The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner may terminate Respondent's teaching contract for gross insubordination, in violation of Section 1012.33(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-4.009(4), or incompetency in the form of a lack of emotional stability, in violation of Section 1012.33(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-4.009(1)(b)(1).
Findings Of Fact Respondent has been employed by Petitioner as a teacher for 14 years. During the 2003-04 school year, Respondent taught first grade at Southside Elementary School, where she has taught for many years. On Wednesday, October 1, 2003, Respondent entered the school cafeteria to pick up her students. As she entered the cafeteria, she met Susan Ross, the school guidance counselor. Ms. Ross informed Respondent that she had seen one of Respondent's male students put his hand on the chair seat of another boy, who was about to sit down, evidently in an attempt to grab the buttocks or genital region of the boy as he sat down. Respondent replied that one of her students had reported that, a few weeks previously, the same male student, while in the boys' restroom, either had pulled another boy's pants down or had tugged at the waistband of another boy's pants. Respondent had never been able to ascertain exactly what, if anything, had happened in the restroom that day because she had not been present and the child told her different versions of the events. At the time of the conversation with Ms. Ross, Respondent viewed the male student's misbehavior as horseplay, not sexual abuse. Obviously, Ms. Ross did not interpret the cafeteria incident that she had witnessed as sexual abuse, or else she would have reported it to the principal and the authorities. At the conclusion of her brief conversation with Ms. Ross, Respondent told Ms. Ross that Respondent would discuss the student's misbehavior with his mother, with whom Respondent had a good relationship, and the mother would help bring the misbehavior to end. Ms. Ross said nothing in response. Later on the same day of the cafeteria incident, Ms. Ross summoned Respondent to Ms. Ross's office. Ms. Ross told Respondent that she could not talk to the student's mother because she "might be in on it," meaning that the mother might be part of some sexual abuse that the child was acting out. Ms. Ross informed Respondent that she needed to report the student's actions because he was perpetrating sexual abuse on another child. At about this point in the conversation, Diana Middleton, who was then in her second year as principal of Southside Elementary School, entered Ms. Ross's office and joined the conversation. Ms. Ross repeated her belief that Respondent was obligated to call the authorities--specifically, the Department of Children and Family Services' child abuse hotline. Ms. Middleton agreed with Ms. Ross and told Respondent that a teacher had a duty to call the Department of Children and Family Services when a child showed the behavior that the male student had shown. Stating that it was not Respondent's job to determine the truth of a child's statement, Ms. Middleton twice directed Respondent to call the child abuse hotline, and she directed her to make a student disciplinary referral and intervention team referral. By these directives, Ms. Middleton implied that the student was or might be a perpetrator of sexual abuse, rather than a victim of sexual abuse. Logically, if Ms. Middleton had believed the child to be a victim of child abuse, she would not have directed Respondent to complete a disciplinary referral, which is punitive in nature. However, Respondent continued to believe that the child's behavior was nothing more than horseplay, and she continued to believe that the mother's intervention was the logical and appropriate first step in dealing with this misbehavior. Respondent also believed that Ms. Middleton and Ms. Ross were overreacting and basing their opinions upon incomplete or inaccurate information. Respondent considered her options and elected to compromise by taking the recommendation of the principal to complete the intervention team referral form. She completed the intervention team referral form by checking eight boxes, including "impulsive," "inappropriate sexual behavior," "hyperactive," and "daydreams." Respondent stated as the reason for the referral: "inappropriate sexual advances: grabbing 'private' areas, pulled down another student's pants in the bathroom." The intervention team referral emphasizes maladaptive behavior, characteristics, and attitudes, such as "loneliness," "fearful," and "immature," rather than outright misbehavior, which is more directly addressed by a disciplinary referral. In completing an intervention team referral form, a teacher or administrator describing the behaviors justifying the intervention does not need to engage in the kind of factfinding that typically precedes the imposition of discipline because the purpose of the intervention team referral is to find additional resources to help a child, not to punish a child or to deter future misbehavior. Over the next couple of days, Ms. Middleton became frustrated with Respondent's passive resistance, rather than outright defiance. By Friday, October 3, 2003, someone else at the school called the child abuse hotline and reported the student as a perpetrator of sexual abuse, based on the alleged restroom incident and possibly the cafeteria incident, as well. By the start of school on Monday, October 6, 2003, the student's mother visited the school after having learned of the abuse report. The mother demanded that Ms. Middleton transfer her child to another classroom immediately, and Ms. Middleton did so. Later in the afternoon of the same day, a child protective investigator from the Department of Children and Family Services visited the school and interviewed Ms. Middleton and Respondent. Respondent gave a statement that corresponds to the facts set forth above. At this point, Ms. Middleton's dissatisfaction with Respondent's performance intensified. Already unhappy with Respondent's failure to call the child abuse hotline, Ms. Middleton now believed that Respondent falsely understated the facts to the investigator, as compared to the facts stated by Respondent in the intervention team referral form described above. It is difficult to justify Ms. Middleton's conclusion that, essentially, Respondent had lied to the investigator. As noted above, the different levels of exactitude appropriate to the intervention form and the statement to a child abuse investigator could account for what little discrepancy--and it is only one of emphasis--between the narrative in the intervention form and Respondent's testimony, which presumably tracks her statement to the investigator. For some reason, as these events were unfolding, Ms. Middleton discredited Respondent's ability to evaluate the source of the alleged restroom incident, although Ms. Middleton admitted at the hearing that Respondent had the responsibility of sorting out the alleged restroom incident to determine whether the male student was guilty of any misbehavior that required reporting to the authorities. Obviously, Ms. Middleton could not reasonably have expected Respondent to report the cafeteria incident, which was witnessed by Ms. Middleton's guidance counselor, not Respondent. Unfortunately, the situation deteriorated. A local television station eventually picked up the story and tried unsuccessfully to interview Respondent. An unidentified person then called Petitioner's Superintendent and reported that Respondent was contemplating suicide. The