The Issue The issues in these cases are: whether the Davis Family Day Care Home violated provisions of chapter 402, Florida Statutes,1/ and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 65C-20,2/ and, if so, what penalty should be imposed; whether the Davis Family Day Care Home's renewal application for a license to operate a regular family day care center should be approved or denied; and whether the Davis Family Day Care Home's initial application for a license to operate as a large family child care home should be approved or denied.
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Department is responsible for inspecting, licensing and monitoring child care facilities such as the one operated by the Davis Day Care. It is also the Department's responsibility to ensure that all such facilities are safe and secure for the protection of the children utilizing those facilities. The Department routinely conducts inspections of licensed family day care homes to determine whether the home is in compliance with the applicable statutes and rules. Following such inspections, a report is provided to the operator which provides a time frame to correct any outstanding deficiencies. The Department also conducts inspections or investigations of child care facilities in response to complaints it receives. LaShandra Davis (Ms. Davis) owns and operates the Davis Day Care, a family day care facility licensed by the Department. The Davis Day Care was initially licensed in April 2007 and was in continuous operation at all times material to these issues. No testimony was offered that the facility had prior disciplinary actions against it. Ms. Davis is a nurse, has an associate of science (A.S.) degree in nursing from Polk Community College, and is attending college to obtain an A.S. degree in early childhood education. Additionally, Ms. Davis has five sons and one daughter. Their names include (from youngest to oldest): Layla Davis, Steven Davis, Devondrae Davis, Deshawn Williams, Daniel Williams, and Rafael Davis. No testimony was received regarding Ms. Davis using any other name or names from August 3, 2010, through December 2, 2010.5/ On February 23, 2011, Ms. Davis submitted an application to obtain a license to operate a large family day care home at her current location. On March 15, 2011, Ms. Davis submitted her renewal application to retain her license to operate a family day care home at her current location. October 29, 2010, AC 1 (August 3, 2010, Inspection) On August 3, 2010, the Davis Day Care was subjected to an inspection based on a complaint that it was "over-ratio." This over-ratio issue involves the number of children in the care of a family day care operation to the number of adults providing that care. The Department received a complaint that the facility was seeking meal reimbursements for more children than were allowed for the type of child care license it held. Vicki Richmond (Ms. Richmond) testified that she conducted the inspection on August 3, 2010, and cited the facility for being over the licensed capacity ratio by more than two children. Because the facility was over ratio by more than two children, it was a Class I violation. At that August inspection, Ms. Davis explained to Ms. Richmond that she (Ms. Davis) had a license to provide child care for ten children, and she had ten children in her care. Ms. Richmond explained the ratio requirement to Ms. Davis. Based on the age of the children, Ms. Davis was authorized to have a maximum of ten children provided no more than five were preschool age, and, of those five, no more than two were under 12 months of age. At this August inspection, Ms. Davis was over-ratio by two children. Ms. Davis executed and received a copy of the complaint report prepared on August 3, 2010, that discussed the over-ratio limitations. Three other technical violations were brought to Ms. Davis's attention during that inspection, and two of those violations were corrected immediately. Ms. Davis was given a two-week extension to correct the third violation involving an expired fire extinguisher.6/ Additionally, Ms. Richmond testified that Ms. Davis's mother ("Ms. Jones")7/ was visiting the facility while Ms. Richmond was conducting this August inspection. According to Ms. Richmond, Ms. Jones had been previously screened, but did not meet the Department's standards to be in a child care facility. Ms. Jones should not have been present either for a visit or to be preparing lunches as the testimony revealed. Ms. Richmond recommended to Ms. Davis that it was important to check into getting an exemption for Ms. Jones to be at the facility. Ms. Davis later testified that Ms. Jones had cleared up the screening issue, and both had been told Ms. Jones was allowed to be present at the facility. At hearing, Ms. Davis admitted that she was over-ratio on August 3, 2010. Further, she stated that she "just flat out misunderstood" the adult-child ratio requirement issue until Ms. Richmond explained it to her in August 2010. Ms. Brooks and Mr. Giordano testified that they had each individually explained the ratio requirement to Ms. Davis during prior inspections or discussions at the facility. Although there is some discrepancy between Ms. Davis's recollection and the two witnesses on this point, Ms. Davis admitted this violation and was quite candid about her lack of knowledge with respect to it. Credible testimony from both Ms. Richmond and Shelia Nobles (Ms. Nobles) established that having two or more children over-ratio was a Class I violation, which would subject any child care facility to discipline by the Department. When Ms. Davis received the Department's three-page October 29, 2010, AC 1 advising her of the Class I violation (over-ratio by two or more children) and assessing a $500 fine, she was "shocked." Ms. Davis testified that, at the time of the inspection (August 3, 2010), Ms. Richmond had stated the fine might be $50 or maybe more, leading Ms. Davis to believe the fine would not be that high. AC 1 advised Ms. Davis that the over-ratio issue was a Class I violation of section 402.302(7). AC 1 provided one Department address for two reasons, to pay the $500 fine or to request an administrative hearing. There