The Issue The issue in this matter is whether the Department of Children and Families should deny Respondent’s application for registration as a family day care home.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with regulating providers that are licensed or registered as family day care homes. Family day care homes must register annually with the Department. See § 402.313(1)(a), Fla. Stat. Respondent is owned and operated by Cherrie Scally. Ms. Scally has registered Respondent as a family day care home since 1997. In or about August 2015, Ms. Scally filed an application with the Department to renew Respondent’s registration as a family day care home for 2016. Respondent's registration for 2015 expired on October 30, 2015. Upon receiving Ms. Scally’s application, the Department reviewed whether to renew Respondent’s registration as a family day care home. As part of its determination, the Department examined the Florida Central Abuse Hotline Records Search (“CAHRS”). In CAHRS, the Department identified an Investigative Summary involving Respondent that verified a finding of “inadequate supervision” in March 2015. Based on the CAHRS Investigative Summary, the Department issued an Administrative Complaint in November 2015, revoking Respondent’s registration as a family day care home.2/ The Department determined that it could no longer approve Respondent’s registration “based on the verified finding of inadequate supervision.” The CAHRS resulted from an incident that allegedly occurred on March 5, 2015. On March 6, 2015, the Central Abuse Hotline received an anonymous phone call reporting an injury to a child at Respondent’s family day care home. A four-year-old girl who attended Respondent’s family day care home reported to her mother that another child had hurt her.3/ Jessica Baloy, a child protective investigator with the Department, was assigned to investigate the incident. Her duties include investigating facilities regarding complaints of child abuse and neglect. Ms. Baloy prepared the CAHRS Investigative Summary. Ms. Baloy visited Respondent's family day care home on March 9, 2015, to investigate the allegation. Ms. Scally informed Ms. Baloy that she had no knowledge of how or when the child was injured. Ms. Scally did not learn of the incident until the child’s mother called her the evening after the child was picked up. Ms. Scally thought that the incident may have occurred in her “playroom” while she was in her kitchen either cleaning up another child or preparing snacks.4/ During her visit, Ms. Baloy found that the part of Ms. Scally’s home used for childcare consists of two rooms, a “playroom” and a kitchen. The rooms are located next to each other, but a wall separates them. Ms. Baloy observed that the wall obstructs the view between the playroom (where the injury allegedly occurred) and the kitchen where Ms. Scally believes she was located at the time of the incident. Ms. Scally admitted to Ms. Baloy that, while she is able to hear the children in the playroom from the kitchen, she is unable to see directly from the kitchen into the playroom. In her investigation, Ms. Baloy reported that the child had “no indicator” of physical injury. In other words, Ms. Baloy did not find evidence to suggest the child had sustained an injury. Ms. Baloy personally interviewed the child and did not observe any discomfort or physical injuries. Ms. Baloy also received information from the child’s mother that a doctor had examined the child and determined that she had not suffered any trauma, just “some irritation.” The child’s mother decided that no further medical treatment or examination was needed. In her Investigative Summary, Ms. Baloy reported that “[o]bservations of the home daycare were positive that it was not hazardous for the children.” Ms. Baloy also declared that Ms. Scally “once notified by a parent completed the proper notifications needed in regards to this incident.” However, Ms. Baloy did have “some concerns in regards to supervision.” She found that when Ms. Scally was working/standing in her kitchen, she could not view the children in the playroom. Consequently, if something bad happened, she would not be able to see it. Also during her visit to Respondent, Ms. Baloy observed 11 children in Respondent’s facility. Consequently, Respondent was over capacity by one child. (As discussed below, family day care homes are restricted to a maximum of ten children at one time.) After her visit, Ms. Baloy closed her investigation with “verified findings for inadequate supervision.” Ms. Baloy was not aware of any prior investigations involving Respondent. Dinah Davis is the policy supervisor for the Department’s Office of Childcare Regulation. Her responsibilities include approving applications for family day care home registrations with Samantha Wass de Czege, the Department’s Director for the Office of Childcare Regulation. Ms. Davis expressed that the Department was concerned with Ms. Baloy’s Investigative Summary because the finding of “inadequate supervision” indicated that Ms. Scally left the children unattended outside of her direct supervision. The Department’s “rule of thumb” regarding supervision is that a caregiver must be within “sight and sound of the children and [be] able to respond to emergency situations.” Ms. Davis expressed that a constant sightline is crucial to allow the caregiver to respond to and prevent an emergency or potentially harmful situation. Adequate “sight” supervision means that children should be at least within the caregiver’s peripheral vision. In addition, Ms. Davis explained that, by statute, no family day care home is allowed to care for more than ten children at one given time. Ms. Davis referred to section 402.310 as the Department’s authority to deny Ms. Scally’s application. Although section 402.310 allows the Department to place a family day care home registration on probation status, Ms. Davis stated that the Department did not consider the option to place Respondent on probation. Ms. Wass de Czege also testified regarding the Department’s decision to revoke (deny) Respondent’s application for registration. Ms. Wass de Czege stated that the Department’s action was based on the child protective investigator’s findings of “inadequate supervision” and overcapacity. Ms. Wass de Czege agreed with Ms. Davis that supervision in a family day care home requires “direct sight and hearing of the children at all times” so that the caregiver is “able to respond to meet the needs of the children.” Ms. Wass de Czege explained that based on the floor design of Ms. Scally’s home, “she could not have the children in her sight. So, she was not meeting that parameter of the definition of supervision.” Ms. Wass de Czege explained that the Department’s definition of “inadequate supervision” for family day care homes is found in Florida Administrative Code Chapters 65C-22 and 65C-20.5/ Ms. Wass de Czege also remarked that having more than ten children in care at a family day care home is considered overcapacity. Therefore, having 11 children present in the home at the time of Ms. Baloy’s visit caused Respondent to be out of compliance with the governing regulation. Ms. Wass de Czege also conveyed that registration of a family day care home is basically a paper process. The applicant submits the paperwork. The Department checks off the information listed in section 402.313(1)(a). If approved, the applicant can care for children. Ms. Wass de Czege commented that, because of a lack of manpower and resources, a registered family day care home is not subject to routine inspections by the Department. Consequently, the Department has little regulatory oversight of Ms. Scally’s home. Based on its review of the CAHRS, the Department determined that Respondent failed the background check necessary to register as a family day care home for 2016. Ms. Scally testified on behalf of Respondent at the final hearing. Ms. Scally has operated her family day care home since 1997. She has successfully registered with the state every year since then. She cares greatly for the children entrusted to her. This current matter is the first issue she has encountered regarding her registration. Regarding the incident on March 5, 2015, Ms. Scally did not learn that a child may have been harmed at her home until the child’s parent called her that evening to report an injury. The parent relayed