Superintendent responded by alerting the police, who dispatched uniformed officers to Respondent's home. The police offered Respondent the alternative of arrest or involuntary hospitalization, and she chose the latter. After a short time at a local hospital, where Respondent refused medication, Respondent was transferred that evening to Baptist Hospital in Jacksonville. The next morning, a psychiatrist examined Respondent and, finding no psychiatric basis for an involuntary commitment, changed Respondent's status to voluntary and released her. Evidently in deference to the stress of the prior evening, the psychiatrist wrote Respondent a letter excusing her from work for a week. He later wrote a letter saying that she was able to return to work. The record discloses nothing about any problems or emotional instability that Respondent ever exhibited in the classroom or at school. However, by letter dated January 15, 2004, Respondent's Superintendent demanded, among other things, "[i]nformation relating to your medical condition and/or status at admission and upon your release." Although the Superintendent's letter claimed to be concerned with Respondent's emotional condition and her ability to return to work, most of the items demanded by the Superintendent in this letter pertained to Respondent's involvement in the above- described incidents of early October 2003. Specifically, he demanded information about allegations that Respondent had shared confidential information with the male student's parent, her response to the local television station's coverage of the incident and her letter to the local newspaper that she had been coerced by the school administration to complete the intervention team referral form, her accounting of discrepancies between the information on the intervention team referral form and her statement to the child protective investigator, and a description of her reaction to being told by Ms. Middleton that her work was unsatisfactory. The letter suspends Respondent, with pay, retroactive to January 5, 2004. In his opening statement, Petitioner's counsel predicated the charge of insubordination on Respondent's refusal to file an abuse report and refusal to provide the Superintendent with the medical information that he had demanded. As for Respondent's refusal to supply her medical records to the Superintendent, Petitioner relies on its Rule 3.04(II) for authorizing the Superintendent to demand these documents. However, this rule authorizes Respondent's School Board to require medical or psychiatric examinations when claimed necessary by the Superintendent, and the rule does not give even the School Board the authority to demand records from other examinations. While testifying, the Superintendent admitted as much and disclaimed any reliance, as to the charge of gross insubordination, upon Respondent's refusal to supply him the medical records from her evening at Baptist Hospital. As for Respondent's refusal to file a child abuse report, Ms. Middleton's directive to do so was unreasonable. Ms. Middleton herself acknowledges that a teacher must sort out the facts before filing a child abuse report. Respondent did so in this case and determined that the incident did not constitute a reportable matter. Her determination was factually reasonable, especially given the requirements of the statute governing reports of child abuse, as discussed below.
Recommendation RECOMMENDED that the Nassau County School Board enter a final order dismissing the proceeding against Respondent to terminate her employment contract. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of March, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE 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 March, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. John L. Ruis, Superintendent Nassau County School Board 1201 Atlantic Avenue Fernandina Beach, Florida 32034-3499 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education 1244 Turlington Building 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Brian T. Hayes Brian T. Hayes, P.A. 247 North Jefferson Street Post Office Box 1275 Monticello, Florida 32344 John Joseph Cascone 101 Centre Street Post Office Box 1852 Fernandina Beach, Florida 32035
The Issue Whether Respondent's educator's certificate should be sanctioned for an alleged violation of section 1012.795(1)(b), Florida Statutes, in that Respondent knowingly failed to report actual or suspected child abuse as alleged in Petitioner's Amended Administrative Complaint. Whether Respondent's educator's certificate should be sanctioned for an alleged violation of section 1012.795(1)(j), in that Respondent violated the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession prescribed by State Board of Education rules as alleged in Petitioner's Amended Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence presented and the record as a whole, the undersigned makes the following findings of material and relevant facts: Parties' Statement of Agreed Facts Respondent holds Florida Educator's Certificate 632878, covering the area of elementary education, which is valid through June 30, 2017. At all times pertinent hereto, Respondent was employed as a part-time interventionist teacher at Brownsville Middle School ("BMS"), Miami-Dade County School District. Respondent has been a certified teacher for 25 years. On March 9, 2015, Respondent was informed by Y.H., a sixth-grade female student, that her stepfather comes into her room and lays on top of her with his clothes on without touching her in any inappropriate way, when her mother was not present. On March 9, 2015, Y.H. also informed Respondent that her stepfather pushed her toward a wall causing her to fall into a chair and then he pulled her by the hair. Respondent went to Counselor Sonya Durden's office on March 9, 2015, to discuss what she had heard from Y.H. and the other two students. Respondent did not immediately report the student's accusation on March 9, 2015, to the Department of Children and Families or the Child Abuse Hotline. Facts Adduced at the Hearing The Commissioner is responsible for investigating and prosecuting allegations of misconduct against individuals holding educator's certificates under section 231.2615, Florida Statutes. During Castella's 25 years of teaching, she testified that she had never received training concerning suspected child abuse or related reporting requirements. This testimony is rejected. The more persuasive and credible evidence revealed that all school employees at BMS, with no exceptions, received regular training at the beginning of each school year, which includes their reporting duties when child abuse is suspected. The more persuasive evidence also demonstrated that various posters on child abuse reporting were posted around the school to remind teachers at BMS of their reporting requirements in cases of suspected child abuse. Respondent's Exhibits B and C are examples of those posters. Respondent's Exhibit B is a colorful poster with the title Child Abuse Look for the Signs. The poster gives information on various signs of physical and sexual abuse, as well as the procedure to follow when a child speaks of abuse. The evidence revealed that this poster was posted at the designated faculty sign-in area at BMS at all times relevant to this incident. Principal Ebony Dunn testified that "all of the employees have to sign-in whether they're hourly, whether they're full-time, non-instructional." Thus, Castella would have been required to sign in at this designated area at the beginning of each day where the poster was prominently displayed. The