is no language within AC 1 that advised Ms. Davis of an optional payment plan. Ms. Davis testified she was unaware of a payment plan option, and her only option was to appeal the decision, which she did. Ms. Richmond confirmed that the Department would accept payments as long as the total fine amount was paid in full prior to the next renewal. However, that information was not shared with Ms. Davis until the hearing. Department's March 23, 2011, Proposed Denial Application to Operate a Family Day Care Home (AC 2) and Department's April 11, 2011, Proposed Denial Application to Operate a Large Family Day Care Home (AC 3). Both AC 2 and AC 3 set forth five allegations in support of the Department's denial of the renewal application and the large family child care home application. Two alleged abuse allegations from 2007 and 2008 were included in these administrative complaints; however, as previously stated, no testimony or evidence was offered, presented or substantiated at hearing. Thus, any attempt to reference either the 2007 or 2008 allegations as fact is disregarded as unfounded and not supported by credible testimony or evidence. AC 2 and AC 3 rest on three allegations: the alleged abuse of child E.B., the alleged lying during the investigation of the alleged child (E.B.) abuse, and the inspection conducted on August 3, 2010, regarding the facility being over ratio.8/ Natalie Barton (Ms. Barton), E.B.'s mother, testified that she saw marks on E.B.'s bottom at the end of November 2010 (November 30, 2010) that "could only have occurred at the day care." Ms. Barton testified she picked E.B. up from the facility prior to 5:30 p.m. and discovered the marks on E.B.'s bottom during bath time that evening. Both Ms. Barton and Ms. Davis testified that E.B.'s mother sent a picture of the injury to Ms. Davis via her cell phone the evening the injury was first seen. At that point, Ms. Davis told E.B.'s mother that she (Ms. Davis) didn't know what or how the injury occurred and recommended taking the child to E.B.'s doctor. Ms. Davis had no hesitation in making this recommendation to Ms. Barton. Ms. Barton took E.B. to her (E.B.'s) pediatrician the morning after she discovered the injury (December 1, 2010). However, E.B.'s physician indicated he wanted to see the child in two days, as he could not make a determination what, if anything, had caused the injury as there was no bruising. Ms. Barton also testified that she took E.B. back to the Davis Day Care after she was seen by her pediatrician so she could see how E.B. reacted. While at the facility, E.B. was "in her routine," that she (E.B.) walked in and sat on the couch like she did every day. Ms. Barton did not return E.B. to her own pediatrician for further evaluation. Ms. Barton testified E.B. was seen by the child protective team the day after she was seen by the pediatrician (December 2, 2010). On December 2, 2010, after receiving information about the possible physical abuse of a child (E.B.) (documented as being received at 11:08 p.m. on December 1, 2010), Deanna McCain (Investigator McCain) contacted Ms. Barton to obtain additional information. Investigator McCain also spoke with E.B., who said she had been hit by "Ms. Shawna." After observing E.B.'s injuries and obtaining a photograph of E.B.'s buttocks, an appointment was made for E.B. to be seen by a member of the child protection team, i.e., the nurse practitioner. During the afternoon of December 2, 2010, Nurse Practitioner Connie Fleming (Nurse Fleming) performed a medical evaluation of E.B., a then two-year, nine-month old child. During E.B.'s evaluation, Nurse Fleming noticed bruising on E.B.'s buttocks. When Nurse Fleming asked E.B. what happened, E.B. responded "Ms. Shawn spanked me." Nurse Fleming stated the bruising appeared to be consistent with an outline of a hand. Pictures taken during the medical evaluation reflect red areas on E.B.'s buttocks. Based on her nine-plus years of training and experience as a nurse practitioner, Nurse Fleming determined that E.B. had suffered physical abuse; however, she never stated who caused the injury. Nurse Fleming contended that the injuries were indicative of a rapid-force compression injury, typical of a slap with a hand. Later on December 2, 2010, Investigator McCain went to the facility to investigate the alleged abuse report. Upon her arrival at the location, Investigator McCain had to wait for a local law enforcement officer (LEO) before she could enter the facility. While Investigator McCain waited for the LEO to arrive (between 3:30 p.m. and 4:45 p.m.), she spoke with parents who were picking up their children from the facility. Each parent she spoke with had supportive comments about the facility ("great day care provider," their child had "no injuries," had never seen "inappropriate behavior," "no concerns"). Whether all these comments came from one parent or multiple parents is unclear. Investigator McCain did not observe any injuries to any of the children leaving the facility. Ms. Richmond also went to the facility at approximately the same time as Investigator McCain; however, Ms. Richmond could enter the home without a LEO, and she did so. Ms. Richmond made contact with Ms. Davis and explained there was a complaint. Ms. Richmond's task at the time was to obtain information about the number of children Ms. Davis had in the facility. According to the sign in sheet, there were seven children present, plus Ms. Davis's four-year-old son. Ms. Richmond testified that Ms. Davis initially stated there were four children present, but later a sleeping child was found in a crib, and her (then) four-year-old son ran through the home.9/ Although Ms. Richmond asked for the attendance sheets for the previous month (November 2010), Ms. Davis was only able to provide the attendance sheets for December 1 and 2, 2010.10/ According to Ms. Richmond, those two attendance sheets documented that Ms. Davis's facility was again over-ratio for those two days. When Investigator McCain entered the facility with the LEO, she explained the reason for her presence to Ms. Davis. Investigator McCain testified Ms. Davis was asked how many children were present and together they conducted a "walk- through" of