that her daughter told her that another child had poked her in a sensitive area, drawing blood. Upon learning of the injury, Ms. Scally immediately took action. That evening, she spoke with the parents of both children involved to make sure all parties were aware of the situation. The next morning, Ms. Scally called the injured child’s parent back to inquire of her well-being. Ms. Scally also contacted her own pediatrician seeking advice on the situation. Ms. Scally offered to arrange for her pediatrician to examine the child. Ms. Scally herself was the anonymous caller reporting the incident to the Central Abuse Hotline.6/ She called the abuse hotline on the next morning. (The CAHRS Investigative Summary notes that the call was received on March 6, 2015, at 10:38 a.m.) Ms. Scally called the abuse hotline because she knew reporting the injury was the proper and legally required step to take. Ms. Scally commented that the Department would not have learned of the incident but for her phone call. Ms. Scally conceded that, when she is standing in her kitchen, she does not have a direct line of sight with the children in her playroom. Consequently, Ms. Scally admitted that if the child was injured in the playroom while she was in the kitchen, the child was out of her sight for a short period of time. On the other hand, Ms. Scally asserts that she can always hear her children from the kitchen. Furthermore, no child is ever out of her eyesight for more than a couple of moments. Ms. Scally also represented that she has taken steps to ensure that she can maintain “sight and sound” supervision over her children in the future. She has purchased a mirror to place in the hallway between the playroom and the kitchen. This mirror allows her to see into either room from the other. Ms. Scally stated that in her 19 years of childcare, she has never had any incidents in her family day care home. Ms. Scally acknowledged that she might have had 11 children in her care on the occasion of Ms. Baloy’s visit to her home on March 9, 2015. Ms. Scally explained that it was likely during a “transition” period as her children were being picked up and dropped off and was not a regular occurrence or for an extended period of time. Based on this incident, Ms. Scally asserts that she will be extra cautious about the interactions between the children in her care. Ms. Scally presented testimony from several parents whom she serves. They each asserted that Respondent provides a valuable service, and they trust her with their children in her home. Mia Carla Hagins placed her daughter with Respondent from 2009 through 2014. Ms. Hagins testified that Ms. Scally ensures safety, nurturing, and care for the children she supervises. Thomas Breck placed two children with Ms. Scally from 1996 through 2000. Mr. Breck testified that Ms. Scally provided excellent care and demonstrated complete professionalism. Mizanne Brown placed her child with Ms. Scally for ten years. Ms. Brown testified that Ms. Scally was fabulous, nice, and wonderful. Ms. Scally also produced 26 letters of recommendation from parents and teachers of children for whom she has cared. Ms. Scally asserted that these letters show how positively her community views her, her home, and her childcare services. Based on the competent substantial evidence presented at the final hearing, the Department failed to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, sufficient grounds to deny Respondent’s application for registration as a family day care home under the provisions of section 402.310. Accordingly, the Department should approve Respondent’s application to register as a family day care home.
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 approving Respondent’s application for registration as a family day care home. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of August, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. BRUCE CULPEPPER 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 2nd day of August, 2016.
The Issue At issue in this case is whether Petitioner's application to register as a family day care home should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing, and the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: This case involves Petitioner's application to operate a registered family child care home. Petitioner had been registered as a family child care home from April 1989 to June 1992 and again from February 1995 to August 1998. The Department received Petitioner's most recent application on September 6, 2000. The Department regulates three types of day care facilities. In descending order of regulatory oversight, they are a licensed child care facility, a licensed family child care home, and a registered family child care home. Sections 402.305 and 402.313, Florida Statutes. While the first two categories of facilities require annual on-site Department inspections, background screening for all personnel, training, and more extensive paperwork, a registered family day care center involves no Department inspections and only requires that the operator complete a training course and provide to the Department certain paperwork and that the operator and other household members undergo background screening. The operator of a registered family day care home may care for no more than five preschool children from more than one unrelated family. Subsection 402.302(7), Florida Statutes. The application requires disclosure of "other family/household members." Petitioner's application identified David Barcelona as a household member and stated that his family relationship was "friend (roommate)." During her previous periods of registration, Petitioner had been the subject of numerous complaints to the Department. In May 1989, the Department notified Petitioner that she had been found to be caring for more than five preschool children. Petitioner acknowledged that she was operating above capacity, but assured the Department that the situation would be rectified by June 1, 1989. Nonetheless, complaints regarding the number of children at Petitioner's home persisted through at least June 1991. The Department also received several complaints concerning drug use in Petitioner's home. In September 1995, a complaint alleged that Petitioner and several other adults were seen smoking marijuana in the home. A complaint filed by a parent in February 1996 stated that the parent could smell marijuana on his children when he picked them up from Petitioner's home. A complaint from November 1996 stated that Petitioner was seen smoking marijuana in the presence of the children in her care. In each instance, the Department wrote a letter to Petitioner. The Department's letter of February 26, 1996, is representative and is quoted in relevant part: As a registered family day care home, you are not statutorily required to meet all the child care standards established in [then] Rule 10M-12 or 10M-10 of the Florida Administrative Code. In addition, Chapter 402.302-313 of the Florida Statutes does not provide the department with any statutory authority to regulate complaints of this nature within registered family day care homes. However, in the interest of safety and proper child care, we wanted to bring the complaint to your attention so that you might correct the issues as appropriate. Providing care for any child is very important. It is our hope that you are not engaging in any illegal or inappropriate activities which [sic] operating your child care business. During the Department's investigations of these complaints, Petitioner consistently denied that she used any illegal drugs. On August 10, 1998, the Department received a complaint that an unsupervised child was seen outside in the rain at Petitioner's house. On the same date, the Department received another complaint regarding Petitioner's live-in boyfriend, David Barcellona, and whether his presence rendered her home an unsafe environment for children. The complaint stated that Mr. Barcellona had not undergone background screening and had admitted to hitting one of Petitioner's own children. The complaint also stated that children reported witnessing Petitioner's use of marijuana and crack cocaine in the home. These complaints were resolved when Petitioner ceased providing child care. She sold her house and voluntarily relinquished her registration. A child protective services investigation