The Issue At issue is whether Respondent committed the Class II violation alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what is the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Department is authorized to regulate child care facilities pursuant to sections 402.301 through 402.319, Florida Statutes. Section 402.310 authorizes the Department to take disciplinary action against child care facilities for violations of sections 402.301 through 402.319. Chappell operates at eight child care locations in Duval and St. Johns Counties, admitting children from the ages of six weeks to five years. Chappell also has an after school program for children ages five to eight, and a summer camp for children ages five to ten. Chappell is licensed to operate the Child Care Facility at 8400 Baycenter Road, Jacksonville, Florida, pursuant to License Number C04DU0093. The facility on Baycenter Road is commonly called Chappell’s Deerwood facility. Gretrell Marshall works for the Department as a Licensing Counselor. She inspects child care facilities and family daycare homes to ensure they are not operating in violation of Department standards. She has worked for the Department for two years. Ms. Marshall’s previous experience includes operating a family daycare home for two years, and seven years as the owner and director of a licensed child care facility in Jacksonville. She has worked as an infant and toddler development specialist and holds a bachelor's degree in psychology. On October 10, 2019, Ms. Marshall went to Chappell to investigate a parent’s complaint that a child at the facility was repeatedly biting other children. The Department’s rules require child care facilities to document all accidents and incidents that occur while a child is in the care of program staff. The incident reports must be completed on the same day the incident occurs. The documentation of the incident must be shared with the child’s parent or guardian on the day the incident occurs. Chappell’s “accident/incident report” form contained spaces for the name and age of the child, the names of the teachers and other adults present, and the date and time of the incident. It had multiple choice check- boxes for location (classroom, playground, bathroom, cafeteria, or “other”); markings (abrasion, bite, bruise, bump, cut/tear, fracture, puncture, red mark, rug burn, scratch, sprain, or “other”); appendage (a list of 26 body parts); and first aid given (irrigate, antibacterial soap, bandage, ice pack, splint, or “other”). The form also included space for a narrative description of the accident or incident, and whether the parent was called. Ms. Marshall found several accident/incident reports that student E.W., a two-year-old boy, bit other children and a teacher between August 21 and October 4, 2019. On August 21, 2019, E.W. bit another student in the back while jostling for position in a line. The skin was not broken and the bite did not require first aid. Chappell recorded that the bite left bite marks. An August 27, 2019, incident report described two biting incidents on the same day. First, E.W. bit another student “just because” and pulled another student’s hair. Then, E.W. indicated to the teacher that he had to use the bathroom. The teacher took him to the bathroom but the child just ate toilet paper and urinated on himself. When the teacher tried to change his diaper, E.W. bit and kicked the teacher. For the August 27, 2019, incident, Chappell’s accident/incident report form left blank the first aid treatment space. The report noted the bites left bite marks. On September 11, 2019, E.W. bit another child in the back. Chappell’s accident/incident report recorded that first aid was administered, but did not specify the form of treatment. The report noted that the bites resulted in bite marks. Chappell reported that two biting incidents occurred on September 30, 2019. E.W. bit another student on the back during circle time. Later, when the students went outside to play, E.W. bit another child on the back without provocation. The teacher talked to him about being gentle with friends. The accident/incident report left blank the space for reporting first aid. On October 2, 2019, E.W. bit another student in the back. A different form, called a “behavior incident report,” was used by Chappell to record this incident. This form did not contain the check-boxes of the accident/incident report but simply provided space for a narrative “description of behavior incident.” The narrative stated that E.W. and other students were on the castle playhouse in the playground when E.W., “unprovoked,” bit another student on the back. Chappell did not record whether this bite left marks or required first aid. On October 4, 2019, at 12:40 p.m., E.W. bit another student on the right shoulder during play time in their classroom. The accident/incident report recorded that the bite left a bite mark. The space on the form to indicate whether the bite required first aid was left blank. A separate accident/incident report completed on October 4, 2019, documented that E.W. bit another student at 3:15 p.m., while the children were lining up at the door of the classroom. The report did not indicate whether there were bite marks or whether first aid was required. Chappell intended to suspend E.W. for one day on October 4, 2019. The school phoned the parents but was unable to get anyone to come in and pick up E.W. Therefore, the suspension was enforced on the next school day, October 7, 2019. The school warned the parents that another biting incident would result in the child’s permanent removal from Chappell. On October 23, 2019, E.W. bit another child at the school. Chappell expelled E.W. Nancy Dreicer, the Chief Executive Officer of Chappell, testified that there is a societal problem with small children being suspended and expelled from childcare centers. She stated that more children are expelled from child care centers in the United States than are expelled from grade schools and high schools. Ms. Dreicer testified that