The Issue The issues are as follows: (1) whether Respondent violated Section 402.305(2), Florida Statutes (2005), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C-22.003(2) by failing to show that two staff members had enrolled in the introductory child care course within 90 days of employment; and if so, (2) what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the agency charged with the responsibility of enforcing Sections 402.301 through 402.319, Florida Statutes. At all times relevant here, Respondent has been licensed to operate a child care facility located at 10550 Deerwood Park Boulevard, Jacksonville, Florida (the facility.) Respondent's current license to operate the facility is effective May 6, 2005, through May 5, 2006. On April 22, 2003, Petitioner performed a renewal-of- licensure inspection at the facility. The inspection revealed that Respondent was not in compliance with the requirement that all staff members enroll in the introductory course in child care within 90 days of employment. The citation for non- compliance involved three of Respondent's staff members, including R.A., M.P., and G.S. On August 20, 2003, Petitioner performed a routine inspection at Respondent's facility. The inspection revealed that Respondent was in compliance with the requirement that all staff members enroll in the introductory course in child care within 90 days of employment. During the hearing, Respondent presented undocumented testimony that it was in compliance with staff training requirements during an inspection on January 6, 2004. On April 20, 2004, Petitioner performed a renewal-of- licensure inspection at the facility. Once again the inspection revealed that Respondent failed to have documentation to show enrollment in the introductory course in child care for all staff employed for at least 90 days. On May 4, 2004, Petitioner performed a re-inspection of the facility. The inspection revealed that Respondent continued to be out of compliance with the requirement for staff members to enroll in the introductory child care course within 90 days of employment. The relevant portion of the May 4, 2004, re- inspection checklist contains the following comment by Petitioner's inspector: CA [corrective action] states the cited employees have not completed the required 40-hour training nor have they enrolled. The facility is working toward getting them enrolled. Staff worker G.S. was previously cited 04/22/03 for not enrolling in the required Observation and Screening module. CA received in this office on June 09, 2003, states G.S. registered 04/07/2003. On May 4, 2004, Petitioner issued a Notice of Intent to Impose Administrative Action against Respondent. The notice states that Petitioner intended to take such action if Respondent did not take corrective action within a certain time frame to ensure that all staff members enrolled in required training classes in a timely manner or if the same deficiencies continued. During the hearing, Respondent presented undocumented testimony that it was in compliance with staff training requirements during an inspection on August 18, 2004. On March 28, 2005, Petitioner performed a renewal-of- licensure inspection at the facility. During the inspection, Petitioner determined that Respondent did not have documentation to show enrollment in the introductory course in child care for two staff members, who had been employed for at least 90 days. Respondent hired I.N. on October 18, 2004. At the time of the March 28, 2005, inspection, I.N. had been working at the facility for approximately five months without enrolling in the appropriate training classes. Respondent hired Y.W. on November 29, 2004. At the time of the March 28, 2005, inspection, Y.W. had been working at the facility for approximately four months without enrolling in the appropriate training classes. Following the March 28, 2005, inspection, Petitioner required Respondent to provide documentation showing that I.N. and Y.W. were enrolled in the appropriate training classes. Respondent had until April 7, 2005, to provide Petitioner with such verification. On or about April 7, 2005, Respondent provided Petitioner with a Corrective Action Statement. Respondent also enclosed verification of I.N. and Y.W.'s compliance with training requirements. Petitioner's April 8, 2005, re-inspection of the facility confirmed that the two staff members were enrolled to begin the introductory child care training course. Accordingly, Respondent was in compliance with staff training requirements. On August 15, 2005, Petitioner performed a routine inspection of the facility. Respondent was in compliance with staff training requirements at that time. As of August 31, 2005, I.N. had completed the 40-hour introductory child care course. At all times material here, Respondent was aware that I.N. and Y.W. were not enrolled in the appropriate training classes. On more than one occasion, Respondent's administrative staff counseled with I.N. and Y.W. regarding the need for I.N. and Y.W. to enroll in the introductory child care course within 90 days of employment. At some point during the first 90 days of employment, Respondent