was also commenced on August 10, 1998, by investigator Daniel McLean. His investigation confirmed that Mr. Barcellona had hit Petitioner's ten-year-old son "upside the head with an open hand" because the boy had called him a "faggot." Petitioner had given Mr. Barcellona permission to physically discipline her children. The children expressed a fear of living in the home with Mr. Barcellona. No observable injuries were found on either Petitioner's son or her eight-year-old daughter. Mr. McLean testified that Petitioner told him at least twice that she had smoked marijuana for 15 years. Mr. McLean attempted several times to obtain a drug screen from Petitioner without success. At length, Mr. McLean informed Petitioner that the Department would begin legal proceedings if Petitioner did not voluntarily surrender custody of her children to their natural father. On August 13, 1998, Petitioner signed the papers giving custody of the children to their natural father. She testified that "I picked the drugs over my children at that time." The evidence admitted at hearing established that, despite her denials, Petitioner had been a long-time user of marijuana. By her own admission, Petitioner was addicted to crack cocaine for a period of at least three months in 1998. Petitioner's sister, Lisa Lucius, estimated Petitioner's crack usage lasted for six months. Mr. McLean testified that Petitioner told him she had been using crack for seven months. At some point in 1999, Petitioner shoplifted a pair of tennis shoes, was arrested, and placed on one year's probation for petit theft. Her probation was conditioned upon her entering a 28-day live-in drug rehabilitation and counseling program at the Ruth Cooper Center in Fort Myers. Petitioner successfully completed this program. Another condition of her probation was her attendance twice weekly at Alcoholics Anonymous meetings. She complied with this condition. Finally, Petitioner's probation was conditioned upon providing random urinalysis drug tests. She complied with this condition, and her tests were all drug free. Petitioner testified that she has been drug free since completing the program at the Ruth Cooper Center. Since the conclusion of her probation in 2000, she has discontinued attendance at Alcoholics Anonymous or Narcotics Anonymous meetings. She testified that she no longer has a drug problem. In the registration application at issue in this proceeding, Petitioner listed David Barcellona as a family/household member. Both Petitioner and Mr. Barcellona were required to undergo Level 2 background screening as set forth in Subsection 435.04(1), Florida Statutes. Petitioner successfully passed the background screening and was so notified by a letter from the Department dated October 24, 2000. The letter informed Petitioner that she had passed the screening, but expressly cautioned: "Receipt of this letter does not automatically qualify you for the employment, specific position or license you may be seeking. That determination will be made [by] either an employer or licensing department." The background screening disclosed potentially disqualifying offenses for David Barcellona. As of November 6, 2000, the Department had sent Mr. Barcellona a letter offering him the opportunity to provide documentation as to the disposition of those offenses, but Mr. Barcellona had not responded. On October 31, 2000, Petitioner phoned Sarah Jarabek of the Department to inquire as to the status of her application. Ms. Jarabek told Petitioner that the Department had concerns about her history of substance abuse and about the presence of Mr. Barcellona in the home. They made an appointment to meet in Ms. Jarabek's office on November 6, 2000. On November 6, 2000, Petitioner and Ms. Lucius met with Ms. Jarabek, Nancy Starr, and Patricia Richardson of the Department. Petitioner provided evidence of the drug abuse treatment she had received while on probation. She also produced documentation that she had completed the required 30- hour Family Child Care Training Course, documentation of her church attendance and completion of a single parenting program at her church, and documentation that she had taken a technical training course for legal secretaries. Ms. Jarabek testified that she accepted all of Petitioner's representations at the meeting regarding her treatment and other matters, but that concerns remained because of Petitioner's history of denying her drug use and because the lonely, pressure-filled business of family day care might prove a poor rehabilitative environment. Ms. Starr testified that she believed more time should pass for Petitioner to demonstrate that she was not subject to a relapse. Petitioner had only been off probation since March 2000, and had yet to demonstrate her stability when her activities were not being constantly monitored. Ms. Starr was also concerned because Petitioner was not currently involved in any organized program to maintain her recovery and because Petitioner had denied using drugs when the complaints were filed in 1996 through 1998. At the November 6 meeting, the Department's representatives also raised the question of Mr. Barcellona's continued presence in the house. Petitioner told them that she had broken up with Mr. Barcellona and ejected him from her house, because she thought he was smoking crack cocaine. She told them that Mr. Barcellona had continued to harass her. He would bang on her door late at night, screaming, "I love you." He would spray his cologne outside her house, to "leave his scent." Petitioner and her children were "terrified" of him, and Petitioner was in the process of obtaining a restraining order against him. Ms. Jarabek believed Petitioner's statement that Mr. Barcellona was no longer living in the house, but remained concerned for the safety of children who would be staying at Petitioner's home, given Mr. Barcellona's erratic behavior. By letter dated November 14, 2000, David Barcellona was notified that he was ineligible for a position subject to background screening. Mr. Barcellona had not responded to the prior agency letter offering him the opportunity to provide documentation regarding the disposition of the disqualifying offenses. As the applicant for registration, Petitioner received a copy of the letter to Mr. Barcellona. By letter dated December 1, 2000, the Department notified Petitioner that her application to operate a registered family child care home had been denied. The letter cited the following as grounds for the denial: the history of at least 13 complaints regarding the operation of the home during Petitioner's previous registration periods, including six complaints related to Petitioner's use of marijuana and/or cocaine in the presence of her own or other people's children; the unreported presence of Mr. Barcellona in the home during Petitioner's previous registration periods; and the lack of sufficient time and evidence to demonstrate that Petitioner was capable of providing a safe and healthy environment for children in her care. Petitioner contended that the Department waived its ability to hold her prior complaints against her now because it repeatedly allowed her to re-register during the relevant years despite those complaints. Ms. Jarabek testified that this apparent anomaly was due to a change in Department policy since Petitioner was last registered. The Department previously took the position that it was required to ignore drug usage in a registered family day care home, because Section 402.313, Florida Statutes, did not expressly provide authority to deny or revoke a registration on that ground. Ms. Jarabek testified that the Department's current interpretation of its statutory authority to supervise the provision of child care permits it to consider drug usage in the home. The December 1 letter took note of the "positive changes" in Petitioner's life, but also noted that these changes were too recent to overcome the concerns about Petitioner's past behavior and future stability.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Family Services deny Petitioner's application for registration of her family day care home. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of May, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 18th day of May, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard D. Lakeman, Esquire Law Office of Richard D. Lakeman, P.A. Post Office Box 101580 Cape Coral, Florida 33910 Eugenie G. Rehak, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services Post Office Box 60085 Fort Myers, Florida 33906 Virginia A. Daire, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204B 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Josie Tomayo, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue is whether to deny Petitioner's application to renew her registration to operate a family day care home for the reasons stated in the Notice of Denial dated April 7, 2017.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the agency charged with the responsibility of licensing and registering family day care homes. See § 402.313, Fla. Stat. A family day care home is an "occupied residence in which child care is regularly provided for children from at least two unrelated families and which receives a payment, fee, or grant for any of the children receiving care." § 402.302(8), Fla. Stat. In order to operate a family day care home, the home must be licensed or registered by the Department. § 402.312(1), Fla. Stat. Unlike a licensed home, which is subject to more regulatory oversight, a registered home is not subject to periodic inspections, and the home is only required to undergo an annual evaluation during the registration process. § 402.313(1), Fla. Stat. Petitioner has operated a registered family day care home under the name of Little Bright Stars of Orlando at 4419 Fairlawn Drive, Orlando, for several years. Her most recent registration expired on March 9, 2017. This proceeding concerns Ms. Rosado's application for renewal of her registration. Unless a complete renewal application is filed, the application will be denied. § 402.313(1), Fla. Stat. This is because the Department has no authority to approve an incomplete application conditioned on an applicant filing the missing items at a later time. On March 9, 2017, Petitioner filed her renewal application with the Department. The application did not have the following required items: the application fee; a list of children in her care; a copy of the current immunization record for each child in her care; a copy of a training certificate, an in-service training record form 5268, or a continuing education unit certificate documenting ten clock hours of annual in- service training; a copy of the completed Registered Family Care Home Health and Safety Checklist; a copy of the tear-off section signed by the parent or legal guardian for each child in her care; a copy of the completed Child Abuse & Neglect Reporting Requirements form, signed and dated by the substitute(s); and a Level 2 Background Screening (livescan) for the operator, adult household members, and substitute(s). Petitioner was sent an email the following day informing her that she must file the incomplete and missing items. When the application was filed, Petitioner had several health-related issues, which required her to temporarily stop caring for children in her home. At that time, she was forced to make a choice between paying her medical expenses or the costs associated with renewing her application. She chose the former and submitted an incomplete application without a filing fee. Once the Notice of Denial was issued, Petitioner decided there was no reason to incur the costs associated with the missing items until she knew whether her application would be approved. As of the date of the hearing, the application was still incomplete. Pursuant to section 39.201(6), Florida Statutes, information in the Department's central abuse hotline and automated abuse information system may be used in its evaluation of a registration application. In May 2016, the Department received a complaint that Petitioner's home was "operating illegally," and she had forced a three-year-old child to clean up his urine when he had an accident. Petitioner characterizes the complaint as "false" and asserts it is based on erroneous information provided by a disgruntled parent who just removed her two children from the home. The Department's subsequent investigation belies this contention. In response to the complaint, a Child Institutional Investigation was conducted by a Department Licensing Counselor and a Child Protective Investigator on May 23, 2016. While investigating the urine incident, the investigators observed an unscreened person, Petitioner's 17-year-old daughter-in-law, living in the home and assisting with the care of the children. They also observed children sleeping on the floor with no mats, a leaking ceiling in the area where the children play, and paint cans that were accessible to the children. These conditions violate Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C-20.010, which establishes health and safety-related requirements for family day care homes. The Department closed the investigation on July 4, 2016, with verified findings of inadequate supervision and environmental hazards. See Dep't Ex. B. The report concluded that based on the confirmed findings, the safety assessment was "low," meaning the deficiencies did not present a high risk of injury to the children. Petitioner was notified by letter dated August 16, 2016, that the investigation was closed and she could request a copy of the report. Petitioner did not request a copy, and she saw the report for the first time when the Department pre-filed its exhibits. At hearing, most of Petitioner's evidence addressed the confirmed findings in the abuse report. She questioned why she was never offered a hearing to contest those findings, but there is no statutory requirement that the Department conduct a hearing to allow a perpetrator to challenge a confirmed report. In any event, Petitioner was allowed to respond to the findings in the report and to provide evidence to mitigate or contradict the observations of the investigators. Petitioner also questioned why a second inspection was never conducted by the Department to determine if the violations observed during the May 23 investigation had been corrected. An abuse investigation, however, differs from a licensing inspection, and there is no requirement that the Department conduct a second inspection to verify that abuse violations have been corrected. At hearing, Petitioner explained that her 17-year-old daughter-in-law was a temporary occupant of the home while her husband (Petitioner's son) was on active duty in the military. She admitted, however, that the daughter-in-law was not screened, which is a requirement for all persons having contact with the children in a family day care home. She also acknowledged that her husband resides in the home but is not screened. At hearing, Petitioner denied that she had forced a child to clean up his urine. She explained that the child had actually spilled water on the bathroom floor while washing his hands and she made the child clean up the spilled water. During the investigation on May 23, 2016, however, Petitioner admitted to the investigators that the child had continued to urinate on himself and she required the child to clean up the urine in the hope that he would not do this in the future. This is a Class 1 violation of rule 65C-20.010(6)(a), which prohibits humiliating a child as a disciplinary measure. It also meets the definition of "abuse," as defined in section 39.01(2), and "harm," as defined in section 39.01(30). For these reasons, the abuse report confirmed the finding of inadequate supervision. Petitioner further explained that on May 23, 2016, her husband was in the process of making repairs to the leaking roof and the damaged ceiling in the home, and these repairs were completed shortly after the investigation. After being told that sleeping mats were required for the children, Petitioner purchased ten mats for the children. Even so, these deficiencies were observed on May 23, 2016, are confirmed by testimony and photographs received in evidence, and are grounds to verify the abuse allegations. Two parents who have used Petitioner's services attested to her good character and the quality of care that their children receive. They urged that the home be allowed to remain open. Even if the abuse report is not considered, the Department would still be required to deny the application because it is incomplete. According to a Department witness, if a complete application had been filed, denial would still be required based on the confirmed abuse report.