disciplinary expulsions were problematic for multiple reasons. Behaviors such as biting are common among two year olds, but a child that age learns nothing from being suspended or expelled from school. The parents are forced to find another child care facility and whatever behavioral issue is causing the child’s misbehavior is not addressed. The problem is merely pushed off onto a new child care facility. Ms. Dreicer testified that in 2019, Chappell received a grant from Hope Haven Children’s Hospital and the Community Foundation of Jacksonville to have a behavioral psychologist at the Deerwood facility to work with the children and to train the teachers in dealing with behavior problems. The psychologist worked with E.W., observing the child in the classroom, tracking the timing of his misbehavior, and looking for triggers to his actions. He worked with the teachers on how to identify triggers. Ms. Dreicer pointed out that suspending the child would have meant that the psychologist could not observe him. She noted that nothing approaching a serious injury had occurred, and added that the school would not have kept E.W. in the classroom if there was any possibility of his being a danger to the other students. She believed that E.W.’s behavior was improving, but that biting is such a natural part of a two year old’s development that it was very difficult to stop it completely. The Department has adopted a Child Care Facility Handbook (the “Handbook”), intended to be used on conjunction with sections 402.26 through 402.319. The Handbook has been adopted by reference in Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C-22.001(6).1 The Introduction to the Handbook states, “To protect the health and welfare of children, it is the intent of the Legislature to develop a regulatory framework that promotes the growth and stability of the child care industry and facilitates the safe physical, intellectual, motor, and social development of the child.” Section 2.8 of the Handbook, titled “Child Discipline,” provides, in relevant part: The child care facility shall adopt a discipline policy consistent with Section 402.305(12), F.S., including standards that prohibit children from 1 The cited rule references the May 2019 edition of the Handbook. However, the version of the Handbook provided on the Department’s website and through the hyperlink provided in the rule as published in the Florida Administrative Register is dated December 2019. To further complicate matters, the version of the Handbook introduced at the hearing was dated October 2017. The October 2017 and December 2019 editions are identical in all respects relevant to the determination in this proceeding, which leads to the inference that the May 2019 edition is likewise identical. being subjected to discipline which is severe, humiliating, frightening, or associated with food, rest, or toileting. Spanking or any other form of physical punishment is prohibited. The child care facility operators, employees, and volunteers must comply with written disciplinary and expulsion policies. Verification that the child care facility has provided the parent or guardian a written copy of the disciplinary and expulsion policies used by the program must be documented on the enrollment form with the signature of the custodial parent or legal guardian. * * * E. A copy of the current[2] disciplinary and expulsion policies must be available for review by the parents or legal guardian and the licensing authority. Providers must have a comprehensive discipline policy that includes developmentally appropriate social-emotional and behavioral health promotion practices, as well as discipline and intervention procedures that provide specific guidance on what child care personnel should do to prevent and respond to challenging behaviors. Preventive and discipline practices should be used as learning opportunities to guide children’s appropriate behavioral development …. (emphasis added). Pursuant to section 2.8.A of the Handbook, Chappell has adopted and implemented a discipline policy, titled “Child Management Behavior Protocol.” Chappell’s policy sets forth the following mission statement: Chappell recognizes the importance of promoting acceptable behavior and methods of discipline within the child care setting. We believe that all 2 The word “current” is not in the October 2017 edition of the Handbook. This is the only relevant difference between section 2.8 in the October 2017 Handbook and section 2.8 in the December 2019 edition of the Handbook children have the right to expect positive approaches to discipline, which foster self-esteem, respect, tolerance and self-control. Behaviors which injure people either emotionally or physically or damage property are real problems to adults/staff and the other children. These behaviors must be dealt with in an appropriate manner. After setting forth a catalogue of acceptable and unacceptable methods of discipline to be applied in specific instances of misbehavior, the Chappell discipline policy next stated the process to be followed “In The Case of Persistent Inappropriate Behavior” as follows, in relevant part: The child’s parents/caregivers will be involved at first hit, kick, thrown toy, etc. The Director will discuss the situation with the parents/caregivers in an attempt to find the possible cause of the behavior. The Director and the parents/caregivers will together develop strategies for dealing with the unwanted behavior, which could be implemented at home. Should it be necessary and with the consent of the parent/caregiver, advice and assistance will be sought from relevant external specialists to address the matter. After two incidences in one week, which caused or could have caused injury to self or others, the child will be suspended for one day, and after five such incidences the child will be suspended for a week. However, if the Director at any time feels the behavior is extreme and dangerous to other children or teachers, the child will be removed from the Center. This may be