the facility. Investigator McCain testified that, at the time of the walk-through, she was told there were four children present, three toddlers and a small child in Ms. Davis's arms. Investigator McCain also testified that, during the walk-through, they found an additional child sleeping in a crib. She further testified that, at some later point, another young child ran through the facility, and Ms. Davis identified him as her son. On December 2, 2010, Investigator McCain questioned Ms. Davis about the alleged physical abuse of E.B. During the investigation discussion, Ms. Davis reported to Investigator McCain that "she [Ms. Davis] had no idea how they [E.B.'s injuries] occurred." Ms. Davis further reported E.B. was "fully potty trained." Ms. Davis reported that the child had a toileting accident the day before and had cleaned herself. Still, later in the investigation discussion, Ms. Davis told Investigator McCain that she (Ms. Davis) had helped clean E.B. after the toileting accident, but only from the front, and she had not observed E.B.'s buttocks. Ms. Davis also shared with the investigator that when Ms. Davis questioned E.B. about the injury, E.B. said her mother (Ms. Barton) did it (the abuse). At hearing, Investigator McCain testified that Ms. Davis was "very far along in" a pregnancy and that Ms. Davis was upset, shocked, and surprised by the presence of the investigators. Investigator McCain also confirmed that DCF's presence tends to raise anxiety levels and that people feel like they are being attacked. Further, Ms. Davis confirmed that she was two weeks from her delivery due date when this investigation started. Thus, under the circumstances, forgetfulness may be perceived by some as lying, when in reality it is simply being overwhelmed by the situation. As part of the investigation, it was Investigator McCain's responsibility to also check for any hazards in the facility and to ensure adequate supervision of the children. Although Ms. Davis initially reported there were no other adults to supervise the children, she later reported that her mother, Ms. Jones, came each day around 10:15 a.m. to make lunch for the children. Ms. Barton confirmed that Ms. Jones was sometimes present in the mornings when Ms. Barton brought E.B. to the facility. Several technical violations were noted during the December 2010 investigation; however, they are not the subject of this hearing. Ms. Davis testified she did not spank E.B. Ms. Davis testified that she did not know how the injury occurred, and the child's hearsay statement that her mother had spanked her is not supported by other testimony. However, the time lapses between when the injury was alleged to have occurred (the "end of November," or November 30, 2010, according to the mother), when the injury was "discovered" (the night of November 30, 2010, according to the mother), when the alleged abuse was reported (December 1, 2010, at 11:08 p.m.), when the pediatrician's examination occurred on December 1, 2010, and when the child protective team became involved (December 2, 2010), create confusion and doubt as to when the injury actually occurred and by whom. Even taking the thought process to try to find that the events happened a day later does not relieve the doubt or confusion, nor is that supported by the Department's documentation. Investigator McCain testified that this investigation was closed with a verified finding of physical injury to E.B. However, simply finding a "verified finding of physical injury to E.B." does not establish who perpetrated that physical injury. No testimony was provided that any other possible explanation for the injury was explained. Further, other than indicating that E.B. had red marks on her bottom, no testimony was provided that indicated the degree of harm to the child. That being said, this not to say that logic has left the building with respect to some harm being caused to the child. There were marks on E.B.'s buttocks. Several current and former parents of children who attend or attended the Davis Day Care testified on Ms. Davis's behalf. Each testified that they did not have any concerns with their child attending Ms. Davis's facility. On March 11, 2011, after receipt of the facility's application for the large family day care home license,11/ the Department conducted an inspection of the facility and found it to be in compliance with all the licensing standard requirements (including those previously cited during the December 2010 inspection that were corrected). Upon completion of its investigation, the Department determined to deny Ms. Davis's renewal application and to deny her application for a large family day care license, based on "numerous complaints to our office alleging physical abuse of children in your care and Class I violations of licensing standards." There was one verified complaint of abuse, not "numerous complaints" as alleged. There was a Class I violation regarding the over-ratio issue; however, that could have been resolved with better communication skills. The misrepresentation could have been avoided. Neither notification includes any indication that the March 11, 2011, inspection was taken into consideration prior to making the denial decision. The Department presented testimony indicating that there had been past complaints regarding Ms. Davis and/or the facility. However, no documented prior complaints or final orders were submitted with respect to any prior actions.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: With respect to the October 29, 2010, administrative complaint, that a final order be entered by the Department of Children and Families finding that the facility was over-ratio on August 3, 2010, and imposing an administrative fine of $500 with no less than ten months to pay the fine. It is further RECOMMENDED that Ms. Davis be ordered to attend remedial classes on the financial operations and management of a child care facility; With respect to the March 23, 2011, administrative complaint, that a final order be entered by the Department of Children and Families renewing the family day care home license on probation status for six months with periodic inspections to ensure the continued safe operation of the facility; and With respect to the April 11, 2011, administrative complaint, that a final order be entered by the Department of Children and Families finding that the large family child care home application be issued a provisional license for a minimum of six months with periodic inspections to ensure the continued safe operation of the facility, with the ability for an additional six-month provisional period. In the event the large family child care home provisional license is not activated within two months of the issuance of the final order in this matter, a new application shall be required, subject to all the applicable statutory requirements. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of October, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of October, 2011.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner, Sabra Portwood, is entitled to register her home as a family day care home under the provisions of Chapters 402 and 435, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact On August 10, 2000, Petitioner was married to Randy Shoaff. She had two children, twins, by him and is currently pregnant with another of his children. Although estranged at present, they remain married. Petitioner is in the preliminary stages of dissolving the marriage and intends to complete the dissolution process. Petitioner and Mr. Shoaff have had a rocky relationship. On October 4, 2000, less than two months into their marriage, Mr. Shoaff struck Petitioner several times in the head from behind. She was pregnant at the time of the attack. The incident was reported to law enforcement. On March 12, 2001, Petitioner swore out a Petition for Injunction for Protection Against Domestic Violence, naming her husband as Respondent. The essential facts to which she swore and testified to at hearing were as follows: On February 23, 2001, at 705 W. Wilcox the Respondent Randolph Shoaff told me that the only reason I was still alive was because I was pregnant and that I have 3 other children. He said that he wanted to shoot me & then kill himself. Because of his actions before I have been afraid of him on 3 or 4 different occasions, and I would just be quiet & not say anything & wait for him to go to work. On Oct. 4th (there should be a police report) there was a dispute between us & he started hitting me in the head repeatedly when I was 3 months pregnant & had only been home for 3 hrs from the doctor because I was bleeding during pregnancy. I am afraid because I asked his coworker if his (Randy's) gun was under the counter & he said it wasn't there. As a direct result of Petitioner's request for a domestic violence injunction, the Third Circuit Court issued a Temporary Injunction. Subsequently, the injunction was conditionally dissolved. However, Mr. Shoaff was ordered to have no personal contact with Sabra Portwood at her home. A third Order was subsequently entered in order to facilitate visitation with his children, allowing non-hostile contact between the parties. Mr. Shoaff does not live with Petitioner. However, Petitioner and Mr. Shoaf are presently married. Therefore, Mr. Shoaf is currently a member of Petitioner's family and is required to undergo background screening for Petitioner's registration. Mr. Shoaff did not pass the background screening because of the injunction based on domestic violence entered against him. No exemption from disqualification was sought. Because of the failed background screening, Petitioner, who was the victim of domestic violence and took steps to protect herself from that violence, was denied registration based on the actions of her estranged husband.
Recommendation Based upon 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 denying Petitioner's request to register her home as a family day care home. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of May, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of May, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: John R. Perry, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 2639 North Monroe Street Building A, Suite 104 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2949 Sabra Portwood 140 Regina Road Perry, Florida 32348 John Flounlacker, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204B Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Josie Tomayo, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent's license to operate a family day care home should be revoked.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony and evidence received at the hearing, the following findings are made: Parties The Department is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating child care facilities, including family day care homes. The Department routinely conducts inspections of licensed family day care homes to determine whether the home is in compliance with the applicable statutes and rules. Any problems found during the inspection are noted on a report which is provided to the home's operator immediately following the inspection. When appropriate, the inspection report provides a time frame within which the problems must be corrected. Regular inspections are conducted approximately twice a year. More frequent inspections -- monthly or every six weeks - - are conducted on family day care homes which have a provisional license rather than a standard license. The Department also conducts inspections in response to complaints it receives, and it has the authority to inspect family day care homes at any time with or without notice. Respondent is the owner and operator of a licensed family day care home located at 1218 Jordan Avenue in Orlando, Florida (hereafter "Respondent's facility" or "the facility"). Respondent and her husband reside at that address as well. Respondent has operated day care homes in Florida since 1992, and she has been involved in child care for approximately 21 years. As a result, she is or should be familiar with the rules regulating family day care homes. Respondent keeps children in the back portion of her home. The children also play in Respondent's backyard, which is enclosed by an approximately six-foot high wooden fence. A wooden gate in the fence connects Respondent's backyard to the backyard