undersigned finds that based on the more persuasive evidence, Respondent was aware of the poster's content. Respondent's Exhibit C is another poster with the title Reporting Child Abuse is Everyone's Responsibility. This poster details various signs of child abuse and how someone can report an instance of child abuse. The undisputed evidence indicated that this poster was also displayed at the student services building/main learning center at all times relevant to the incident. The more persuasive evidence and reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence indicate that Respondent was aware of both of these posters and knew of her duty to report suspected child abuse. March 9, 2015, Incident On March 9, 2015, Castella was approached by three girls at lunch, one of whom was Y.H., a sixth-grade female student. Castella observed that the other two girls were prodding Y.H. to speak to Castella. During this encounter, Castella was informed by Y.H. that her stepfather comes into her room and lies on top of her with his clothes on without touching her in any inappropriate way, when her mother was not present.2/ Y.H. also informed Castella at lunch that her stepfather pushed her toward a wall causing her to fall into a chair and then he pulled her by the hair. After lunch, Castella went to another teacher, Philogene, to report the incident because "she wasn't sure what to do," and she wanted to know the other teacher's thoughts on Y.H.'s statement.3/ Castella contends that she was not aware that what Y.H. told her amounted to child abuse. However, when asked why she told Philogene about the incident, Castella responded, "I wanted to ask Ms. Philogene what she thought because what Y.H. told me was odd, weird." The record indicates that after hearing about the incident, Philogene told Castella to report the incident to Counselor Durden.4/ Castella testified that on March 9, 2015, she went to Counselor Durden's office to discuss what she had heard from Y.H. and the other two female students. However, Castella asserted that despite her efforts, she was not able to report the incident to Counselor Durden because she was not in her office. Significantly, Castella left the school that day without reporting the incident to any administrator on campus.5/ Inexplicably, Castella did not immediately report the female student's information on March 9, 2015, to the Department of Children and Families or to the Child Abuse Hotline. Respondent claims that she did not know the protocol for reporting child abuse. The undersigned rejects this claim as incredible and spurious. Rather, the credible and more persuasive evidence shows that it was common knowledge among the school staff, based on training and posted notices, that an incident of child abuse should be reported immediately. March 10, 2015, Incident The next day, Castella went to Counselor Durden's office immediately upon arriving at the school to report what Y.H. had told her the day before. According to school policy, Castella was mandated to report the incident to a school administrator. Counselor Durden was not an administrator, nor was she Castella's supervisor. After disclosing the nature of her visit, Counselor Durden questioned Castella about the incident and why Castella did not report the incident when she became aware of it the day before. Counselor Durden testified that, "[Ms. Castella] said a young lady, a sixth-grader, had told her during lunch that the stepfather comes into the room every night drunk and holds her down and climbs on her. So I said, 'She told you when?' And she said, 'Yesterday during lunch.' And I said, 'You didn't call it in?' And she said, 'No I didn't.' And I think she was talking about like, you know she's friendly with the kids, and she didn't want to lose her confidence, they trusted her." Castella testified that she was reluctant to immediately report the incident because she did not want to violate the female students' trust. Counselor Durden proceeded to call the Department of Children and Families while Castella was still in her office. Both joined in reporting to the Department of Children and Families what had occurred. Later that afternoon, the Department of Children and Families held a meeting at the school with Y.H., the other two girls who were with Y.H., and Castella to gather details of the suspected child abuse and to determine how to proceed with the incident. Contact With News or Media Outlets Castella contacted and voluntarily appeared on a number of local news broadcasts. She detailed the suspected child abuse incident and proceeded to give the name of the school. Petitioner's Exhibit 8, which is a Notice of Investigation signed by Castella and delivered to her, states that a faculty member may be terminated if they speak to a number of subjects about a pending investigation. The document specifies, "You are not to discuss this matter with any witnesses, parents, staff, students, or the complaining party to avoid interference with the investigation." Castella asserts that she did not violate the notice because it did not specify she could not speak to news stations. However, Principal Dunn testified that anyone, including the listed parties, had the ability to watch the news broadcast. Therefore, the undersigned finds that her appearance on the news stations violated the spirit and intent of the notice because it could have had an indirect, adverse impact on witnesses and interfered with the internal investigation by the school district.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding Diana Castella in violation of Counts 1, 2, and 3 of the Amended Administrative Complaint and placing her license on a one-year probationary status, during which time she be ordered to attend and successfully complete, at her expense, training related to her reporting obligations under section 1012.795(1)(b), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of March, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT L. KILBRIDE 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 17th day of March, 2017.
The Issue Does Petitioner, Manatee County School Board (Board), have just cause to terminate the employment of Respondent, Gregg Faller, based upon the conduct involving Mr. Faller's alleged failure to respond appropriately to information he had about the conduct of his subordinate, Rod Frazier, toward females, including students, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated October 14, 2013?
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Facts The Board is a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the School District of Manatee County (District). § 1001.32, Fla. Stat (2013). The District has employed Mr. Faller since December 8, 2009. Mr. Faller was an administrative parent liaison at Lakewood Ranch High School from December 2009 to May 2009.2/ He served as assistant principal at Manatee High School from July 2010 through July 2013. Mr. Faller served temporarily as an assistant principal at Palmetto High School from July 2013 until he was placed on paid administrative leave on August 1, 2013. At all times, Mr. Faller was required to abide by all Florida Statutes that pertain to teachers and educators, the Code of Ethics and the Principles of Conduct of the Education Profession in Florida (Code of Ethics), and the Policies and Procedures Manual of the Manatee County School District. On August 15, 2013, Respondent was charged with: (1) Failure to Report Child Abuse (sections 39.201(1) and 39.205(1), Florida Statutes (2011)(misdemeanor)); (2) Felony Failure to Report Child Abuse (section 39.201(1) and (2) and 