a temporary or permanent expulsion…. There was no question that the Chappell discipline policy meets the requirements of the Handbook. The Class II violation alleged by the Department is that Chappell failed to follow its own discipline policy in the case of E.W., thereby violating section 2.8.B of the Handbook, which requires child care facilities to “comply with written disciplinary and expulsion policies.” The Department points out that the Chappell discipline policy specifies that after two incidences in one week that “caused or could have caused injury,” the child will be suspended for one day, and that five such instances will result in one week’s suspension. The Chappell policy gives the Director discretion to remove a child for extreme or dangerous behavior. The Department notes that the policy does not give the Director discretion to waive the stated discipline schedule. Ms. Marshall calculated that under Chappell’s written policy, E.W. should have been suspended for one day after the two biting incidents on August 27, 2019, and again following the two biting incidents on September 30, 2019. Chappell did not suspend E.W. on either occasion. Ms. Marshall calculated that in the space of the five days between September 30 and October 4, 2019, E.W. was involved in five biting incidents. Ms. Marshall testified that, under Chappell’s policy, E.W. should have been suspended for one week. Chappell gave E.W. a one-day suspension on October 7, 2019. Ms. Dreicer conceded in the abstract that biting is an act that could cause injury to another child. She did not concede that E.W.’s biting was injurious or threatened actual injury to the other children at the child care facility. It was a developmental behavior issue that the facility’s staff and a psychologist were attempting to correct. Chappell ultimately decided that it had to expel the child, but only after making every effort to correct the biting behavior. Chappell argued that neither the Department’s Handbook nor Chappell’s policy defines the term “injury.” Ms. Marshall believed that a bite is always an injury. It leaves a mark, however temporary, and requires some treatment. Chappell noted that none of the bites recorded in its accident/incident reports broke the skin of the other child or required treatment of any kind. Ms. Dreicer and the staff of the Deerwood facility made a determination that E.W.’s behavior presented no danger of injury to the other children. Chappell argues that, whatever the literal language of the written policy, the director of a child care facility must be allowed to exercise discretion on a case-by-case basis in making disciplinary decisions. Chappell points to section 2.8.E of the Handbook, with its admonitions that a comprehensive disciplinary policy must be “developmentally appropriate” and that discipline practices “should be used as learning opportunities to guide children’s appropriate behavioral development.” Ms. Dreicer forcefully made the case that suspending or expelling a two year old teaches nothing and abdicates the facility’s responsibility to the child. Neither party appeared to take note of another section of the Chappell disciplinary policy. The undersigned observes that, while the language of the Chappell policy quoted above appears to prescribe a rigid disciplinary process admitting no exceptions, another portion of the policy gives Chappell discretion as to when the disciplinary process commences: After an incident, our first step: We will tend to the injured child to see if medical attention is needed. We will give the child who hit, kicked, etc. an opportunity to apologize and provide comfort. We will notify both sets of parents and prepare an incident report (Attachment 1). DCF requires the report be signed by a parent or caregiver the day of the incident. If behaviors persist, Chappell will follow the process management flow chart. (Attachment 2)[3] (emphasis added). 3 The referenced attachments were not part of the record. From the context, the undersigned has inferred that the referenced “flow chart” was a graphic representation of the disciplinary procedure quoted at Finding of Fact 26 above. The underscored language, read together with the title of the discipline policy, “In The Case of Persistent Inappropriate Behavior,” gives Chappell discretion to determine when the child’s behaviors have reached the stage of “persistence” warranting commencement of the disciplinary process. The Department did not account for this discretion in finding that Chappell violated section 2.8.B of the Handbook. Ms. Dreicer’s testimony was consistent with the Chappell disciplinary policy. Though the facility eventually expelled the child, it exercised the discretion afforded by the policy to determine whether the child’s behavior was potentially injurious and whether the behavior was persistent enough to warrant invocation of the disciplinary process. Clear and convincing evidence was not presented that Chappell committed the Class II violation alleged by the Department.
Recommendation Based upon 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 14th day of May, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 14th day of May, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Nancy Drier Chappell Schools, LLC 8400 Baycenter Road Jacksonville, Florida 32256 Lacey Kantor, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Families Building 2, Room 204Z 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 (eServed) David Gregory Tucker, Esquire Department of Children and Families 5920 Arlington Expressway Jacksonville, Florida 32231-0083 (eServed) Jesse Nolan Dreicer, Esquire Tassone, Dreiver & Hill 1833 Atlantic Boulevard Jacksonville, Florida 32207 (eServed) Chad Poppell, Secretary Department of Children and Families Building 1, Room 202 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 (eServed) Javier Enriquez, General Counsel Department of Children and Families Building 2, Room 204F 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 (eServed)
