the following Findings of Fact are made: DCF is authorized to regulate child care facilities pursuant to sections 402.301 through 402.319, Florida Statutes. Section 402.310 authorizes DCF to take disciplinary action against child care facilities for violations of sections 402.301 through 402.319. A to Z Child Development Center (A to Z) is a child care facility owned and operated by Jill Johnson at 1049 East 8th Street, Jacksonville, Florida. The license number is C04DU1409. It is undisputed that on December 20, 2020, Respondent received a citation for employing a person for which she had not conducted a background screening following a 90-day break in employment. At all times material to this matter, E.L. was a child care provider working at A to Z. She began working with the facility on February 2, 2021. E.L. had been cleared and found “eligible” to work as a child care provider on April 6, 2017, at a different child care facility. On April 22, 2021, Gretrell Marshall, a DCF licensing counselor, conducted a routine inspection of the child care facility. Ms. Marshall has 20 years working with DCF. She has worked as a family services counselor for three years and has been trained to inspect child care facilities. Before working with DCF, Ms. Marshall owned a family day care home for two years and served as a director for a child care facility for seven years. During her inspection of A to Z, Ms. Marshall reviewed the employment records for each employee of the facility. Specifically, she reviewed the file for E.L. and discovered that the background screening for E.L. was completed on April 9, 2021. This was a concern for Ms. Marshall as child care personnel should update their background screening if there is more than a 90-day absence from working as a child care provider. Ms. Marshall reviewed the completed background screening report and employment history form for E.L. The background screening report dated February 3, 2021, reflected that E.L. had successfully passed a background screening on April 6, 2017. The employment history and reference form reflected that E.L. was last employed as an assistant teacher at Nono’s Home Daycare (Nono’s). The employment dates were listed as October 2019 to Present. Although there is a question regarding whether E.L. had a 90-break in employment or worked at Nono’s, she was subsequently she was deemed eligible to work with children. Ms. Marshall then reviewed the DCF Child Care Administration, Regulation and Enforcement System (CARES). CARES maintains employment history information for child care personnel, including new employee information, verifying existing employees, and checking employment history. The information input in the system is reported by employers. However, employees do not have access to review information in the system. Ms. Marshall’s review of CARES reflected that E.L.’s most recent employer was with T and A Learning Center, which terminated in February 2020. CARES did not reflect that E.L. worked at Nono’s. After review of E.L.’s employee records, Ms. Marshall concluded that E.L.’s background screening should have been completed on February 2, 2021, when E.L. began working at A to Z. Ms. Marshall testified that the form reflected that Jill Johnson was identified as the person contacted to verify employment. The evidence of record demonstrated that the person contacted was actually Nono Johnson (owner of Nono’s) instead of Respondent’s owner, Jill Johnson. Ms. Marshall also reviewed the renewal application records for Nono’s. There was no record in the renewal applications that E.L. was an employee. Relying upon her review of E.L.’s records maintained by Jill Johnson, the renewal applications for Nono’s, and the CARES records, Ms. Marshall determined that a background screening was warranted for E.L. because it appeared that she had a 90-day break in employment. Ms. Marshall did not interview Nono Johnson and she did not interview E.L. In addition, neither person testified at the final hearing. Ms. Marshall testified that a factor in making her decision was that the employment history form for E.L. did not clearly indicate the person contacted for employment verification. However, the record reflects that Nono Johnson was listed as the person contacted to verify the background reference check. The threshold issue in this matter is whether E.L. worked for Nono’s. If E.L. worked for Nono’s, the background screening would not be required. On the other hand, if E.L. did not