sent I.N. and Y.W. a letter reminding them of the need to enroll in the introductory child care course. The letter advised I.N. and Y.W. that they might be subject to suspension from work if they did not meet the training requirements. However, Respondent never suspended I.N. or Y.W. because Respondent's administrators believed that the staff members were having difficulty registering for the course at Florida Community College Jacksonville (FCCJ) due to the unavailability of classes. There is no evidence to show the specific efforts that I.N. and Y.W. made to register for class. Respondent routinely advises its new staff members that they can register over the Internet for the introductory child care course with FCCJ. Respondent occasionally gives new staff members an opportunity to leave work during school hours so that they can go to FCCJ to register in person. In either event, efforts by new staff members to enroll in required training classes are sometimes unsuccessful due to the unavailability of classes. If timely enrollment in required classes is not possible in Jacksonville/Duval County, Florida, Respondent advises its new staff members of the opportunity to register for classes in adjacent counties. Neither Petitioner nor Respondent requires new teachers to verify their unsuccessful efforts to register for classes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a Final Order imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $50 on Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of September, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 26th day of September, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Robin Whipple-Hunter, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services Post Office Box 2417 Jacksonville, Florida 32231-0083 Thomas Blitch Owner/Operator Magellan Educational Services, Inc. Post Office Box 55109 Jacksonville, Florida 32255-1509 Gregory Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204B 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Josie Tamayo, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Whether Respondent, a licensed childcare facility, committed a Class I violation related to inadequate supervision of a child as alleged in the Petitioner's Amended Complaint; and, if so, what is the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence presented and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: The parties stipulated to the following facts in their Joint Pre-Hearing Stipulation (paragraphs 1 through 10 below): DCF is an administrative agency of the state of Florida, charged with the duty to enforce and administer the provisions of chapter 402, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rules 65C-22.010 and 65C-20.012. Global Learning operates a licensed childcare facility known as Global Learning of Port Saint Lucie, Inc., located at 4333 Southwest Darwin Boulevard, Port Saint Lucie, Florida 34953. The facility operates under license/ID No. C19SL0139 issued by DCF with a licensed capacity of 132. At all relevant times, Global Learning was regulated by DCF according to, inter alia, the following documents: (i) DCF Child Care Facility Handbook, incorporated by reference in rule 65C-22.001; (ii) CF-FSP Form 5316, Child Care Standards Classification Summary, October 2017, rule 65C22.010(1)(e)1.; (iii) Florida Department of Children and Families Desk Reference Guide, updated July 2018; (iv) section 402.281; (v) section 402.305; (vi) section 402.310; (vii) section 402.310; (viii) rules 65C-22.001 through 65C- 22.010. As referenced in the Complaint, DCF cited Respondent with a violation of standard 4.2, which states "Class 1 violation; [o]ne or more children were not adequately supervised in that a child was unsupervised, which posed an imminent threat to a child, and could or did result in death or serious harm to the health, safety or well-being of a child." As referenced in the Amended Complaint, DCF cited Respondent with a violation of standard 4.3, "Class I violation; [a] child was not adequately supervised and left the facility premises without child care personnel supervision." As referenced in the Complaints, DCF imposed a fine upon Global Learning in the amount of $500.00. As referenced in the Complaints, DCF seeks to revoke Global Learning's Gold Seal Quality Care designation. At all relevant times, Global Learning held a valid child care license to provide child care services. At all relevant times, Global Learning possessed a Gold Seal Quality Care designation. At no time prior to the violation referenced in this matter did Global Learning ever receive a Class I violation. Case History and Investigation The case began when DCF conducted an investigation into an alleged violation of the Child Care Licensing Standards, which occurred on April 26, 2019, at Global Learning Center in Port Saint Lucie, Florida. The investigation was prompted after DCF received a complaint that a young child had left his classroom at the Global Learning day care facility, wandered in the neighborhood without supervision for some period of time, and was eventually found by a passing motorist walking on