The Issue At issue is whether the Respondent committed the violation alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Department is authorized to regulate child care facilities pursuant to sections 402.301-402.319, Florida Statutes.2/ Section 402.310 authorizes the Department to take disciplinary action against child care facilities for violations of sections 402.301-402.319. Magellan is a child care facility operating pursuant to License Number C04DU0288. The facility is located at 10550 Deerwood Park Boulevard, #704, Jacksonville, Florida. Walter Giannone is a child care licensing counselor for the Department. He has worked for the Department for 24 years, all in the area of child care licensing. Mr. Giannone was the licensing counselor assigned to assist Magellan when the company was obtaining its first license to operate a day care roughly a decade ago. He is very familiar with Magellan and its facilities. For the past two years, Mr. Giannone has been assigned to inspect the Magellan daycare. He testified that Magellan's inspections have been uniformly satisfactory. On Friday, December 9, 2011, Mr. Giannone received a complaint that K.J., a two-year-old boy, was injured when he fell from a piece of play equipment at Magellan. The complaint was made by K.J.'s mother, who alleged that the child was alone in the classroom for around seven minutes, that no one came to his immediate assistance when he fell, that 911 was not called and the parents were not immediately notified. On Monday morning, December 12, 2011, Mr. Giannone conducted an on-site investigation of the incident at Magellan. He interviewed several people, including the facility's director, Marilyn Potts. Ms. Potts gave Mr. Giannone her report of the incident and assured him that it was not nearly as severe as the parent's complaint alleged. Mr. Giannone viewed Magellan's security camera video for December 9, 2011. The tape, which had no audio, showed a classroom designated for two-year-olds in which there were eight children and one teacher. The time was around 5:30 p.m., which was parent pick-up time preliminary to Magellan's 6:00 p.m. closure. Most of the children were "milling around the room." At around 5:37 p.m., the teacher placed a female child on the changing table and began changing the child's diaper. The mother of the child was visible in the video, talking to the teacher as the teacher changed her child's diaper. The teacher was facing the classroom and could see the other children in the room. At about 5:39 p.m., K.J. climbed up onto a play stove in the classroom. A few seconds later he was joined by a little girl, who quickly climbed down. Mr. Giannone stated that K.J. was dancing around on top of the stove and appeared to be having fun when he fell from the stove. Mr. Giannone testified that K.J. was on top of the stove for one minute and 19 seconds before he fell. The teacher immediately ran to K.J. The mother took over at the changing table. Mr. Giannone testified that K.J. did not move for a moment or two. The teacher carried K.J. out of the room. About four minutes later, K.J. was brought back into the room and appeared to be fine. K.J.'s mother later took him to the emergency room, where he was pronounced in good health save for a sinus infection. While agreeing that the incident was not nearly as serious as the parent's complaint made it seem, Mr. Giannone still found a violation of the supervision requirement. Because there was no audio on the tape, Mr. Giannone took the teacher's word that she told the child to get down, but he found this insufficient. The child was on top of the play stove for over one minute, yet the teacher did not physically intervene to take him down and did not call for assistance. Mr. Giannone concluded that this was a direct supervision violation. He determined that it was a Class 2 violation, meaning that it could be anticipated to pose a threat to the health, safety or well-being of a child, but that the threat was not imminent. The teacher, Sarah Rahman, testified that she was at the changing table when K.J. began climbing on the play stove. She called out to him to stop and he obeyed, but started climbing again as soon as she looked down to change the diaper of the child on the changing table. She called out again but K.J. would not come down. Ms. Rahman stated that she could not physically intervene because she could not leave the other child alone on the changing table. Ms. Rahman did not adequately explain why she could not have left the child with her mother. She testified that the mother was not present when K.J. began to climb on the stove, but conceded that the mother was present no later than when Ms. Rahman called out to K.J. for the second time. Ms. Rahman further conceded that she could have prevented K.J.'s fall if she had let the mother take care of her own child on the changing table. Ms. Rahman testified that K.J. had a history of climbing on this play equipment, and that it had occurred to her that the equipment might pose a fall risk. Magellan has an intercom system that allows teachers to call for assistance from the front office. After K.J. fell, Ms. Rahman used the intercom to call Teresa Sanchez, a fellow employee who was at the desk in the front lobby greeting parents as they arrived to pick up their children. Ms. Sanchez immediately went back to assist. Ms. Sanchez testified that the purpose of the intercom is to allow teachers to push a button and quickly get assistance in the classroom. However, Ms. Rahman failed to ask for assistance until after K.J. fell off the play stove. Magellan presented evidence establishing that K.J. was an unruly, disobedient child. He was very aggressive and was known to slap, kick and spit at his teachers. His mother told school personnel that K.J. climbed on the furniture at home and that she could not control him. At the time of the incident, Magellan was in the process of expelling K.J. for his behavior. Marilyn Potts, Magellan's director, testified that she could not assign a teacher to follow one