39.205(1), Florida Statutes (2011)(third degree felony)); and (3) False Reports to Law Enforcement Authorities (section 837.05(1), Florida Statutes (2011)(misdemeanor)). The prosecutor dismissed the charge of providing false information to a law enforcement officer. On September 25, 2013, the superintendent notified Mr. Faller in writing of the District's intent to recommend his termination from employment. The superintendent issued an Administrative Complaint against Mr. Faller that same day. On October 14, 2013, during a Board meeting, Mr. Faller was suspended, without pay, pending the outcome of an administrative hearing that he requested. On October 24, 2013, Respondent served a Request for Administrative Hearing and Respondent/Employee's Answer to Administrative Complaint. Additional Facts Florida law imposes a duty to report upon any person who has reasonable cause to suspect child abuse by a person responsible for a child's welfare.3/ The Board emphasized the importance of this obligation in Board Policy 5.2 of the Policies and Procedures Manual of the School District of Manatee County. That policy provides in part: All school employees have a serious affirmative duty to report suspected child abuse and neglect and shall do so pursuant to the guidelines developed. * * * Mandatory Duty to Report Suspected Child Abuse All employees or agents of the district school board who have reasonable cause to suspect abuse have an affirmative duty to report it . . . . * * * Complaints of Child Abuse Reported to an Employee An employee receiving a complaint or report of child abuse shall inquire of the reporting party as to the details of his/her concern but shall not investigate further. If the employee has reasonable cause to suspect that child abuse has occurred based upon the description by the reporting party, the employee must report . . . [to the Florida Child Abuse Registry]. * * * Employee Responsible for Reporting It is the responsibility of the first employee who has "reasonable cause" to suspect abuse to report it to the hotline and to do so immediately. It is unacceptable and violation of the law to simply report suspicions to any other individual (including law enforcement or your supervisor) and ask or expect them to make the report to the hotline. After making a report, the school board employee must inform the principal, supervisor, or other building administrator. If the suspected abuser is a district employee, the supervisor of the reporter will notify his/her director who will notify the Office of Professional Standards. * * * (6) Penalties for Failure to Report Any employee who is required to report and fails to do so may be found guilty of a misdemeanor . . . . Failure to report child abuse as required will also subject the employee to disciplinary action. Mr. Rod Frazier, a subordinate of Mr. Faller, was a person responsible for the welfare of female student, D.K. Mr. Faller was trained in the duty to report child abuse. He has been present with people who have called to report child abuse. He understood that if he learned of something that causes concern from another employee, he may be responsible for reporting the concern to his principal. At Manatee High School, Mr. Faller served as assistant principal. His duties included supervising four parent liaisons: Mr. Gulash, Ms. Torres, Rod Frazier, and Randy Smith. Parent liaisons handle everyday suspensions and the discipline of students. They also handle communication between parents, staff, and students and assist in the classroom. Parent liaisons also mentor some students. Mr. Faller summarized the parent liaison duties as: Their main job is to deal with referrals written by staff members that had issues with student behavior, deal with parents, phone call parents and let them know what their child was doing, basically be a mentor to some of the students if they saw students were struggling and had a relationship with them and could make an impact and try and make them get back on the right track. (Tr., pp. 319-320). The parent liaison job description identifies responsibilities that include: handling routine discipline referrals; referring serious offenses to the assistant principal; supervising students, including bus duty, parking lot, and school events; meeting and dealing effectively with staff members, students, and parents; and modeling and maintaining high ethical standards. During the 2011-2012 school year, Mr. Faller received several reports describing inappropriate conduct and improper relations with female students by Mr. Frazier. He also received a report of sexual harassment of a female parent liaison. Harassment of Adinah Torres Adinah Torres worked at Manatee High School as a parent liaison from November 2010 to July 2012. Mr. Faller was Ms. Torres' sole supervisor during that period of time. During that period, Mr. Frazier trained Ms. Torres on how to enter referrals into the District's data system. During one training session, she sat at his desk using his computer. Mr. Frazier sat on the desk with his feet and crotch toward Ms. Torres. Mr. Frazier rubbed his foot up the side of Ms. Torres' leg during the training session. She pulled away and looked at him. Mr. Frazier smirked at Ms. Torres. She left the room. Mr. Frazier's acts were inappropriate, unwelcome, and unwarranted. They made Ms. Torres uncomfortable. The acts were harassment of Ms. Torres. The following day, Ms. Torres told Mr. Faller about the incident. Mr. Faller agreed that the described conduct was inappropriate. He told Ms. Torres that he could not have these sorts of problems in the office because she might one day need someone to help her with a student disciplinary issue. "You got this?" he asked. Ms. Torres interpreted Mr. Faller's statements to mean that she should deal with the problem.4/ Mr. Faller's version of their conversation is that he told Ms. Torres he would take action if she wished to file a written complaint. Nothing in the policies and procedures of the Board requires an employee to make a written complaint of harassment. In fact, Board Policy 2.19, which establishes procedures for complaints about discrimination and harassment, requires a diametrically opposite approach. Board Policy 2.19(4) sets out an investigation, review, reporting, and appeal process that begins with a written complaint. However, the policy begins with a clear statement that imposes a specific duty upon an administrator, such as Mr. Faller, who learns of an alleged incident of discrimination or harassment. The policy states: The following complaint/grievance procedures are established to receive complaints. However, when any administrator learns of an alleged incident of discrimination/harassment, they are required to report complaints immediately to the Equity Coordinator and will not conduct an investigation. Nothing required a written complaint like Mr. Faller required of Ms. Torres. An immediate report by him is what was required. Ms. Torres spoke to Mr. Frazier and told him the behavior was unacceptable. He denied that it occurred and stormed away from her. Mr. Faller did not note the complaint in Mr. Frazier's file. He did not speak to Mr. Frazier about it or take any disciplinary action. Mr. Faller also did not report the incident that Ms. Torres alleged to anyone, including the school's equity coordinator. Ms. Peebles' Reports of Conduct of Mr. Frazier With Female Students, A.P. and D.K. In the 2011-2012 school year, Manatee High School teacher, Jacqueline Peebles, developed concerns about Mr. Frazier's conduct with two female students. One was A.P., who told Ms. Peebles about Mr. Frazier