work for Nono’s, E.L. would be required to perform the background screening due to the 90-day break in employment. Ms. Johnson presented the testimony of Crystal McMillion, who assisted Ms. Johnson with the reference checks. She testified that she spoke to Nono Johnson and verified that E.L. worked at Nono’s during the dates provided on the employment history form. Ms. McMillion testified that she then logged into the background screening portal and verified that E.L. had previously successfully completed a background screening in 2017. Ms. McMillion was the only witness with direct knowledge of the employment verification for E.L. Ms. McMillion has experience as a child care facility operator and understands what is required to conduct employment verification. The undersigned found her to be credible and truthful. However, her testimony was uncorroborated hearsay.1 Such evidence may not be considered by the undersigned as a basis for findings of fact. Assuming Ms. McMillion made an error in her employment verification as argued by Petitioner, the question remains whether Nono’s failed to properly disclose all its employees and E.L. was in fact an employee. The undersigned finds it unlikely, but possible, that E.L. presented erroneous employment history information. Another possibility is that the records for Nono’s did not accurately reflect all of its employees and, thus, such information was not put into CARES. Neither Nono Johnson nor E.L. testified at the hearing. Likewise, the record does not include any interview statement made by Nono Johnson or E.L. The only evidence presented by DCF to demonstrate that E.L. had a 90-day break in employment was the absence of records for Nono’s, a facility over which Respondent has no control. This evidence is not sufficient to meet the clear and convincing evidence burden in this matter. Ultimate Finding of Fact Based on the evidence presented at the hearing, the undersigned finds that there was no clear and convincing evidence to establish that E.L. had a 90-day break in employment. As a result, there is no clear and convincing evidence to establish that Respondent was required to obtain background re-screening for E.L. DCF’s burden in this case is to prove the facts alleged in the Administrative Complaint by clear and convincing evidence, and the credible admissible evidence did not meet that burden. 1 Because Nono Johnson did not testify during the final hearing, the portion of Ms. McMillion’s testimony concerning Nono’s verification of employment is uncorroborated hearsay that cannot support a finding of fact. See § 120.57(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (2020)(providing that “[h]earsay evidence may be used for the purpose
Conclusions For Petitioner: David Gregory Tucker, Esquire Department of Children and Families 5920 Arlington Expressway Jacksonville, Florida 32211 For Respondent: Jill Johnson, pro se A to Z Child Development Center 1049 East 8th Street Jacksonville, Florida 32206
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 dismissing the Administrative Complaint against Jill Johnson d/b/a A to Z Child Development Center. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of August, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S YOLONDA Y. GREEN Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of August, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: Shevaun Harris, Secretary Department of Children and Families 2415 North Monroe Street, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 David Gregory Tucker, Esquire Department of Children and Families 5920 Arlington Expressway Jacksonville, Florida 32211 Javier Enriquez, General Counsel Department of Children and Families Office of the General Counsel 2415 North Monroe Street, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Jill Johnson A to Z Child Development Center 1049 East 8th Street Jacksonville, Florida 32206 Danielle Thompson, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Families Office of the General Counsel 2415 North Monroe Street, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32303
The Issue Whether the after school child care program operated by the YMCA on the campus of Keeth Elementary School under a contract approved by the Seminole County School District, exclusively for children ages 5 Kindergarten and older, is required to be licensed as a child care facility, pursuant to the provisions of Sections 402.301-402.319, FLORIDA STATUTES(1988 SUPP.).