child around to be sure he does not hurt himself. None of these factors serves to excuse Magellan for this incident. Ms. Rahman testified that whether a child is well behaved has no bearing on her responsibility to ensure the child's safety. The foreknowledge that K.J. was prone to climb on the equipment and was not inclined to obey verbal instructions was all the more reason for Ms. Rahman to intervene physically before the child fell. Magellan argued that Ms. Rahman could not be expected to rush over and pull K.J. off the play stove because Department rules require a 30-second hand wash after the changing of a diaper. This argument is unavailing. Ms. Rahman rushed to K.J. after he fell without bothering to wash her hands. Given the exigent circumstances, Ms. Rahman could as well have gone to K.J.'s assistance before he fell. Finally, Magellan argued that the matter should have been dropped when K.J.'s mother subsequently attempted to withdraw her complaint. Mr. Giannone credibly testified that dropping the matter was not an option. Once a complaint is filed, the Department is required to investigate and determine the facts of the situation regardless of whether the complainant has a subsequent change of heart. Though in this instance the complainant's change of heart was motivated by sincere regret at exaggerating the seriousness of the incident, in other cases a complaint might be withdrawn because the complainant has been intimidated. Mr. Giannone testified that it was important for child safety that the Department follow the facts of each case rather than the whims of the complainant.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Families enter a final order finding that Respondent provided inadequate supervision in violation of rule 65c-22.001 (5)(a), imposing a fine of $50.00 upon Magellan Christian Academies, LLC. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of August, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 23rd day of August, 2012.
The Issue Whether Respondent, a licensed child care facility, committed two Class I violations as alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, the appropriate penalty, including whether Petitioner may terminate Respondent's participation in the Gold Seal Quality Care program.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating child care facilities in the state in Florida. StarChild is a licensed child care facility located in Apopka, Florida. StarChild is designated as a Gold Seal Provider and has a contract with the Early Learning Coalition to provide school readiness services. As a designated Gold Seal Quality Care Provider, StarChild is subject to the provisions of section 402.281, Florida Statutes. In order to obtain and maintain a designation as a Gold Seal Quality Care provider, a child care facility must not have had any Class I violations, as defined by rule, within the two years preceding its application for designation as a Gold Seal Quality Care provider. § 402.281(4)(a), Fla. Stat. "Commission of a Class I violation shall be grounds for termination of the designation as a Gold Seal Quality Care provider until the provider has no Class I violations for a period of two years." § 402.281(4)(a), Fla. Stat. 1 By agreeing to an extended deadline for post-hearing submissions beyond ten days after the filing of the transcript, the parties waived the 30-day timeframe for issuance of the Recommended Order. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 28-106.216. As of the date of the final hearing, StarChild had never had a Class I violation. The May 5, 2020, Incident At all times relevant to this case, CJ was a two-year-old boy who attended StarChild. On May 5, 2020, CJ, along with several other children and two teachers, were in a two-year-old classroom at StarChild. The actions of the children and a teacher, Ms. Crisman, were recorded by a surveillance camera mounted in the room. The factual allegations in the Administrative Complaint are primarily based on an incident captured on video. In the video, CJ is seen interacting with other children in the room. The children are all engaged in different activities; some are standing while others are sitting on the floor. CJ stood near a group of children who were sitting on the floor in close proximity to Ms. Crisman, who also sat on the floor. CJ walked up behind another child who sat in front of Ms. Crisman. CJ placed his hands on the other child's shoulders. The other child turned his torso toward CJ, while still sitting, and pushed CJ away from him. This was by no means a hard push. CJ stumbled into a seated position and then immediately thereafter laid on his back. CJ remained laying on his back for approximately five to ten seconds, during which he playfully kicked his feet. Ms. Crisman stood up from her seated position, walked over to CJ, and stood over him. She then grabbed CJ by both wrists and forcefully yanked him off the ground. It is clear from the video that Ms. Crisman used great force when she pulled CJ off the floor—CJ's feet flew up in the air and his head flew back. Ms. Crisman then pulled CJ, by his wrists, approximately ten feet across the room, and placed him in a corner in timeout. CJ sat in the corner clutching his arm. Zuleika Martinez (Ms. Martinez) was one of the two teachers assigned to CJ's classroom. She was not present during the incident, but came back to see CJ sitting in timeout. Ms. Martinez noticed that CJ was favoring one hand over the other. Approximately 30 minutes after noticing this, Ms. Martinez notified Deborah Files (Ms. Files). Ms. Files has been employed by StarChild since March 2005, and has been serving as the Director of StarChild since April 2020. Ms. Files walked over to the classroom to check on CJ and speak to Ms. Martinez. She learned that CJ was holding his arm and he would not use it for play or to eat. Ms. Files brought CJ into StarChild's front-desk area—the area typically used for children who are not feeling well. Ms. Files iced CJ's arm. Shortly thereafter, Ms. Files