approaching her at a tiki bar one night and later texting her about the encounter. Another was D.K. and Mr. Frazier's frequent calls to the classroom asking Ms. Peebles to have D.K. report to his office. Ms. Peebles was also concerned about a text message to D.K. that appeared to be from Mr. Frazier telling D.K. to come to his office, that he had heard she was wearing short-shorts. Ms. Peebles told Mr. Faller about all these incidents in one conversation after A.P. told her about the tiki bar encounter. Ms. Peebles told Mr. Faller that she knew A.P. was a troubled student with some discipline issues, but she felt A.P. was being truthful. Ms. Peebles provided the following information to Mr. Faller. She told him that A.P. had reported that Mr. Frazier approached her at night at a tiki bar, where she was drinking illegally. Ms. Peebles told Mr. Faller that A.P. told her that a man approached her from behind and rubbed his erection against her buttocks. A.P. said she turned and saw that it was Mr. Frazier. A.P. questioned him and told him he knew she was a student. Mr. Frazier replied, according to A.P., that she had a "nice ass" and was fair game because she was in the bar and must, therefore, be legal. The record establishes that A.P. was a student. It does not, however, establish her age. No party has asserted she was 18 or older. It is reasonable to infer from A.P.'s student status, the fact that she returned to school the following year, and the absence of dispute that she was under 18. Ms. Peebles said that she told A.P. "that sounds odd." A.P. insisted it was true. Ms. Peebles also told Mr. Faller that A.P. said that she was leaving regular school for an alternative program because Mr. Frazier would not leave her alone. A.P.'s comments and her change of schools indicate that Mr. Frazier's conduct was harmful to A.P.'s mental and emotional health. Ms. Peebles went on to tell Mr. Faller that A.P. then showed Ms. Peebles text messages on her telephone that were marked as coming from Mr. Frazier. The messages referred to the bar encounter saying, "'Oh, you have a hot ass, I really wanted you.'" After reporting the above information to Mr. Faller, Ms. Peebles told him that she believed A.P. In order to help Mr. Faller understand why she thought A.P.'s reports were credible and significant, Ms. Peebles then told Mr. Faller about an incident with Mr. Frazier that occurred before Mr. Faller assumed the position supervising Mr. Frazier. Ms. Peebles had walked into Mr. Frazier's office looking for him. She found Mr. Frazier sitting at his desk with a female student, D.K., sitting in his lap feeding him cake. She told Mr. Faller that she had reported the incident to the acting principal, Mr. Kane, and thought it had been dealt with. Finally, Ms. Peebles told Mr. Faller about her experiences with Mr. Frazier frequently calling the same female student, D.K., from class. The frequency became so great that it was disruptive to D.K.'s education. Ms. Peebles began not answering the telephone or refusing to send D.K. to Mr. Frazier's office. Later, Ms. Peebles saw D.K. texting and took D.K.'s telephone from her and placed it on her desk. D.K.'s phone buzzed with an incoming text message. Ms. Peebles told Mr. Faller that the message said something "along the lines of 'come up to my office. I hear you're wearing short-shorts again.'" D.K. was wearing short-shorts. Ms. Peebles told Mr. Faller that the telephone indicated that the message was from Rod Frazier. This event preceded the conversation with A.P. that Ms. Peebles reported to Mr. Faller. Ms. Peebles told Mr. Faller that Mr. Frazier's texting students frequently was a problem. With D.K., it was especially troublesome because she was missing so much class time. Mr. Faller acknowledges texting is not the proper way for the parent liaisons to contact students during school hours. Mr. Faller said he would talk to Mr. Frazier about the texting. Mr. Faller denies that Ms. Peebles told him about the tiki bar incident. The undersigned finds the testimony of Ms. Peebles credible and persuasive on this issue. A day, or a day and a half, later, Mr. Faller passed Ms. Peebles in the hall. He said, "Hey, I took care of that." After that, Mr. Frazier was unfriendly to Ms. Peebles and rarely spoke to her or handled her referrals. But Mr. Frazier's personnel records contain no indications that Mr. Faller spoke to Mr. Frazier about these incidents or took any action. The credible persuasive evidence proves that Mr. Faller did not report these assertions to the child abuse registry to the administrators or law enforcement, investigate them, or act upon them. Ms. O'Dell's Reports of Mr. Frazier's Conduct With Female Students, D.K. and D.W. Another teacher, Keltie O'Dell, told Mr. Faller of similar problems with Mr. Frazier texting two female students, D.K. and D.W., asking them to leave her classroom. When she would not release them, he called to have the students sent to his office. Ms. O'Dell told Mr. Faller that D.K. and D.W. confirmed to her that they had texted Mr. Frazier asking him to get them out of class. Ms. O'Dell told Mr. Faller of a time when Mr. Frazier brought lunch to D.K. in her classroom so that Mr. Faller would not see her out of compliance with the dress code in the cafeteria. The conduct of Mr. Frazier that Ms. O'Dell reported to Mr. Faller was unprofessional, inappropriate, and improper. Mr. Faller did not report these concerns to any other administrators or to law enforcement authorities. He also did not speak directly to Mr. Frazier about the issues. Mr. Faller only spoke to all of the parent liaisons as a group, generally, about the inappropriateness of texting students to come from class. The file contains no information or notes indicating that Mr. Faller spoke to Mr. Frazier about the incidents, disciplined, or counseled Mr. Frazier. Concerns Reported by Steve Gulash Steve Gulash, an administrative parent liaison in Manatee High School's discipline office, brought similar, but much more general concerns about Mr. Frazier to Mr. Faller. He once told Mr. Faller that he should take note of the fact that Mr. Frazier only signed up as an administrator on duty for female games. He also told Mr. Faller that "this damn guy's probably done some stuff that could put him in jail." Mr. Gulash did not identify specific incidents. Mr. Faller did nothing to inquire into Mr. Gulash's concerns. Mr. Faller's Approach to the Multiple Reports of Mr. Frazier's Improper Behavior The following excerpt, with emphasis added, from the transcript of Detective Marines' interview of Mr. Faller, articulates Mr. Faller's view of responsibility and his method for avoiding responsibility for the supervision of Mr. Frazier and caring for the female students of Manatee High School. Q: Okay. Now is it, is it, uh, you said you were over discipline. A: Uh hum. Q: Is it common for the parent liaison's to text students to get them out of class when they have an issue, they, they A: Is it common? Q: Yeah. A: No. Q: No? A: No. Q: Okay. So what, what is the common uh, like if, if Mr. Frazier wants to see you soon, and talk to him about a referral, I'm assuming that's what you guys do, right? A: We call the classroom. Q: Call the classroom? A: Yeah. Q: Talk to the teacher? A: That would be the norm. Um, Q: How long would he have been? A: You know? Q: How long had he been doing that for? Like texting students out of class? A: I don't know. Q: You don't know? Okay. Uh, did you ever talk to him about it? A: Didn't know about it, except for through a teacher. Q: Through Ms. O'Dell? A: Never witnessed it myself, never had a kid come to