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, is charged with the responsibility to enforce the statewide minimum standards for the care and protection of children in child care facilities, as set forth in Secticns 402.301-402.319, Florida Statutes (1987). Petitioner, YMCA of Central Florida, Inc. (YMCA), is a not-for-profit corporation licensed in Florida. The YMCA is a local membership organization affiliated with the national YMCA whose primary purpose is to provide activities that contribute to the development of good character and good sportsmanship of children and other family members in Seminole County. For several years, the YMCA has operated an after school child-care program for children five years old and older on the campus of Keeth Elementary School. The program is staffed by a YMCA counselor who participates in the program as the child-care counselor. The program was licensed as a child day care facility under the name YMCA/Keeth School Age Child Care by HRS, License Number 987-1. Their current license to operate this facility expired in 1988. Keeth Elementary School is a public elementary school owned and operated by the Seminole County School District. The YMCA operates the program under an oral year-to-year agreement with the School Board of the Seminole County School District. On August 22, 1988, an inspection of the facility (the buildings and grounds of the Keeth Elementary School) by an HRS inspector revealed that the facility failed to substantially comply with the requirements of Chapter 10M-12, Florida Administrative Code, which would be sufficient to sustain the denial of the license renewal. By letter dated September 12, 1988, Respondent advised the Petitioner that their application for relicensure was denied. Petitioner was directed to cease operation within 15 days of receipt of this letter unless the cited deficiencies were corrected and Petitioner re-applied for a license.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's after school child-care program continue to operate without the requirement of a license from HRS, so long as they continue under contract with the School Board with the same terms and conditions as presently exist. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of May, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of May, 1989. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner. Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order does not contain specific findings of fact but consists primarily of legal argument which has been adopted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: William E. Ruffier, Esquire Sanders, McEwan, Mims and Martinez, P.A. Attorneys at Law 108 East Central Boulevard Post Office Box 753 Orlando, Florida 32802-0753 James A Sawyer, Jr., Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services District 7 Legal Office 400 West Robinson, Suite 911 Orlando, Florida 32801 Sam Power Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 =================================================================
The Issue Whether Petitioner's license to operate a day care center should be suspended or revoked. Whether Petitioner's license to operate a day care center 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. Respondent routinely conducts inspections of licensed child care facilities to determine whether facilities 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 facility'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 child care facilities 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 child care facilities at any time with or without notice. Petitioner is the owner and operator of a licensed child care facility located at 2625 North Hiawasee Road, Orlando, Florida, which is operated under the business name: Today's Kids Daycare Center (hereinafter "Petitioner's facility" or "the facility"). Petitioner has operated the child care facility at the above address for approximately five years and previously worked as director of another child care facility for five 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 child care facilities. The Incident Following a complaint, Susan Wujastyk, former child protective investigator for Respondent, interviewed the mother of the child, W.P., at the child's school on March 5, 2004, in relation to an alleged incident which occurred at Petitioner's facility on March 3, 2004. She then prepared a preliminary report and went to Petitioner's facility to investigate further. Respondent's child care licensing division was also notified and an inspector came to the facility, as well. On or about March 3, 2004, the child, W.P., a pre- kindergarten student at Petitioner's facility, swallowed an unknown solid substance while in Tangela Muskin's classroom. Muskin believed the substance to be rat pellets and lead W.P. to Petitioner, who was in another room, and told her of her suspicions. Petitioner, who had taken some nursing courses at the local community college, put on a rubber glove and swabbed the child's mouth to dislodge any other substances that might still be in the child's mouth. She also gave him some milk, with the intent to make him throw up. Petitioner then inspected the vomit but found no foreign substances in it. Petitioner did not call "9-1-1" for emergency assistance, nor did she call the poison control center. Instead, she observed W.P. for a period of time and sent him back to his classroom. Muskin also testified that she found the child, W.P., with a bag labeled rat pellets and claimed that Petitioner, in the presence of another employee at the facility, threw