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 denying Petitioner's application to renew her family day care home registration. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of July, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER 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 July, 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) Cynthia Rosado 4419 Fairlawn Drive Orlando, Florida 32809-4409 (eServed) Rebecca Falcon Kapusta, General Counsel Department of Children and Families Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 (eServed) Brian Christopher Meola, Esquire Department of Children and Families. Suite S-1129 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801-1707 (eServed) Mike Carroll, Secretary Department of Children and Families Building 1, Room 202 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 (eServed)
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondent's license to provide foster care should be revoked for any of the reasons set forth in the Department's revocation letter dated July 23, 1998.
Findings Of Fact At all times material, the Respondent was licensed by the Petitioner to operate a foster home. In conjunction with the placement of foster children in her home, the Respondent signed an Agreement to Provide substitute Care for Dependent Children. In that document, the Respondent agreed to the following conditions, among others: 2 - We are fully and directly responsible to the Department for the care of the child. * * * - We will not permit the removal of the child from our home, except by an authorized representative of the Department or by instruction of such representative. - We will not give the child into the care or physical custody of any other person(s), including the natural parent(s), without the consent of a representative of the Department. * * * 9 - We will accept dependent children into our home for care only from the Department and will make no plans for boarding other children or adults. * * * 11 - We will notify the Department immediately of any change in our address, employment, living arrangements, family composition, or law enforcement involvement. * * * 15 - We will comply with all requirements for a licensed substitute care home as prescribed by the Department. On May 1, 1997, a family services counselor visited the Respondent's home on a routine visit to check on the status of one of the foster children in the Respondent's home. During that visit the counselor observed various hazardous and unsanitary conditions in the home. Several upstairs windows were open. The windows had no screens or other barriers to prevent a child from falling out the window. There was a foul stench in the house. Contributing to the stench were numerous plates of decaying food randomly scattered throughout the home. There was a light fixture with a bare bulb and no light shade. On May 1, 1997, the child that the counselor was visiting was seven years-old. The counselor was concerned, for several reasons, about the quality of care the child was receiving. The child was very dirty, and did not appear to have been bathed recently. The child also had a large, obvious ringworm. The counselor asked the Respondent if the child had been taken to a doctor for treatment of the ringworm. The Respondent admitted that she had not taken the child to the doctor and then stated some illogical and frivolous reasons for her failure to seek medical attention for the foster child. During the May 1, 1997, visit, the seven year-old foster child told the counselor that the children in the neighborhood hated him. When asked for details, the foster child described an incident during which, while he was outside, a group of neighborhood children removed all of the foster child's clothing and then urinated on him. When questioned about this incident, the Respondent admitted that she had witnessed the incident. The Respondent's only excuse for allowing the incident to occur was that she had told the foster child not to go outside and he disobeyed her and went outside without permission. On various unspecified occasions during the latter part of 1997 and the first three months of 1998, the Respondent's minor grandson, who sometimes lived with the Respondent and sometimes lived with his mother, engaged in sexual intercourse with one of the female minor foster children in the Respondent's home. The Respondent was aware that her grandson had engaged in sexual intercourse with one of her foster children. The Respondent made ineffectual efforts to prevent her grandson from having sexual intercourse with the female foster child. At least three months after discovering this conduct, the Respondent advised personnel of the DCFS for the first time that her grandson had been having sexual intercourse with one of the foster children in the Respondent's home. Around mid-afternoon on January 9, 1998, a police office of the South Bay Police Department went to the Respondent's home at the request of a family services counselor of the DCFS, who was making a routine visit to check on the status of two of the foster children living at that home. On that afternoon, the only adults present were the counselor from DCFS and the police officer. Two of the Respondent's foster children were home without any adult supervision. Those two foster children were thirteen and fifteen years of age, respectively. On January 9, 1998, the Respondent was on a trip outside the State of Florida. She had been gone for at least two days and was not expected to return for several more days. She had one of her foster children with her on the out-of-state trip. The Respondent had not advised the DCFS that she was taking a foster child out of the State of Florida, nor did she have permission from anyone at DCFS to take the foster child out of the State of Florida. Similarly, the Respondent had not advised the DCFS that, while on her out-of-state trip, she was leaving two of her foster children in her home, supposedly under the car and supervision of her adult brother, Leroy Ball. Mr. Ball had not been approved by anyone at DCFS as a temporary substitute caregiver for any of the foster children living with the Respondent. On January 9, 1998, the Respondent's home presented a variety of hazardous and unsanitary conditions. These conditions are perhaps best described in the words of the police officer who was present that day:1 Upon arriving at the scene I found that the children were left abandon[ed] completely. There was no adult supervision whatsoever. I found the interior of the house was in disarray. There were numerous unsanitary conditions within the household, human defecation, rotting food, open garbage cans, knives on the floor, tools, equipment, alcoholic containers that were half empty, strewn all over the house. * * * The baby training potty was right at the entry to the kitchen in the living room and it had urine, mold growing on top of the water and looked like defecation inside the bowl itself. * * * There was an overabundance of garbage and clothes. It was just everywhere. It wasn't just one place. It wasn't a bag here, a bag there, piece here, piece there. It was strewn everywhere on every piece of furniture, on the floor. Within every two feet there was garbage of some sort on the floor as if someone had thrown bags of garbage. It was just thrown all over the house. * * * I did look in the kitchen and I took photographs which I submitted and I found food that was half-cooked and half raw sitting there decaying, which was moldy and just rotting in the kitchen. * * * [Referring