me. Yeah, other than that one incident, um, that supposedly took place in her class, you know, she saw the kid using the phone, and then all of the sudden, you get up and say I have to go to Frazier. So she's putting two and two together, so I can't, I mean I can't say, you know, that it definitely happened. Q: Uh hum. A: Um, that's a, that's a teacher, um, believing that it may have occurred. Um, and I'm not in the business of, of, figuring those things out. You know? Q: No, I A: I mean the bottom line is Q: know. I completely. [sic] A: Um, Q: Did you ever talk to him about it or no? He just didn't bother. A: There's nothing to address. If I don't know for sure that he's doing it, then I'm not gonna address it. I mean, uh, Q: Okay. A: You know? But, I mean if it was happening, um, I had no direct knowledge. Nobody's ever told me directly that they know for a fact that this is going on. (emphasis added). (P. Ex. 18, 2/11/13, pp. 7 & 8). Mr. Faller chose to ignore the information. Eventually, through the efforts of people other than Mr. Faller, the reports of Mr. Frazier's activities with female students reached responsible authorities triggering an administrative and criminal investigation of Mr. Frazier. Those investigations subsequently expanded to examine the actions and inactions of Mr. Faller, Principal Gagnon, former Assistant Principal Matt Kane, and assistant superintendent for District Support, Scott Martin, when they received complaints about Mr. Frazier. Ultimately, Mr. Frazier resigned from Manatee High School.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Manatee County School Board, enter a final order terminating the employment of Respondent, Gregg Faller. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of August, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN D. C. NEWTON, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of August, 2014.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated the provisions of Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C-22.001(11) (2013),2/ as alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for inspecting, licensing, and monitoring child care facilities such as the one operated by Respondent. It is the Department’s responsibility to ensure that all such facilities are safe and secure for the protection of the children utilizing those facilities. The Department inspects each licensed day care center several times a year. In the event of a complaint, additional inspections and/or investigations are conducted. Respondent is a licensed child care facility located in Manatee County, Florida. On October 12, 2017, Ms. Linzmayer received a complaint from an anonymous source who said she worked at the Academy. As a result of that complaint, Ms. Linzmayer was prompted to call the Department’s abuse hotline. Ms. Clark was working as an investigator for the Manatee County Sheriff’s Office, Child Protective Investigation Unit in October 2017. When notified of the potential abuse allegation, Ms. Clark conducted an investigation on October 12, 2017. The scope of Ms. Clark’s investigation centered on the allegations that a teacher had hit a child in the mouth. Ms. Clark spoke with employees at the Academy and then met with the alleged victim (A.O.) and the child’s family at a local law enforcement office. Ms. Clark’s investigation did not substantiate the case (of actual abuse) because she did not have proof that something did or did not happen. Ms. Clark notated that the Academy had not contacted the abuse hotline regarding the suspected child abuse and there was no incident report.4/ Ms. Barna-Roche conducts health, safety, routine and renewal inspections, as well as complaint inspections of child care facilities. After receiving the hotline abuse allegation, Ms. Barna-Roche inspected the Academy and spoke with several of its employees. As a result of her inspection, Ms. Barna-Roche found that the Academy failed to report the alleged child abuse. The only first-person account of the alleged classroom events of October 6, 2017, was provided by Ms. Gonzalez, a former teacher at the Academy. Ms. Gonzalez was in the two-year-old classroom, with another teacher, Ms. Tover. Ms. Gonzalez credibly testified that she did not “pop” a child in the mouth, and that she had never told Ms. Tover she had “popped” or used physical or inappropriate force relative to A.O. Ms. Gonzalez provided a brief history of her association with Ms. Tover, which was unflattering to both. For a time Ms. Gonzalez lived in the same house with Ms. Tover and members of Ms. Tover’s family. A disagreement arose regarding Ms. Gonzalez’s dog, and Ms. Gonzalez was asked to leave the house. In order to gather her belongings from the house, Ms. Gonzalez was forced to call law enforcement for assistance. This disagreement appears to have spilled over to the Academy, where both women worked. As part of her supervisory duties, Ms. Johnson (also known as Ms. Charlotte or Charlotte Hill) makes it a point to observe the children as they enter and leave the Academy. She conducts these observations in order to address any potential issues regarding a child’s well-being and to provide excellent service to the children and their parents in the care provided. Ms. Johnson was not in the two-year-old classroom on October 6, 2017, but observed the children entering and leaving the Academy that day. Ms. Johnson did not see the alleged abuse victim, A.O., with a fat or bloody lip as he left Respondent’s facility on October 6, 2017. Ms. Johnson was aware that Ms. Gonzalez had lived in the same house as Ms. Tover and her sister, and Ms. Johnson knew that Ms. Gonzalez moved out of the house prior to October 2017. Ms. Johnson was aware of some interpersonal issues between Ms. Tover and Ms. Gonzalez that were not associated with the Academy. Both Ms. Gonzalez and Ms. Johnson acknowledged being mandatory reporters, and clearly testified that had either seen or thought there was abuse, they would have reported it. As alleged in paragraph 4 of the AC above, in one instance Ms. Tover is alleged to have “witnessed another teacher ‘popping a child on the mouth’ and informed the child’s grandmother, who also works at the facility.” Yet, in paragraph 5 of the AC, Ms. Tover “confirmed her account of the alleged abuse. At the time of the incident, she turned around when she heard a child crying.” (emphasis added). Ms. Tover did not testify at hearing. There is no evidence that any abuse occurred. The testimony provided by Ms. Linzmayer, Ms. Clark, and Ms. Barna-Roche relies upon hearsay, and in some cases hearsay upon hearsay. Their testimony is found to be insufficient to meet the burden in this proceeding. The lack of direct evidence of the alleged abuse is troublesome. The indication that Ms. Tover “witnessed” the abuse or turned around after she heard a two-year-old child cry and was told something occurred is insufficient to overcome the direct testimony of the alleged perpetrator, who denied the accusation. It is true that additional training in spotting child abuse or suspected child abuse, and reporting such abuse or suspected child abuse is warranted at the Academy; however, the evidence is not clear and convincing that any abuse, real or suspect, occurred on October 6, 2017.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the evidence and testimony presented at the final hearing, and 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. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of April, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK 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 25th day of April, 2018.