a sidewalk alongside the road. The assigned DCF investigator visited and inspected the facility, reviewed documentation, and conducted interviews of staff members and other witnesses. Discovery by a Good Samaritan The evidence disclosed that a local resident, Jeanette Plesnick, was driving down Kester Street in Port Saint Lucie, Florida, on the afternoon of April 26, 2019. While driving she spotted a five-year-old child, B.K., walking alone on the sidewalk with his blanket. The sidewalk ran alongside a public road.2/ Out of concern, Plesnick stopped her car and questioned the child. He was unharmed and in good shape. Nonetheless, she secured the child and immediately reported the matter to local law enforcement. Plesnick waited with the boy for law enforcement to respond. A police officer arrived roughly 30 minutes later. Plesnick was familiar with the location of the Global Learning facility. She estimated that it was a block to a block-and-a-half away from the location where she found the young boy. Plesnick also estimated that it would take her about ten minutes to walk to the day care facility directly from the location where she found B.K. The boy's father, Kent Kummerfeldt, was notified by law enforcement that his son had left the day care facility. Kummerfeldt immediately left his job in Palm Beach County and drove to the day care facility in Port Saint Lucie. His son was safely back at the day care when he arrived. Naturally, Kummerfeldt had expected his son to be educated in a safe environment at Global Learning, and was surprised that his son was allowed to leave the facility unsupervised. Classroom Incident on April 26, 2019 The essential facts surrounding how, when, and why the boy departed from his classroom at Global Learning were largely undisputed. B.K. told his father that he left the classroom alone through an exit door, went outside to the children's playground, and then climbed over the playground fence. DCF's investigator, Deanna Trainor, interviewed several of Respondent's employees, including the classroom teacher, LaJane James ("James"). As the facts developed, it was revealed that James was the only adult teacher in the classroom when the boy left. It was clear that for some period of time, James was solely responsible for the supervision of B.K. and the other 21 children who were napping in the classroom. More specifically, another teacher assisting James in the supervision of the classroom had left to eat lunch. This left James alone to watch the napping students. There was also evidence, which the undersigned credited, that the number of children in the classroom exceeded the allowable one to 20 ratio of students-to-teacher, while James was alone in the classroom. James told the investigator that she started cleaning up the room after she laid the children down for naps. James admitted that it must have been during that period of time that B.K. got up off his sleeping cot and went out the door without her seeing him.3/ In the investigator's opinion, the class room had loud acoustics and the exit door B.K. used to go out to the playground was also very loud. From the evidence and pictures submitted, the classroom was large, open, and the view to the exit door was unobstructed. In fact, the pictures revealed that the teachers' desk area was immediately next to the exit door used by B.K. Based on Trainor's investigation and inspection of the exit door and surrounding area, she concluded that it would have been "hard to miss" if a child opened the classroom door and went outside. This conclusion by Trainor is credited and accepted. Janet Higgins, was the general manager of Global Learning on the day of the incident. She offered a good deal of testimony regarding the operations, accreditation, training, licensing, and credentials of Global Learning.4/ Higgins acknowledged that B.K. was supposed to be supervised in the classroom at all times. Higgins was not present in the classroom when the incident occurred, but related that at approximately 12:30 p.m., as was the normal practice, the children would have been laid on their mats or cots for daily naptime. Higgins acknowledged that the child made his way outside the facility she managed and was eventually found by a Good Samaritan down the street. After the incident, Global Learning took remedial action and made some physical changes to the exit doors, installing bells and higher doorknobs. Not surprisingly, James was terminated by Higgins shortly after the incident. After concluding its investigation, DCF ultimately determined that the allegations were verified. This determination was followed up by the issuance of an administrative complaint seeking sanctions against Global Learning.
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: (1) Finding that Global Learning violated Handbook Rule 2.4.1(B) and, by reference, standard 4.3.; (2) Imposing a fine in the amount of $500.00; and (3) Revoking Global Learning's Gold Seal Quality Care Designation, as required by law. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of January, 2020, 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 13th day of January, 2020.