of the house immediately behind Respondent's home. That house has been rented by Annette Rodgers since November 2002. Respondent does not have a pool in her yard. Ms. Rodgers' yard does have a pool, which at the time of the Department's February 27, 2003 inspection (discussed below), was only partially filled with water. Ms. Rodgers' pool is not visible from Respondent's back yard because of the wooden fence and gate. The photographs and videotape received into evidence show that Ms. Rodgers' pool is now completely enclosed by a series of fences.4 The evidence does not clearly and convincingly establish that the fences were not in place on February 27, 2003. Indeed, the weeds and high grass which can be seen along the base of and around the posts of the chain-link fence and the discoloration on some of the fence posts indicate that at least that fence has been in place for quite some time.5 Previous Inspections of Respondent's Facility and Actions Taken by the Department Respondent's facility was inspected on May 28, June 14, and September 30, 2002. Several areas of noncompliance were identified during each of those inspections, including inadequate supervision of children, unsafe storage of chemicals, evidence of roaches in the home, and incomplete enrollment and health records for the children at the home. On each occasion, Respondent was given a period of time within which to correct the areas of noncompliance. The inadequate supervision for which Respondent was cited in June 14, 2002, involved several children playing unsupervised in Respondent's carport area, which has access to the street; several children playing in the backyard under the "supervision" of Respondent's mother, who was not an authorized caregiver; and several children playing unsupervised on the porch area in the vicinity of tools and small screws. The Department issued Respondent a provisional license on October 28, 2002, presumably as part of the license renewal process. The provisional license was based upon Respondent's history of noncompliance with the Department's minimum standards, and it was valid through April 2, 2003, unless Respondent applied for an received a change in license status (which she apparently did not) or "if the license is suspended or revoked by the Department." A provisional license is issued where the Department has continued concerns regarding the day care home's compliance with the applicable statutes and rules. A provisional license is issued in lieu of denying a license renewal or suspending or revoking the home's license. A provisional license gives the licensee an opportunity to correct the areas of noncompliance, and because such homes are inspected more frequently, the Department has an opportunity to monitor the licensee's progress. On October 29, 2002, Respondent was assessed an administrative fine of $100.00 based upon deficiencies identified during the May 28 and June 14, 2002, inspections. The fine was based primarily upon the incident described above involving inadequate supervision of the children at the home. Respondent apparently did not contest the administrative fine or the issuance of the provisional license rather than a standard license. Despite the provisional license and the administrative fine, the Department's inspections continued to identify areas of noncompliance at Respondent's facility. For example, the November 14, 2002, inspection identified "evidence of rodents/vermin in the home" as well as incomplete enrollment and immunization records for the children in the home. The December 18, 2002, inspection identified these same deficiencies, including "live roaches in the children's area and the kitchen," as well as the storage of plastic shopping bags and chemicals which can pose dangers to children in an unlocked cabinet accessible to the children. These violations were the same as or similar to those for which Respondent had been previously cited and which led to the imposition of the administrative fine and issuance of the provisional license. The Department did not take immediate action to suspend or revoke Respondent's license based upon the results of the November 14 and December 18, 2002, inspections. Instead, the Department continued to give Respondent an opportunity to bring her home into compliance with the minimum standards in the Department's licensing rules and statutes. Inspection of Respondent's Facility on February 27, 2003 The Department next inspected Respondent's facility on February 27, 2003. That inspection was conducted by Department employee Brandi Blanchard. Ms. Blanchard had been responsible for inspecting Respondent's facility since at least September 2002, so she was familiar with the layout of the facility and its history of noncompliance. Respondent testified that Ms. Blanchard, unlike the prior inspector, had been "very good to her." Ms. Blanchard arrived at Respondent's facility by car between 8:30 a.m. and 8:45 a.m. As she arrived, Respondent was pulling her car into the driveway/carport at the facility. Ms. Blanchard parked her car directly behind Respondent's car. Ms. Blanchard got out of her car as Respondent was getting out of hers, and she said, "Hello, Ms. Alli," to Respondent. Upon seeing Ms. Blanchard, Respondent quickly went into the house through the carport door. Ms. Blanchard followed Respondent into the facility. Ms. Blanchard lost sight of Respondent as she went down a hallway towards the back of the house where the children were located. The backdoor of the house was open, and by the time that Ms. Blanchard caught up with Respondent, Respondent was directing the children through the facility's backyard towards the back gate connecting Respondent's yard to Ms. Rodgers' yard. Several of the children, led by Ms. Rodgers' 14-year-old son carrying an infant in a car seat and Ms. Rodgers' 13-year-old son carrying a toddler had already reached Ms. Rodgers' yard. Ms. Blanchard told Respondent to stop and return to the facility with the children, which she did. Ms. Blanchard went through the open gate onto Ms. Rodgers' property and directed Ms. Rodgers' sons to return to Respondent's facility with the children, which they did. While on Ms. Rodgers' property, Ms. Blanchard saw a