the rat pellets in the trash and told Muskin and the other employee not to report this to anyone. This statement is not credible. Petitioner testified that she attempted to call the child's mother, but could not reach her by telephone. Thereafter, she waited for the child's father to come and pick him up and she told him that W.P. had swallowed something but that Petitioner believed that she got all of the material out of his mouth. She advised him to take the child to the emergency room, but the father declined to do so. This statement appears to be credible. Susan Wujastyk inspected the facility on March 5, 2004, as part of her investigation of this matter and found two pellets under a toy chest in Muskin's classroom. Wujastyk thought they were rat pellets; however, that fact was never verified. An examination of the child, W.P., on March 5, 2004, found no evidence of ingestion of a toxic substance, and his condition was found to be stable. Petitioner retains a pest control company that performs regular services at the facility, but does not use rat pellets or any form of rodent control devices. Three of Petitioner's employees testified that they perform regular inspections of the facility and none of them ever found rat pellets or other toxic substances on the premises. Following the joint investigation, a joint report was prepared and approved by Respondent's staff, and it was recommended that Petitioner's license be revoked. Thereafter, on March 23, 2004, the acting district director sent a letter to Petitioner informing her that her license was being revoked and advised Petitioner of her right to "appeal" that decision through the administrative process. Subsequently, on June 10, 2004, Petitioner was sent a letter informing her that her license would not be renewed. The basis for the denial was the same as the revocation letter. At the hearing, Patricia Richard testified that she was particularly concerned that Petitioner was aware the W.P. may have swallowed a toxic and other dangerous substance and did not take immediate action to report it to "9-1-1" or the poison control center; and did not take it upon herself to take the child to a health care professional for examination but waited for the parents to arrive to inform them of the incident. Richard also testified that it was improper for Petitioner to put her fingers down the child's throat in order to induce vomiting. She characterized these as serious child safety violations and failure to follow proper emergency procedures. These were the primary reasons she recommended that Petitioner's child care license be revoked and not renewed. Petitioner, in her testimony, did not deny giving the child milk and swabbing his mouth with her finger, but did deny that she stuck her fingers in his mouth in order to induce vomiting. The evidence is not clear and convincing that the child, W.P., swallowed a toxic or hazardous material; and it is not at all clear from the evidence what it was that the child swallowed. However, it is clear that the child swallowed something that was suspected to be toxic; and when this fact was reported to Petitioner, she did not follow proper emergency procedures and did not properly notify the child's parents promptly. Petitioner has demonstrated that her license for a child care facility 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 Rule 65C-22.004(2)(d)1. and 2. (one count each). Finding Petitioner not guilty of violating the provisions of Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C-20.010(1)(b) or similar provisions. Imposing a fine of $200, and a one-month suspension of Petitioner's license, followed by the issuance of a provisional license. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of October, 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 5th day of October, 2004.
The Issue Should Respondent have her application to renew her child care facility license denied by Petitioner for reasons set forth in the Administrative Complaint brought by Petitioner? §§ 402.308 and 402.310, Fla. Stat. (2005).
Findings Of Fact The Department of Children and Family Services has jurisdiction over Respondent by virtue of the provisions set forth in Sections 402.301-402.319, Florida Statutes (2005). The Respondent, Sherlane Craig, is licensed to operate Sunniland Nursery and Preschool, as a child care facility in compliance with Chapter 402, Florida Statutes (2005), and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 65C-22. Petitioner is the administrative agency of the State of Florida, charged with the duty to enforce and administer the provisions of Chapter 402, Florida Statutes (2005). Petitioner issued a child care facility certificate of license to Respondent for the Sunniland Nursery and Preschool effective June 1, 2004, through June 1, 2005. Petitioner issued Respondent a child care facility certificate of license that was provisional for the period June 1, 2005, through August 1, 2005. The provisional license was sent to Respondent on June 7, 2005, and was received by Respondent later in June 2005. In addition to the license itself, the transmittal letter to Respondent stated: Enclosed is the provisional license from the Department of Children and Families to operate a childcare facility. A provisional license is being issued at this time based on the facility's continued non-compliance with the state's minimum standards. Specifically the facility was cited five times during the last licensing year for non-compliance regarding the maintenance of fall zone material on the playground. The Department has offered suggestions on