The Issue Whether Respondent, a day-care center, committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and if so, the penalties Petitioner should impose against Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the regulatory authority responsible for licensure and enforcement of day-care centers in Florida. Respondent is a day-care center in Miami, Florida, and currently holds child care license C11MD0340. Respondent has operated as a day-care center since April 19, 1990. At the time of the formal hearing, Kevin Lennon was the owner and operator of Respondent. S.B. and L.B. are young sisters who stayed at Respondent’s day-care center in July 2014. On July 9, 2014, one of Respondent’s employees gave S.B. and L.B. a small cup of Cheez-Its as a snack. Mr. Lennon was present when the two girls were sharing the cup of Cheez-Its. After S.B., who is the older and bigger child, finished her share of the Cheez-Its, S.B. began to hit her sister to take her sister’s share of the Cheez-Its. Mr. Lennon separated the two girls and permitted L.B. to eat her share of the Cheez-Its. Mr. Lennon testified, credibly, that he did not take the Cheez-Its from S.B. to punish S.B. Petitioner offered no competent, credible evidence to refute Mr. Lennon’s testimony. On March 25, 2014, Petitioner received from Respondent an “Application for a License to Operate a Child Care Facility” (the application). Mr. Lennon completed the application on behalf of Respondent. The application contained an attestation section that required Mr. Lennon’s signature to be notarized. On March 25, 2014, Petitioner received an attestation section (first attestation section) signed by Kevin Lennon on February 28, 2014. The first attestation section contains Ivanne Albarran’s notary seal and a signature dated February 28, 2014. Mr. Lennon testified, credibly, that he signed the first attestation section as Kevin Lennon. Mr. Albarran testified, credibly, that he signed the first attestation section as the notary public. Petitioner offered insufficient evidence to refute that testimony. The application package contains a second attestation section that was received by Petitioner on March 28, 2014. The second attestation section contains Mr. Lennon’s signature and a date of March 26, 2014. The second attestation section contains Mr. Albarran’s notary seal and a signature dated March 28, 2014. Mr. Lennon testified, credibly, that he signed the second attestation section as “Kevin Lennon.” Mr. Albarran testified, credibly, that he signed the second attestation section as the notary public. Petitioner offered no competent, credible evidence to refute that testimony.
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. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of January, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of January, 2015. COPIES FURNISHED: Howard J. Hochman, Esquire Law Offices of Howard J. Hochman 7695 Southwest 104th Street, Suite 210 Miami, Florida 33156 (eServed) Karen A. Milia, Esquire Department of Children and Families 401 Northwest Second Avenue, Suite N-1014 Miami, Florida 33128 (eServed) Paul Sexton, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Families Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Rebecca Kapusta, Interim General Counsel Department of Children and Families Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 (eServed) Mike Carroll, Secretary Department of Children and Families Building 1, Room 202 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 (eServed)
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed an act of violence or used force on any person except in the lawful protection of one's self or another from physical harm and, therefore, should have his license renewal as a Class "D" Security Officer denied pursuant to Section 493.6118(1)(j) and (2), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Michael S. Snow, was at all times relevant to these proceedings a licensed Class "D" Security Officer. The Respondent is the agency that licenses and regulates security officers pursuant to Chapter 493, Florida Statutes. On or about April 12, 2003, the Petitioner filed an application to renew his license as a Class "D" Security Officer. The Respondent advised the Petitioner by letter of its intent to deny his application; the Petitioner requested a hearing; and these proceedings ensued. Subsequently, the Respondent amended its letter of denial, and the letter of August 14, 2003, (Second Amended Administrative Denial of License), constitutes the charging document. That letter states that the application is denied because of the applicant's failure to qualify under Section 493.6118(1)(j), Florida Statutes, because the applicant committed an act of violence or used force on another person that was not for the lawful protection of himself or another. At the hearing, Union County Deputy Sheriff Terry Cranford was called to testify. Deputy Cranford identified an affidavit that he had prepared on November 24, 2002, in relation to an investigation in which the Petitioner was the alleged perpetrator of abuse of an 18-month old child. The affidavit, Respondent's Exhibit numbered 1, was prepared by the deputy after he had interviewed various witnesses in the case; however, the deputy did not observe any of the alleged conduct. The deputy did observe the child on November 22, 2002, during the course of his investigation. The alleged incident, which involved the Petitioner striking the child in the face, took place on November 21, 2002, some 24 hours earlier. The deputy did not mention in his affidavit any injuries he observed. The deputy did not testify at hearing to any injuries to the child. The deputy stated that the child was too young to provide any information on the incident. The deputy's investigative focus at the time he prepared the affidavit was on the mother of the child and another relative. He did not interview the Petitioner. All the information that he obtained about the Petitioner's involvement was through the Child Protective Investigator, Ms. Joiner. The Respondent called Janice Joiner, an investigator with the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), who testified regarding her investigation of the incident. Like the deputy, above, Ms Joiner did not observe the incident. It is clear from her testimony and that of the child's mother, that the child's natural father reported the incident. He picked up the child from the daycare on the afternoon of November 21, 2002, and raised questions about the red handprint on the child's face. As a result of the investigation, DCFS initiated a dependency action, which precluded with the right of the child's mother to have custody of the child during the investigation, legal proceedings, and subsequent mediation between attorneys representing the child's mother and father. As a result of the investigation initiated by the child's father, his ex-wife, the child's mother, had to agree to end her relationship with the Petitioner. Ms. Joiner testified regarding what the Petitioner told her. He admitted he struck the child while putting the child in his car seat, when the child grabbed his uniform epaulet and would not let go. Ms. Joiner opined that this was abusive, and stated that the doctor who examined the child said it was abusive. Ms. Joiner did not state upon what information she based this opinion. She mentioned the handprint she saw on the day following the incident, which she described as faint. The Petitioner entered pretrial intervention on the charges brought against him, and successfully completed the program which called for him, to among other things, attend parenting and anger management classes. He was never tried; has never plead or been found guilt of any offense related to this incident; and his civil rights were never affected.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department issue the Petitioner a Class D Security Officer's license. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of May, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STEPHEN F. DEAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of May, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael S. Snow Post Office Box 1131 MacClenny, Florida 32063 Michael T. McGuckin, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Division of Licensing Post Office Box 6687 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6687 Brenda D. Hyatt, Bureau Chief Bureau of Licensing and Bond Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 407 South Calhoun Street, Mail Station 38 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6687 Richard D. Tritschler, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6687