partially-filled swimming pool and other ongoing construction. Ms. Blanchard did not notice any fencing around the pool and saw one of the children, which she estimated to be three or four years old, walking in the construction area close to the edge of the pool. After the children had been returned, Ms. Blanchard assessed the situation and commenced her inspection of the remainder of Respondent's facility. Ms. Blanchard found roach droppings in the bathtub and in other locations in the facility. Respondent acknowledged a roach problem, but claimed that she had an exterminator working on the problem and that he was due to come out and treat the facility. Respondent did not present any documentation to Ms. Blanchard to corroborate her claims regarding the exterminator, nor did she introduce such documentation at the hearing. Ms. Blanchard found plastic bags in an unlocked cabinet accessible to the children. Respondent acknowledged at the hearing that the bags were in the cabinet and further acknowledged the suffocation danger that they posed to young children. Ms. Blanchard's review of the facility's records identified missing enrollment and immunization records for the children in the home. However, Ms. Blanchard did not document the children whose records were missing and she did not determine whether, as Respondent claimed at the time and in her testimony at the hearing, any of the missing records were for students who had enrolled in Respondent's facility within the prior two weeks. Ms. Blanchard documented the results of her inspection, including the events surrounding the movement of the children to Ms. Rodgers' yard on her inspection report. The inspection report identified each of the violations that she observed, including inadequate supervision based upon Respondent's absence from the facility, unsafe storage of materials dangerous to children (i.e., plastic bags) in a location accessible to the children, evidence of roaches, incomplete enrollment and immunization records, and more than the allowed number of children in the home. Ms. Blanchard also cited Respondent's facility for the dangers posed by Ms. Rodgers' pool since the children were being taken onto Ms. Rodgers' property. With respect to the citation for having too many children, Ms. Blanchard's inspection report did not include any detailed information about the children such as their names (or initials), ages, or descriptions. The report simply stated that Ms. Blanchard counted seven children at the facility -- i.e., "3 infants, 3 preschool and 1 school age child." Ms. Blanchard's testimony at the hearing referred to only two infants, which was consistent with Respondent's testimony on that issue. As a result, the evidence is not clear and convincing that there were seven children in Respondent's care at the facility rather than the authorized six children. During the course of her inspection, Ms. Blanchard did not see any adults (other than Respondent, who arrived as Ms. Blanchard was arriving) at the facility. It is undisputed that Respondent's husband, who is the designated substitute caregiver, was not at the facility that morning. There is no credible evidence that Respondent's 22- year-old son, Abdel, was at the facility that morning. He did not testify at the hearing, and, if as Respondent claims, Abdel was at the facility that morning, Ms. Blanchard would have seen him at some point during the commotion surrounding Respondent's rushing the children out the back door or during her subsequent inspection of the facility. In any event, Abdel was not the substitute caregiver designated by Respondent. He was not even authorized to watch the children because, although he had been background screened by the Department, he had not taken the Department's mandatory child care training program and was not certified in cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). It is more likely than not that Ms. Rodgers' teenage sons were actually left to supervise the children at Respondent's facility during the time that Respondent was gone on the morning of February 27, 2003. Indeed, that is the most likely explanation of their presence at the facility and their involvement in the movement of the children to Ms. Rodgers' yard. However, the evidence on this issue is not clear and convincing. Respondent's explanation of her actions on the morning of the inspection -- i.e., that she hurried into the house upon her arrival and directed all of the children to Ms. Rodgers' yard so she could convey an important message to Ms. Rodgers -- is not credible. Her explanation of the roach droppings that Ms. Blanchard found in the bathtub -- i.e., that it was actually dirt from washing one of the children's feet -- is also not credible. By contrast, Respondent's explanation of the incomplete records -- i.e., that the missing records were for those children who had enrolled in the facility within the prior two weeks -- is reasonable. Because Ms. Blanchard's inspection report did not identify the children whose records were missing and did not document the date of their enrollment, the evidence is insufficient to prove this violation. Respondent admitted at the hearing that she "was taking a chance" by leaving the children at the facility without her husband, the designated substitute caregiver, being present. Respondent testified that she was gone only 15 minutes to drop one of her children off at school, and that she follows that same routine every day although her husband is usually at the facility while she is gone. After Ms. Blanchard completed her inspection, she discussed the results with Respondent and provided Respondent a copy of the inspection report. Ms. Blanchard then went back to her office and discussed the results of the inspection with her supervisor, Patricia Richardson. Based upon the results of the February 27, 2003, inspection and the history of noncompliance at Respondent's facility (both before and after the provisional license), Ms. Richardson determined that Respondent's license should be revoked. Thereafter, on February 28, 2003, Ms. Richardson sent a letter to Respondent informing her that her license was being revoked and advising Respondent of her right to "appeal" that decision through the administrative process.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Family Services issue a final order revoking Respondent's license to operate a family day care home. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of June, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II 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 12th day of June, 2003.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent should approve Petitioner’s application for a family day care home license.