creating a framing system to hold fall zone material in place. As of today the Department has been unable to verify compliance. This license is valid until August 1, 2005. An annual license will be issued when all of the above requirements have been met. The license is not transferable to another owner or any other location. If at some point in the future you discontinue operation of your facility, we would appreciate you notifying our childcare licensing office. * * * In advance of the decision to provide Respondent with a provisional license, Petitioner had performed inspections of the facility on May 2, 18, and 24, 2005. On June 8 and June 10, 2005, additional inspections were made at the facility. The May 18 and May 24, 2005 inspections revealed problems with the fall zone on the playground that was the subject of the letter informing Respondent that she had been issued a provisional license. The May 24, 2005, investigative report referred to as a reinspection checklist made mention of the citation for the fall zone during previous inspections. The June 8, 2005, inspection continued to note a problem with the playground area and the fact that Petitioner had issued Respondent a provisional license for continued non- compliance by the failure to maintain the proper cover or protective surface in the fall zone area on the playground. The June 10, 2005, report on the inspection did not mention the fall zone on the playground. More importantly, Respondent testified without being refuted that the fall zone area on the playground was corrected on a date beyond June 8, 2005, the more recent inspection date noting non-compliance for conditions on the playground. To that end, during a visit on June 29, 2005, Dinah Gallon and Kathy Schmitz Petitioner's employees found the conditions of the outdoor play area with the addition of the sand to be satisfactory. Dinah Gallon is a license counselor for Leon County, employed by Petitioner. Respondent also presented evidence in the form of an invoice from Esposito's Nursery concerning the purchase of "2/3 cu yd of coarse sand" and for its installation. That invoice was dated June 22, 2005. On July 8, 2005, Respondent wrote Joseph Alexander, Childcare Services Supervisor, District Two, Department of Children and Family Services, concerning the status of the playground called into question under the terms of the provisional license. That correspondence was received at District Two on July 11, 2005. It stated: Responding to previous instruction from your office to pad our playground with sand in an effort to add protection, in the way of ground cushioning, for our attendants; I have five loads of large gravel, beach sand delivered and spread through our outdoor play area. In the instruction I received it was suggested that barriers be placed around the areas where sand was necessary in an attempt to prevent its erosion. Upon purchasing the large gravel, beach sand from Esposito's, I was informed that barriers for this particular sand was not necessary due to the fact that the sand would absorb the water therefore would not wash away. * * * Although Respondent explained the difficulty experienced in providing resilient and proper cover for the fall areas near the playground equipment, she has not denied the lack of compliance over time with the requirement to maintain a safe fall zone by providing appropriate cover material in those areas. In response to the problem, the type of sand more recently placed has been less prone to erode. Aside from the lack of adequate maintenance of fall zone material on the playground, it is the failure to meet child ratio standards and the failure to provide adequate supervision as observed in the more recent inspections that has led Petitioner to bring the Administrative Complaint, which could lead to the denial of the annual license renewal. The Administrative Complaint is also drawn in recognition of the past history by the Respondent of violations of various kinds. In the category of what is described in the Administrative Complaint as "current violations," the May 2, 2005, inspection of the facility revealed non-compliance with Section 402.305(4), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C-22.001(4)(a) and (b). In particular, the one 1:4 ratio of staff to children for 0-to-12-month-old children required was not met, in that the ratio found was 1:6. The two- year-old category which called for a 1:11 ratio was not complied with, in that the ratio was 1:12 at the facility. Two of the three rooms in which the children were found were out of compliance with the ratio requirement. These problems were corrected on the date of inspection. On May 18, 2005, in a return visit to the facility, the inspection revealed continuing problems in relation to staff to children ratios under the statutory and rule provisions that have been previously described. In this visit, the 0-12 month category calling for a ratio of 1:4 was in actuality 1:5. The mixed group involving 1-to-5-year-olds was not in compliance in that it had a ratio 2:23. In a second observation involving the 0-to-12-months-age group, the ratio was then 1:6, instead of the called for 1:4. Every classroom was found out of compliance with the needed ratio upon this re-inspection. The problem was corrected when additional staff arrived to cover the classes. On May 24, 2005, when the facility was inspected there were continuing ratio problems contrary to the statute and rule. Among the observations, there was one in the initial contact calling for a 1:4 ratio for infants. The ratio found was 1:5. A mixed group of one