to a photograph] That was the upstairs bathroom. There was defecation in the water in the toilet. I was unaware if water was actually working in the residence at that time. It didn't appear to me that it was. I would've assumed that somebody would've flushed the toilet if it hadn't (sic) been. It seemed like it had been that way for several days. The two foster children who were left in the Respondent's home while she went on an out-of-state trip did not have a key to the house. Accordingly, they were unable to lock the house. On January 9, 1998, the police officer and the family services counselor interviewed the two foster children. Information provided by the children indicated that the Respondent had been out-of-town for two days and that a man named Leroy Ball was supposed to be taking care of them, but that they had not had any adult supervision during the past two days. Efforts to locate Leroy Ball were unsuccessful. Due to the lack of adult supervision and due to the hazardous and unsanitary condition of the home, the police officer and the family services counselor removed the two foster children from the Respondent's home. The police officer took one of the foster children (for whom a warrant was outstanding) to the police station, where the child was fed and then transported to a juvenile detention facility. The family services counselor took the other foster child and delivered the child to another foster home. Later in the afternoon of January 9, 1998, a child protective investigator went to the Respondent's home. The only person present at that time was Leroy Ball, an adult man, who is the Respondent's brother. During an interview with the investigator, Leroy Ball explained that his sister, the Respondent, had to go out of town to a funeral and that during her absence he was supposed to care for the two foster children who had earlier that day been found in the home without any adult supervision. Mr. Ball also explained that he worked each day from approximately 5:00 a.m. until approximately 5:00 p.m. At the time of the interview, Mr. Ball did not know the whereabouts of the two foster children he was supposed to be caring for. Several days later, on January 13, 1998, the child protective investigator interviewed the Respondent. During that interview the Respondent admitted that she had made an out-of- state trip with one of her foster children, and also admitted that she had left two of the foster children at her home, with the understanding that her brother, Mr. Ball, would be supervising them. In subsequent interviews with Department personnel, the Respondent blamed the unsanitary conditions in her home on the two children she had left there and on her brother's failure to do what he was supposed to do. The DCFS never consented to Mr. Ball being placed in a temporary role supervising any of the foster children who lived with the Respondent. While licensed to operate a foster home, the Respondent was required to keep the DCFS informed as to who was living in the Respondent's home. While so licensed, there were several occasions on which the Respondent failed to report changes as to who was living in her home. On at least one occasion the Respondent provided the DCFS with false information about who was living in her home.
Recommendation Based on all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued in this case revoking the Respondent's foster home license. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of March, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 1st day of March, 1999.
The Issue Whether Petitioner's June 1, 2007, application for registration as a family day care home, pursuant to Section 402.313, Florida Statutes, may be granted.
Findings Of Fact DCF's August 8, 2007, letter denied Petitioner’s June 1, 2007, application to register to operate a family day care home due to a verified abuse report of exploitation by Petitioner of her elderly mother; Petitioner's personal history of mental health issues; and a circuit court’s failure to approve Petitioner as an alternative long-term caretaker of her grandchildren in connection with an abuse or neglect investigation and dependency case brought against the children's mother. Unlike licensed family day care homes and facilities, registered homes are not subject to pre-licensure inspection, periodic or surprise inspection after licensure, or DCF monitoring after children are placed in the home. Therefore, in consideration of applications for registration as a family day care home, DCF is particularly careful to make sure that there is nothing in an applicant’s background that would indicate a potential risk for children left in the applicant’s care.1/ Accordingly, DCF conducts a background check that includes its central hotline computer system as well as criminal background checks, pursuant to Chapter 435, Florida Statutes. Marsha Carpenter conducted the screening of Petitioner's application. Her search turned up two prior cases in which Petitioner had been named as a responsible party in the final decisions. FPSS 2004-012525-01, received by DCF on May 7, 2004, was closed with verified findings of exploitation by Petitioner of an elderly, vulnerable adult, who was Petitioner’s mother. This is the only FPSS report referred-to in the Agency’s denial letter. At hearing, evidence was also received concerning FPSS 2004-405767-01, received by DCF on August 27, 2004. No explanation was offered as to why this report, which returned a verified finding of “inadequate supervision” of her three-year- old granddaughter against Petitioner, was not mentioned in DCF’s denial letter. Even with the testimony of the investigator in FPSS 2004-012525-01 (elderly exploitation), much of that report does not even rise to the level of hearsay consideration permitted by Section 120.57(1)(c), Florida Statutes. Therefore, it cannot be relied upon in its entirety here. The credible evidence presented herein, including numerous admissions by Petitioner, support a finding that Petitioner was successively hospitalized in two separate mental health facilities for two separate short periods between May 4, 2004, and June 10, 2004, and that these two short hospitalizations were a result of the great stress Petitioner had endured in caring for her mother, who had just suffered a stroke, and in caring for her brother, who had suffered from a debilitating illness which ultimately caused his death on May 24, 2004. Petitioner thought she may have been hospitalized three times, instead of two times, and testified without refutation that the hospitalizations occurred because she was unable to care for herself in her great grief. Upon the totality of the competent credible evidence, it is further found that during the period addressed by FPSS 2004-012525-01, Petitioner was operating under a legitimate power of attorney from her mother and was also either a legitimate co-signor on her mother's checking account or legitimate co-payee on her mother's government checks. During this period, Petitioner used a check to access her mother's money so as to pay all, or some, of her own utility bill. In mitigation of this diversion of her mother's funds, Petitioner intended that another check of Petitioner's own would be used to pay all, or some, of her mother's nursing home expenses, thereby making-up the deduction of her mother's money she had used for her own utility payment. However, neither her mother's money nor Petitioner's own check reached Petitioner's mother's nursing home, and Petitioner's mother’s nursing home expenses were