contacted Shelby Feinberg (Ms. Feinberg). At the time of the incident, Ms. Feinberg was the Executive Director of StarChild. Ms. Feinberg was working remotely and, therefore, not at StarChild's facility. Ms. Files explained to Ms. Feinberg that CJ appeared to be having difficulty utilizing one of his arms. Ms. Feinberg advised Ms. Files to contact CJ's parents. Ms. Files contacted CJ's mother, Meghan Jones, at approximately 11:00 a.m. Ms. Files reported to the mother that CJ was favoring one arm, and that he was not using the other arm at all. Ms. Files encouraged Ms. Jones to pick CJ up. At approximately 12:30 p.m., CJ's father, Kurt Jones (Mr. Jones), arrived at StarChild to pick CJ up. Mr. Jones found CJ in the classroom, lying on the floor. He told CJ to get up. CJ attempted to push himself up off the floor but was unable to do so. CJ appeared to be in pain and unable to support his body weight on his arm. It was clear to Mr. Jones that his son was in pain. Mr. Jones had difficulty getting CJ strapped into his car seat. Mr. Jones drove CJ to their home, which was five minutes away. When at home, Mr. Jones noticed that CJ still appeared to be in pain. Mr. Jones noticed that CJ would not move or touch his arm. He was holding his arm as if it was in a sling. CJ would periodically cry. Mr. Jones grew worried as his son still appeared to be in pain and did not seem to be getting better as time passed. Mr. Jones considered taking CJ to the emergency room but decided against it because of concerns related to the COVID-19 pandemic. He could not take CJ to his primary care pediatrician as there were scheduling difficulties also tied to the COVID-19 pandemic. The family's usual after-hours urgent care pediatrics office did not open until 4:00 p.m. At approximately three or four hours after picking CJ up from StarChild, Mr. Jones, with few options, searched for help on the internet. He researched possible causes of CJ's pain and why he was holding his arm like a sling. After watching several videos, he came across a YouTube video made by a nurse who described a condition called "nursemaid elbow." A nursemaid elbow is a dislocated elbow. The symptoms matched what CJ was experiencing and Mr. Jones determined CJ had dislocated his elbow. The video provided instructions on how to correct the nursemaid elbow. Desperate to help his son who was still in pain, he attempted the procedure to put CJ's elbow back in place. Mr. Jones followed the instructions. He heard a "pop" noise, which was to be expected per the instructions in the video. CJ cried for ten to 15 seconds. Thereafter, CJ regained full mobility of his arm and no longer appeared to be in pain. CJ began acting like his typical self. The next day, Mr. and Mrs. Jones took CJ to his pediatrician. CJ was diagnosed with nursemaid elbow. They were advised that the procedure that Mr. Jones conducted the previous day was the correct one. The Department conducted an investigation of the incident. As part of its investigation, the Department scheduled an examination of CJ by its Child Protective Team (CPT). Margarita Diaz (Nurse Diaz) is a pediatric nurse practitioner who works for CPT. She has been with CPT for three years. She has received extensive training in child abuse. On May 7, 2020, she did a complete head- to-toe examination of CJ. She reviewed the history of CJ's injury provided by CJ's parents and collateral information which included the video of the incident. She diagnosed CJ as having suffered a nursemaid elbow due to child abuse. Nurse Diaz described a nursemaid elbow as a condition that occurs when the ligament in the elbow gets trapped between two bones. When a child's arm is pulled away, the tendon slips down. When the arm goes back into place, the tendon gets stuck between the humerus and the radial bones. When this condition happens, it is usually very painful for the child. The child often presents as protective of the arm and will not move it. Nurse Diaz further testified that the most common mechanism of injury is when a child is pulled. Other mechanisms for injury include swinging or lifting a child by the arm. She testified that a nursemaid elbow is easy to correct and once corrected, a child is back to normal in five to ten minutes. Nurse Diaz testified that her finding of child abuse was based on her observations of the actions of the teacher as shown in the video. She confirmed that the actions of the teacher in the video were consistent with the infliction of a nursemaid elbow injury on CJ. StarChild's Response to Incident When Ms. Martinez reported CJ's injury, StarChild took immediate action to address the situation. They removed CJ from the classroom, tended to his injuries, promptly contacted his parents, and set out to find out the cause of the injury. StarChild administrators watched video footage of the activity leading up to CJ's change in behavior. In reviewing the video, StarChild determined that Ms. Crisman used improper form by lifting CJ by his wrists when moving CJ to the timeout corner. By noon on the same day of the incident, StarChild terminated Ms. Crisman's employment. StarChild then contacted the Department to report the incident. Mr. Jones made a request to review video footage of the incident. Danny King, the owner of StarChild, reached out to Mr. Jones personally and agreed to meet with him and Mrs. Jones to review the video together in person. The parents were informed that Ms. Crisman was terminated. Following the incident, StarChild developed a self-imposed Corrective Action Plan, that included re-training its entire staff. Ms. Feinberg met with all members of the staff and conducted in-person training in small class settings. All staff members were provided StarChild's discipline policy and child interaction policies. Staff members were also required to take a child abuse and training course. StarChild re-wrote its staff handbook to include stronger and clearer language about how children are to be moved and repositioned in the classroom. Additionally, StarChild implemented