to five-year-olds calling for a ratio of 1:6, in fact had a ratio of 2:21. All rooms observed were out of compliance with the ratio standards during the first observation. Upon the last observation of the rooms, corrections had been made and the rooms were in compliance. On that same visit, the facility was not compliant with Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C-22.001(5)(a), (b), and (d). It was noted that there was "A classroom of two-year-old children that had no direct supervision. There were three napping in a room and no adult was present." These conditions related to supervision were corrected at the time of the inspection. On June 8, 2005, when an inspection was made at the facility there was a problem found in relation to Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C-22.001(5)(a), (b), and (d). It was observed that the children had gone to Levy Park with one adult present, when an additional adult was needed to supervise the outing. On June 10, 2005, at the next inspection of the facility continuing problems with ratios were found contrary to the statute and rule. On this occasion, two of the three classrooms observed were out of compliance during the initial observation. During a second observation, the infant room remained out of compliance with the ratio standards. The initial observation for the 0-to-12-month-old infants showed a ratio of 1:5, when the ratio called for was 1:4. On the second observation for that age group, the ratio found was 1:4. There was also a problem related to non-compliance with Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C-22.001(5)(a), (b), and (d), in that "Direct supervision of children in the [2 year old] group was inadequate in that [while the provider of the two year old group assisted children in the bathroom, the remainder of her [sic] was left unattended]." By way of history, as far back as July 31, 2000, problems were observed at the facility in relation to non- compliance with standards pertaining to direct supervision. Over time, problems of compliance with ratio standards were also found. A similar pattern was found on August 4, 2000, December 8, 2000, August 7, 2001, April 2, 2002, August 6, 2002, January 30, 2004, and April 27, 2005. Other forms of violation were also found on those dates and additional dates as well. Significantly, in the past, formal discipline has been imposed against Respondent. On April 8, 2002, a $100.00 fine was imposed against Respondent by the Leon County Health Department, predecessor to Petitioner. The basis for that administrative fine was "Your center was found operating over capacity with 46 children (19 children at the center and 26 children at Levy Park). Your current capacity is 45." That was as of August 10, 2001. On April 2, 2002, a visit had also been made in which it was discovered that the number of children present was 48 as opposed to the capacity of 45. On June 3, 2002, the Leon County Health Department imposed a $50.00 fine associated with the May 28, 2002, inspection in which it was found that one of the rooms had children in which the ratio of staff to children was not in compliance. On October 31, 2002, the Leon County Health Department imposed a $100.00 fine premised upon non-compliance with ratio standards on September 30, 2002. On February 6, 2004, Petitioner brought an Administrative Complaint against Respondent. This was premised upon non-compliance with ratio standards on January 30, 2004, and February 6, 2004. A $1,000.00 fine was imposed, consistent with the proposed administrative fine suggested in the Administrative Complaint. In each instance recounted, the administrative fines were paid by the Respondent. Petitioner's Composite Exhibit numbered 1, which sets out the inspection reports during the period contemplated by the overall Administrative Complaint, demonstrates that Petitioner through its employees explained the nature of the problems to Respondent and provided her copies of the inspection reports. By these arrangements, Respondent was reminded of the need to comply with the requirements related to the license. Given the findings made during the inspections, those reminders were frequently stated, to the extent that Respondent could not reasonably contend that she was unaware of her obligation to comply with the law. Concerning the internal process within the Petitioner Agency as to the classification of violations, there is no formal rule. The response to the violations from the policy perspective is to perceive the staff ratio and supervision issues as being more serious than other forms of violations. Class 1 violations are those posing a more immediate threat to safety and harm to the children in a facility. Under Petitioner's internal policy staff ratio and supervision, violations fall within Class 1.
Recommendation Upon the consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered denying Respondent's child care facility license. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of February, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 27th day of February, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Lee Dougherty, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 2639 North Monroe Street, Suite 104 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Deveron Brown, Esquire Brown and Associates, LLC 223 East Virginia Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gregory Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204B 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Slye, Acting General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