not, in fact, paid by Petitioner. While Petitioner attributed her failure to pay the nursing home to loss of money from her own checking account, due to her own check, and/or due to her mother's endorsed government check having been cashed by a third party without Petitioner's authorization, there still remains no evidence that Petitioner ever made good on paying her mother’s expenses at her mother’s nursing home. FPSS No. 2004-405767-01, relates to a later date in 2004, when Petitioner's grandchildren, a boy and a girl, were staying with her. Petitioner admitted that she left the children alone and unsupervised in her yard while she went to answer her phone. Petitioner maintained that she was only away from the yard for five minutes and stated that she, herself, rather than a neighbor, as stated in the FPSS report, had summoned the police. However, Petitioner also admitted that the period of time she left her grandchildren unattended had been sufficient for an older neighborhood boy to solicit oral sex from her three-year-old granddaughter. Based on the evidence as a whole, it is not credible that the grandchildren were left alone for only five minutes, but even so, Petitioner conceded that molestation, or even kidnapping, could have occurred in the period of time the children were left unsupervised, even if that period had been only five minutes. On a subsequent occasion, M.P.'s grandchildren were taken into custody in connection with a DCF abuse/neglect investigation of their mother, Petitioner's daughter. Due to Petitioner’s mental health history, the two prior FPSS reports, and the criminal history of an uncle living with Petitioner at the time, DCF did not recommend to the circuit court that Petitioner be considered for long-term placement of the grandchildren. The circuit court placed the grandchildren with a neighbor and friend of Petitioner instead of with Petitioner. During the extended period of time that Petitioner's grandchildren were fostered by Petitioner’s neighbor and friend, Petitioner paid their room and board and regularly visited them in the foster mother's home. The foster mother is an old friend of Petitioner and a member of her church. She testified to Petitioner's honesty, kindness, and love of her grandchildren. Since 2004, Petitioner has been taking psychotropic medication for her mental health, but she presented no medical evidence about the effects of this medication or whether she is safe to be around children while she is taking it. Petitioner presented credible testimony and supporting evidence that since 2004, she has regularly worked as a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) without any reported incidents of neglect, abuse, or exploitation of patients. The credible evidence demonstrated she has been a licensed CNA for 23 years, not the 30 years she testified to.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Children and Family Services denying registration at this time, while clearly setting out that Petitioner is free to reapply at any time. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of February, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 8th day of February, 2008.
The Issue The issue in the case is whether the application for registration of the Tonya Rodreguez Registered Family Day Care Home (Respondent) should be denied.
Findings Of Fact Since 1994, and at all times material to this case, Mrs. Rodreguez has operated the Respondent, which is located at 2736 Lemon Street, Fort Myers, Florida. On October 25, 2010, Mrs. Rodreguez filed an application with the Petitioner for registration of the Respondent. The previous registration had lapsed. Since 1992, and at all times material to this case, Mrs. Rodreguez has been married to her husband, Terry Rodreguez (Mr. Rodreguez). In 1990, Mr. Rodreguez was convicted of possession of a controlled substance and a concealed firearm. Mrs. Rodreguez was aware of her husband's criminal conviction. The registration application included a section where an applicant was directed to list "OTHER FAMILY/HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS." The application filed on October 25, 2010, by Mrs. Rodreguez disclosed only herself and her three children. Mrs. Rodreguez did not list her husband on the application. On June 23, 2010, a child protective investigator (CPI) commenced an unrelated investigation of the Respondent and went to the Lemon Street address. Mr. Rodreguez was present in the home when the CPI arrived. The CPI testified without contradiction that Mr. Rodreguez was uncooperative. She returned to the Respondent later that day accompanied by a law enforcement officer, but, when they arrived, Mr. Rodreguez was no longer present at the Respondent. On June 24, 2010, the CPI returned to the Lemon Street address, and Mr. Rodreguez was again present. During questioning by the CPI on that date, Mr. Rodreguez stated that he resided in the home. Additionally, Mrs. Rodreguez advised the CPI that she and her husband had separated, but acknowledged that she and her husband both resided at the home. At the hearing, Mrs. Rodreguez asserted that she has been separated from her husband for many years; however, she acknowledged that they remain legally married, that he uses her address as his legal address, and that her address is listed on his driver's license. She testified that he is homeless and that he returns to the house to see her children. Mr. Rodreguez was issued several traffic citations between January and July of 2010, and all of the citations identified his address as 2736 Lemon Street, Fort Myers, Florida.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Family Services enter a final order denying the application for registration of the Tonya Rodreguez Registered Family Day Care Home. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of April, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 April, 2011.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondents violated provisions of Chapter 402, Florida Statutes,1 and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 65C-20, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Traceann Handy owns and operates Traceann Handy Family Day Care Home, a child care facility licensed by the Department. On May 26, 2009, the facility had been inspected by the Department and found to be in compliance with the rules of operation. Due to some missing documentation (CPR and first aid certificates), the facility was issued a Provisional License. As of the date the final hearing in this matter was concluded, the documentation had been submitted, and the facility had a valid license to operate.3 The Department is responsible for inspecting, licensing, and monitoring child care facilities such as the one operated by Handy. It is the Department's responsibility to ensure that all such facilities are safe and secure for the protection of children utilizing the facility. On Friday, June 5, 2009, the Department received a complaint concerning Handy's facility. The complaint alleged that two older children were asked to supervise a younger child without adult supervision and that transportation of the children had been provided without prior authorization. Based upon these complaints and in accordance with its rules, the Department commenced an investigation of the facility. Investigator Anderson (who was on call for the weekend) went to the facility the next day, Saturday, June 6, 2009. She knocked on the front door (although the entrance to the child care facility portion of the home was located on the side of