permanent policy changes which required discussions during weekly staff meetings about behavior and how staff members should positively deal with behavior in the classroom. All staff members were also provided with information on nursemaid elbow, specifically. StarChild has current plans to bring in guest speakers, such as a behavior management professional and a CPT speaker, to further educate their staff members. StarChild acted commendably in response to the incident. It took immediate and comprehensive action to try to reduce the probability of an incident like that occurring again. It must be noted that complete prevention is an impossibility. CJ continued to attend StarChild after the incident. Indeed, he attended StarChild the day after the incident and appeared to be in good spirits. CJ's younger sister was also enrolled at StarChild after the incident, when she was three-and-a-half months old.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Families impose a fine of $100.00 against StarChild and revoke its designation as a Gold Seal Quality Care provider. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of May, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Brian Christopher Meola, Assistant General Counsel Department of Children and Families Suite S-1129 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Lacey Kantor, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Families Building 2, Room 204Z 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 S JODI-ANN V. LIVINGSTONE 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 19th day of May, 2021. Lucia C. Pineiro, Esquire Lucia C. Pineiro & Associates, P.A. Suite 309 717 Ponce de Leon Boulevard Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Javier A. Enriquez, General Counsel Department of Children and Families Building 2, Room 204F 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
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 Petitioner, Department of Children and Families’ (the Department), intended action to cite Respondent, Kids Village Early Learning Center, with a Class I violation and impose a fine in the amount of $500, is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact The Department is responsible for licensing and monitoring “child care facilities,” as that term is defined in section 402.302(2), Florida Statutes. Kids Village is a child care facility licensed by the Department. Kids Village is operated by Angela Mitchell and is located at 1000 West Tharpe Street, Suite 24, Tallahassee, Florida. Kids Village is located in a shopping area commonly referred to as a “strip mall,” a series of retail and office establishments located along a sidewalk with exterior entrances. A Dollar General store is located across the parking lot from the strip mall. On November 2, 2017, L.C., a two-year-old child enrolled at Kids Village, exited the facility unaccompanied and on his own volition. A stranger spotted the child in the parking lot near the Dollar General store and left her vehicle to pick up the child. A parent of a former student at Kids Village, who works in the strip mall, recognized L.C. and returned him to the facility. L.C. was absent from the facility for approximately four minutes. Teresa Walker, a teacher at Kids Village, who was working on the day of the incident, called and reported the incident to Ms. Mitchell, who was not working at the facility that day. Both Ms. Walker and Ms. Mitchell completed required incident reports and filed them with the Department. The incident was also the subject of an anonymous complaint received by the Department’s child abuse hotline the same day. Elizabeth Provost, a Department family services counselor, received both the incident reports and the complaint and began an investigation. As part of her investigation, Ms. Provost interviewed the child protective investigator who received the complaint from the abuse hotline, as well as Ms. Mitchell and Ms. Walker. Ms. Provost also viewed the facility’s security camera footage from the day of the incident. Based on her investigation, Ms. Provost determined that L.C.’s mother arrived at the facility on the morning of November 6, 2017, signed the child in at the reception desk, engaged in conversation with another employee of the facility, looked around the corner where a gate separates the reception area from a hallway leading to classrooms, then exited the facility. Afterward, security video shows L.C. exiting the facility without supervision. Based upon her investigation, Ms. Provost concluded that the facility was in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C-22.001(5), which reads, in pertinent part, as follows: Direct supervision means actively watching and directing children’s activities within the same room or designated outdoor play area, and responding to the needs of the child. Child care personnel at a facility must be assigned to provide direct supervision to a specific group of children at all times. Ms. Provost also determined the violation was a Class I violation of Department rules, which is described as “the most serious in nature, [which] pose[s] an imminent threat to a child including abuse or neglect and which could or does result in death or serious harm to the health, safety or well- being of a child.” Fla. Admin. Code R. 65C-22.010(1)(d)1. At hearing, Ms. Mitchell admitted that, on November 2, 2016, L.C. was indeed faced with a serious or imminent threat to his safety which could have resulted in injury or death. As such, Ms. Mitchell admitted the Department properly determined the incident was a Class I violation of rule 65C-22.001(5). Ms. Mitchell’s contention was that Kids Village was not completely at fault, and that the penalty assessed should be reduced to account for the mother’s negligence. L.C. was known to the staff at Kids Village as a “runner.” He experienced separation anxiety and would frequently try to follow his mother when she left the facility after dropping him off for school. Ms. Mitchell testified that L.C.’s mother