The Issue The issue is whether the administrative fine levied by Petitioner, Department of Children and Family Services (Department), against Respondent, Beacon Hill Preschool (Respondent, Beacon Hill or facility), is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a licensed child care facility in Lakeland, Florida, and is owned by Sheila Holton and Diane DeSena. The facility’s license number is C14PO0013. On February 27, 2004, a complaint was made to the Department alleging that B.M., a two-year-old boy, had returned home from Beacon Hill with "bruises to different parts of his body" and that he "also had bite marks that were inflicted by another child" at the facility. Amy Anderson, a child protection investigator, investigated the complaint. As part of her investigation, on the morning of February 28, 2004, Ms. Anderson went to the home where B.M. resided. She was unable to see the child at that time because no one was at home. However, she returned later that day at about 5:43 p.m. and met with B.M.’s relative caregivers, his aunt and uncle. During this visit, Ms. Anderson saw B.M. and observed that he had various bruises on his lower legs, right flank area, elbows, and lower back, but determined that theses bruises were "all older in age." During the course of the investigation, Ms. Anderson met with one of the co-directors and some of the teachers at Beacon Hill. Ms. Anderson also reviewed Respondent's incident reports that documented the bruises, scratches, and bites that B.M. sustained at the facility. The incident reports indicate that between September 3, 2003, and February 12, 2004, B.M. was bitten eight times by other children while at the facility. These incidents, described in detail below, were recorded by facility staff at or near the time of each incident. On September 17, 2003, while B.M. was playing with a toy truck, another child bit him on the left side of the face. About one month later, on the morning of November 21, 2003, there were two biting incidents. First, while B.M. was sitting in a wagon, B.S., a two-year-old boy, was sitting behind him and bit B.M. on his back; less than two hours later, B.S. bit B.M.’s hand. About two weeks later, on December 4, 2003, B.S. bit B.M. on the palm area of his hand, immediately after B.M. bit B.S. In the two-week period between January 29, 2004, and February 12, 2004, the biting incidents involving B.M. continued. On the morning of January 29, 2004, B.M. was bitten on the wrist by another child, D.M.; that afternoon, B.S. bit B.M. again, this time on his upper forearm. On February 3, 2004, B.S. pinched and then tried to bite B.M. The next day, February 4, 2004, B.S. bit B.M. on the right arm/hand because B.M. had a toy that B.S. wanted. The following week, on February 12, 2004, B.S. bit B.M. on the hand. There were eight incidents at the facility in which B.M. was bitten by other students. In seven of the eight biting incidents, B.S. was the child who bit B.M. Some time after the last biting incident, B.S., who was described in one of the facility's incident reports as aggressive, was dismissed from the facility. In the time period between September 3, 2003, and February 20, 2004, B.M. also sustained several bumps, scratches, and bruises at the facility.1/ These incidents, detailed below, were documented by the facility staff at or near the time the incidents occurred. On September 3, 2003, B.M. was scratched on the left side of his face as he was playing near the toy refrigerator, and another child opened the refrigerator door. On September 5, 2003, B.M. bumped his face into another child, as the two children accidentally ran into each other. On September 11, 2003, a child at the facility grabbed B.M. near the eye, causing a scratch under B.M.’s eye. On October 6 and 20, 2003, B.M. was running outside and fell and bumped his head. The October 6, 2003, incident left a "purplish mark" on B.M.'s forehead. On October 13, 2003, B.M. bumped his mouth on a pole while playing near the monkey bars. In February, four incidents occurred. On February 9, 2004, B.M. was fighting another child, and the child grabbed and scratched B.M.’s face. The next day, February 10, 2004, B.M. was pushed into a shelf by a child from when he was trying to take a toy; there is no indication that the push left any marks. B.M. injured himself on February 13, 2004, after he accidentally pinched his hand on the door of a toy car. Finally, on February 20, 2004, B.M. fell off a play table; no injuries were reported in connection with this incident.2/ After completing the investigation, Ms. Anderson made the following findings, which are included in the "Summarized Findings of Maltreatment Findings" of the Investigative Summary and Narrative: [B] had several bruises all over his body when he was seen on February 27, 2004. [B] was bitten by another child 15 times before the "offending" child was dismissed from the facility; and the "daycare" admitted that a classroom of two-year-olds was left unattended for several minutes while the teacher used the bathroom. Ms. Anderson closed the Department’s official investigation, finding some indicators of bruises on the child victim; conditions hazardous to the health of the child due to a much delayed diaper change; and inadequate supervision on the part of Beacon Hill personnel due to leaving a classroom unattended, even if only momentarily. The child protection investigator's findings included in the abuse report and quoted in paragraph 14 above, that B.M. was bitten 15 times, was not established in this proceeding. Moreover, the findings in the abuse report, described in paragraph 15 above relating to conditions hazardous to health and inadequate supervision due to a teacher leaving the classroom unattended, were not established at this proceeding. Given the number of biting incidents in which B.M. was bitten by the same child at the facility, the staff should have taken corrective action to prevent further injury to B.M. Respondent maintained the required ratio of teachers to children. Nonetheless, the fact that B.M. was bitten as frequently as he was by the same student indicates that the staff failed to adequately supervise the children and to take steps to ensure that B.S. would not bite B.M. or to substantially reduce the likelihood of that happening. The failure of the Beacon Hill staff to take such action, even though present, resulted in repeated and predictable injury to B.M. On the other hand, the bumps, bruises, and scratches that B.M. received at the day care were due, in large part, to falls and accidents involving and caused only by B.M. The three incidents that involved deliberate actions by other children were infrequent and were the type of common encounters that occur with a group of two-year-olds, even when adequate staff is present and supervising the children.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Department of Children and Family Services, issue a final order imposing an administrative fine on Respondent, Beacon Hill Preschool, in the amount of $300.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of December, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 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 December, 2004.