the house). No one answered her knock, but a young man later came out of the house and advised Anderson that the facility was closed and that Handy was not home.4 Anderson called the investigator assigned to the case (Dayna Prevost) to report her findings. While Anderson was making the telephone call, the same young man came out to her car, banged on the car window and loudly repeated that Handy was not home. Anderson smelled an odor which she believed was marijuana while talking with the young man. (The young man was later identified as Handy's adult son, Trauquece Handy.) Anderson then left the premises. The investigation was recommenced on Monday, June 8, 2009. On that date, Investigators Wolbach and Prevost went to the Handy home and knocked on the side door of the home. When there was no answer to the knock, the investigators went to the front door and knocked. Again there was no answer, but they could hear what sounded like children inside the house. The investigators called Handy (who was not at home) and were told by Handy that she would have someone inside the house open the door. Despite the phone call and promise from Handy, no one opened the door, so the investigators called the police for assistance. When the police arrived, a man opened the front door, but the investigators were granted only limited access to the house. An adult female was seen inside the house, along with two small children. The female was questioned and said that she was a housekeeper and that the children inside the home at that time were her children. Upon receiving that information, the investigators again left the premises. On the next day, Tuesday, June 9, 2009, a team of investigators went back to the facility. This time Handy was present, and the team was allowed into the house. Handy's husband was also present at that time. While the team was inspecting the facility, Handy's son came into the house and went directly upstairs. The team reviewed Handy's records concerning attendance at the facility by various children. Handy was interviewed, and due to the previous suspicion of marijuana usage at the home, asked to provide a urine specimen for the purpose of conducting a drug screening test. (There was considerable discussion at final hearing as to how the urine specimen was taken, but that is not an issue in the present proceeding and will not be discussed further.) At one point during the investigative review at the home, a team member approached the inside stairwell and pushed open the gate located at the bottom of the stairs. The gate had been placed there by Handy in response to prior concerns by the Department about children having access to the upstairs portion of the house. The gate was apparently unlatched, although there were no children present at that time near the stairwell. (There was one child present in the home, but that child was in another part of the house.) As the investigator started up the stairs, Handy's husband said that Handy would likely not appreciate them going into her private quarters. As the investigator continued up the stairs, Handy came into the room and voiced her opposition to anyone going upstairs. Handy had been previously advised by the Department that if a gate was in place to keep children from going upstairs, it would be unnecessary for the Department to inspect that area during every regular inspection. It is unclear from the testimony whether Handy misunderstood the Department or whether the Department was only talking about its annual licensure inspection. No matter, Handy told the investigator that she did not want the investigator to go upstairs. The investigator took that remark as a direct order that she not go upstairs, so she did not do so. Instead, the Department sought injunctive relief in Circuit Court to gain access to the upstairs portion of the house. A hearing on the Department's motion was held the next day, Wednesday, June 10, 2009. Handy received notice of the hearing less than an hour before the hearing was scheduled to commence. She called the Circuit Court Judge's assistant to seek a continuance, but was told that the hearing must proceed. The court gave Handy the option of appearing via telephone, if she so desired. Handy wanted to attend the hearing in person, so she went to the courthouse. There was one child at the day care facility at that time. Handy could not find her approved substitute on such short notice, so she called the child's parent (who was Handy's cousin) and asked if it would be okay for Handy's husband to watch the child while Handy attended the hearing. The parent approved that arrangement. The Circuit Court entered an Order requiring Handy to allow the Department "a one[-]time inspection . . . of the private part of [the] home." Based upon that Order, the Department sent a team of investigators back to the facility on June 10, 2009, to complete its inspection. Upon completion of its investigation, the Department issued the Administrative Complaint relevant to this proceeding. The Administrative Complaint addresses two alleged violations by Handy: First, that Handy refused to allow the Department access to the entire home during the inspection. Second, that Handy allowed a person who was not currently screened to supervise a child in her care. An administrative fine of five hundred dollars ($500.00) was proposed for each of the two violations.5 Handy does not believe she instructed the investigator not to go upstairs during the June 9, 2009, inspection. She remembers only telling them she did not want them to go upstairs, that it was unnecessary, and that her understanding from prior discussions was that the upstairs would not be inspected. The investigator believes she was specifically and forcefully told not to go up the stairs. In either case, it is clear a court order was obtained to gain access. (At the hearing in Circuit Court, Handy had reiterated that she did not want the investigators to go upstairs.) The gate in question was put in place to prevent children from having access to the upstairs portion of the house. However, the gate was either broken or unlatched (the testimony on this issue is not clear) when there was a child present in the house. Handy's husband did not have a valid background screening in place on June 10, 2009, that would allow him to act as a provider of child care services in the facility. He had been previously screened, but had not had his background screening updated when it expired in June 2008. He had not been re-screened because he and Handy were separated, and he did not intend to be at her house to supervise children any longer. The two are still married, but he only visits the house to do maintenance and repairs as needed. It is clear that Handy's husband was watching the child only due to the exigent circumstances surrounding the court hearing and the unavailability of Handy's approved substitute. Further, the child's parent was made aware of the fact and had acquiesced to this arrangement. Nonetheless, Handy's husband was not technically qualified to watch children attending the child care center at that time.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Children and Family Services imposing an administrative fine of $200 against Respondent, Traceann Handy. It is further RECOMMENDED that Handy be ordered to attend remedial classes on the operation and management of a child care facility. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of January, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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, 2010.