had been instructed to walk L.C. to his classroom and hand him over to his teacher before leaving the facility. Ms. Mitchell faults the mother for having signed the child in on the morning of the incident, but leaving the facility without walking the child all the way to his classroom. The evidence adduced at hearing did not support that version of the facts. Ms. Walker was the only witness who testified at the final hearing who was actually at the facility on the day in question. Her recollection of the events was clear and her testimony was credible. Ms. Walker works in the “baby room,” which is located to the left of the reception area past the reception desk. The gate separating the reception area from the hallway to the classrooms is to the right of the reception desk. Ms. Walker testified that after his mother signs L.C. and his older brother in on most mornings, L.C. comes to stay with her in the baby room. Ms. Walker gives him hugs and extra attention to help overcome his anxiety, then walks him to his classroom when he is calm. On the morning in question, L.C.’s mother came into the facility and signed the children in at the reception desk. Signing a child in requires both completing a physical sign-in sheet, and an electronic interface with a computer system. While his mother was signing in the children, L.C. went to the baby room where Ms. Walker greeted him and hugged him. L.C.’s mother finished signing in the children and talking to the staff, then she turned to find both children gone. The mother “hollered out” to Ms. Walker something to the effect of “Where did the children go?” Ms. Walker replied that they had gone “to the back.” L.C.’s mother walked over to the gate separating the reception area from the classroom hallway and peered around it down the hallway. She then exited the facility. Shortly thereafter, L.C. came back through the gate, into the reception area, and exited the facility through the front door unaccompanied. L.C. was alone outside the facility in a crowded parking lot of a retail strip mall for almost five minutes. He had crossed the parking lot during morning traffic to almost reach the Dollar General store. L.C. was spotted by a stranger who got out of their own vehicle to pick up the child. L.C. was recognized, and returned to the facility, by someone who worked at a nearby store. One does not need an overactive imagination to list the dangers that could have befallen the child during that brief time period. Kids Village has taken corrective action since the incident and installed a security system on the front door which requires a person to push a button on a panel next to the door in order to exit the facility. There was no testimony regarding any prior citations against Kids Village for violation of child care licensing standards. The investigative summary prepared by Ms. Provost states, “Kid’s Village has one prior with the Department earlier in 2016[;] there were no indicators of inadequate supervision.” Rule 65C-22.010(2)(e) provides appropriate disciplinary sanctions to be imposed for Class I violations, as follows: For the first and second violation of a Class I standard, the department shall, upon applying the factors in Section 402.310(1), F.S., issue an administrative complaint imposing a fine of not less than $100 nor more than $500 per day for each violation, and may impose other disciplinary sanctions in addition to the fine. Section 402.310(1)(b) provides: In determining the appropriate disciplinary action to be taken for a violation as provided in paragraph (a), the following factors shall be considered: The severity of the violation, including the probability that death or serious harm to the health or safety of any person will result or has resulted, the severity of the actual or potential harm, and the extent to which the provisions of ss. 401.301-402.319 have been violated. Actions taken by the licensee or registrant to correct the violation or remedy complaints. Any previous violations of the licensee or registrant. In determining to impose a $500 penalty, Ms. Provost considered the subsequent remedial action taken by Kids Village to prevent future escapes by children in its care. She also considered the serious threat of harm or death posed to L.C. due to inadequate supervision by Kids Village. Imposition of the maximum fine for the Class I violation is supported by the record in this case. Neither the statute nor the rule direct the Department to consider the negligence of persons other than the licensee in determining the appropriate penalty to be imposed for a Class I violation.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the evidence presented at final hearing, and based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Respondent, Department of Children and Families, finding Kids Village Early Learning Center committed a Class I violation of child care facility licensing standards and imposing a monetary sanction of $500. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of August, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK 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 1st day of August, 2017. COPIES FURNISHED: Lisa M. Eilertsen, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Families Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 (eServed) Camille Larson, Esquire Department of Children and Families 2383 Phillips Road, Room 231 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed) Angela Mitchell Kids Village Early Learning Center Suite 24 1000 West Tharpe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303 (eServed) Michael Andrew Lee, Esquire Department of Children and Families 2383 Phillips Road, Room 231 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed) Mike Carroll, Secretary Department of Children and Families Building 1, Room 202 1317 Windwood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 (eServed) Rebecca Kapusta, General Counsel Department of Children and Families Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 (eServed)