Findings Of Fact In 1996, Petitioner lived with her husband, their newborn child, three of her husband's children from a former marriage, and two of her children from a former marriage. Petitioner's stepchildren were: (a) I.M.B., a 15-year-old male; (b) S.J.B., a 14-year-old male; and (c) S.Y.B., a 13-year-old female. Petitioner's children by her former marriage were: (a) R.D.F., a six-year-old male; and (b) D.F., a five-year-old female. At the end of the school year in 1996, Petitioner spanked her stepdaughter for reasons related to her school work. She also spanked her stepsons for school-related reasons. However, the physical punishment of the stepchildren by Petitioner was not excessive. There is no competent evidence that Petitioner beat the stepchildren leaving bruises, scars, or other disfigurement. Petitioner's husband spanked his children at times, using a switch or an extension cord. After one such occasion, Petitioner's stepdaughter asked for some rubbing alcohol to treat a bruise. Petitioner has no first-hand knowledge about the bruise. There is no persuasive evidence that Petitioner's husband ever disciplined his children so severely as to scar or disfigure them. Since 1996, Petitioner completed her training as a licensed practical nurse. She continues to work part-time in that capacity. Petitioner has also earned money babysitting for other parents. Petitioner has never used corporal punishment of any kind to discipline other people's children. Petitioner has completed all necessary training to operate a family day care home. She knows that corporal punishment is not an acceptable way to discipline children in a day care facility. She understands that when children do not behave appropriately, she may do one of the following: (a) talk to the child; (b) place the child in time-out for one minute per year of age; or (c) call the child's parent. Petitioner currently lives with her husband, their son, and Petitioner's children from her former marriage. Petitioner's stepdaughter also lives with Petitioner. Petitioner's stepdaughter is 18 years of age and will be available to serve as a substitute caretaker if Petitioner is licensed to operate a family day care home facility. One of Petitioner's stepsons, I.M.B., is deceased. The other stepson, S.J.B., is in jail. S.J.B.'s son lives with Petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent enter a final order granting Petitioner a license to operate a family day care home. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of July, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of July, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Ralph J. McMurphy, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 1601 West Gulf Atlantic Highway Wildwood, Florida 34785 Kimberly Strange-Bennett Post Office Box 58 Orange Lake, Florida 32681 Paul F. Flounlacker, Jr., Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204B Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Josie Tomayo, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue in the case is whether the registration of Thorpe Lindsay's family day care home should be revoked.
Findings Of Fact The Department is responsible for the registration and supervision of family day care homes, pursuant to Section 402.313, Florida Statutes (2007). Respondent, Thorpe Lindsey, has been registered to operate a family day care home at 2306 Savoy Drive, Orlando, Florida, since December 18, 2006. 3. On June 27, 2007; July 13, 2007; and July 26, 2007, Respondent allowed an unscreened and unapproved substitute, Sheneka Henderson, to be alone with and supervise children in the family day care home. Respondent was not present in the home on at least two of these occasions. On all three occasions, Respondent appeared after the Department's protective investigator or child care licensing supervisor noted his absence and the presence of Ms. Henderson as the caregiver.2 On July 13, 2007, Respondent was cautioned in person about the repercussions of allowing unscreened personnel to supervise children. On September 14, 2007, the Department issued an Administrative Complaint against Respondent, seeking to impose a civil penalty in the amount of $500.00 for the three instances of using an unscreened and unapproved substitute caregiver. Respondent refused to accept service of the Department's certified letter. The copy of the Administrative Complaint sent by regular U.S. Mail was not returned to the Department, and Respondent never sought a hearing or otherwise contested the allegations of the Administrative Complaint. Aside from the problem of unscreened personnel, Respondent also had a recurring problem of caring for a number of children greatly in excess of the ratios allowed by statute in his family day care home. Under any circumstances, a family day care home may provide care for no more than ten children. See § 402.302(7), Florida Statutes (2007). On June 27, 2007, the Department sent a certified letter to Respondent noting that on the previous day, the Department had received a report that Respondent was caring for between 30 and 40 children. The letter cautioned Respondent that he must immediately reduce enrollment and submit a written plan to the Department by July 10, 2007, identifying the names and birth dates of the children for whom Respondent would continue to provide care, as well as the names and birth dates of the children whom Respondent eliminated from his roster. Respondent never provided the required documentation to the Department. The Early Learning Coalition of Orange County is a public/private partnership established to ensure that children enter school ready to learn. In coordination with the Department, the Early Learning Coalition provides health and safety inspections for anyone receiving school readiness funding. Because Respondent received such funding, Eric Allen, an inspector for the Early Learning Coalition, made regular visits to the family day care home. On July 6, 2007, Mr. Allen made a routine visit to Respondent's home and found several violations, including a ratio violation, the presence of unscreened volunteers caring for children, chemicals under kitchen and bathroom sinks without door locks on the cabinets, and uncapped electrical outlets. On July 9, 2007, the Early Learning Coalition sent a letter to Respondent outlining the violations and requiring their correction pending a re-inspection of the family day care home. On July 20, 2007, Mr. Allen conducted a routine visit to Respondent's home and again found the home to be out of ratio. On July 26, 2007, the Early Learning Coalition sent a letter, signed by Donna J. Williams, director of quality services, to Respondent that stated the following, in relevant part: This letter will clear up any confusion as to the number of children you are legally allowed to care for. As a family home provider, six (6) is the maximum number of children under the age of five you are allowed to have in care at one time. If an infant is present, the maximum number of children allowable at one time is five (5). I am enclosing the state ratio chart so you may be clear on the number and age of children you are legally allowed to have in your care at one time. Since this falls under our Non-compliance Policy, you are hereby on notice that if there is any other incident where you are found in non-compliance with any Level I violation, the parents of school readiness funded children will be contacted and given the opportunity to transfer as you will be ineligible to receive school readiness funds for a period of one year. On September 7, 2007, at approximately 3:45 p.m., Mr. Allen again visited Respondent's registered family day care home. Mr. Allen found a note on the front door stating, "We are on a field trip," with contact information for parents at the bottom. Mr. Allen noted that the contact numbers on the note did not match the contact information on file at the Early Learning Coalition. He also noted that all of the windows of the house were covered with blinds or cardboard. Mr. Allen testified that he had made several prior attempts to visit the home in recent days, but that on each occasion was met with a note claiming the children were out on a "field trip." He was about to walk away from the house when he heard a baby crying inside. He rang the doorbell and knocked on the door but received no response. He called out to whomever was inside the house, "This is Eric from the Early Learning Coalition. I can hear a baby crying. You need to open the door or you are violating your provider agreement and you are in danger of being de-funded." There was still no response from inside the house. Mr. Allen walked around to the back door. He knocked on the window of the rear childcare area and repeated his warning. After several minutes, a car pulled up to the home. A woman got out of the car and approached the front door. Mr. Allen asked if she was there to pick up a child, and she answered affirmatively. She rang the doorbell but no one answered. Mr. Allen offered to call the contact number, but the woman just turned and drove away. Mr. Allen called the Early Learning Coalition's office and asked the administrative assistant to verify and call the contact number for Respondent's home. When the assistant called the number, a woman who identified herself as Respondent's sister answered and stated that the children were out on a field trip. Mr. Allen then called the contact number and asked Respondent's sister where the children were. She stated they were on a field trip to Pizza Hut. Mr. Allen told her he could hear a baby crying inside and that if the door was not opened he would call the police. Respondent's sister hung up the phone. Just as Mr. Allen's phone conversation concluded, approximately 25 minutes after he first arrived at the house, the woman in the car returned. As the woman walked up to the front door, the door was opened by Toshiba Lindsey, another of Respondent's sisters, who was holding a baby she said was her son. Mr. Allen showed Ms. Lindsey his identification and asked her why he had been left outside trying to get someone to open the door for nearly a half hour. Ms. Lindsey claimed to have been sleeping and not to have heard the knocking. Mr. Allen entered the home and started down the hallway, but Ms. Lindsey forbade him from entering one of the rooms. Mr. Allen could hear a child crying inside the room. He demanded to know whose child was behind the door. Ms. Lindsey denied there was anyone in the room. For several minutes, Mr. Allen attempted to convince Ms. Lindsey to open the door, but she continued to say that she could not open it. Mr. Allen told her to call Respondent, who was not in the house. Mr. Allen spoke to Respondent and told him that he would call the police if Ms. Lindsey did not open the door. Respondent hung up on him. Mr. Allen called 911 and requested an officer to come to the house and open the door. A moment later, the door to the room opened and another woman, Sheneka Henderson, emerged with 13 children. Neither Ms. Lindsey nor Ms. Henderson had been background screened or trained to act as caregivers. Mr. Allen recorded the names and ages of the children, then left the home. Respondent never showed up at the house while Mr. Allen was there. On September 10, 2007, the Early Learning Coalition sent Respondent a letter notifying him that he would be ineligible to receive school readiness funds for a period of one year, based on Respondent's repeated violations of mandatory state ratio requirements.
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 revoking the registration of Thorpe Lindsey to operate a family day care home. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of April, 2008, 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 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of April, 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.
