The Issue Whether Petitioner, Department of Children and Families’ (the Department), intended action to cite Respondent, Kids Village Early Learning Center, with a Class I violation and impose a fine in the amount of $500, is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact The Department is responsible for licensing and monitoring “child care facilities,” as that term is defined in section 402.302(2), Florida Statutes. Kids Village is a child care facility licensed by the Department. Kids Village is operated by Angela Mitchell and is located at 1000 West Tharpe Street, Suite 24, Tallahassee, Florida. Kids Village is located in a shopping area commonly referred to as a “strip mall,” a series of retail and office establishments located along a sidewalk with exterior entrances. A Dollar General store is located across the parking lot from the strip mall. On November 2, 2017, L.C., a two-year-old child enrolled at Kids Village, exited the facility unaccompanied and on his own volition. A stranger spotted the child in the parking lot near the Dollar General store and left her vehicle to pick up the child. A parent of a former student at Kids Village, who works in the strip mall, recognized L.C. and returned him to the facility. L.C. was absent from the facility for approximately four minutes. Teresa Walker, a teacher at Kids Village, who was working on the day of the incident, called and reported the incident to Ms. Mitchell, who was not working at the facility that day. Both Ms. Walker and Ms. Mitchell completed required incident reports and filed them with the Department. The incident was also the subject of an anonymous complaint received by the Department’s child abuse hotline the same day. Elizabeth Provost, a Department family services counselor, received both the incident reports and the complaint and began an investigation. As part of her investigation, Ms. Provost interviewed the child protective investigator who received the complaint from the abuse hotline, as well as Ms. Mitchell and Ms. Walker. Ms. Provost also viewed the facility’s security camera footage from the day of the incident. Based on her investigation, Ms. Provost determined that L.C.’s mother arrived at the facility on the morning of November 6, 2017, signed the child in at the reception desk, engaged in conversation with another employee of the facility, looked around the corner where a gate separates the reception area from a hallway leading to classrooms, then exited the facility. Afterward, security video shows L.C. exiting the facility without supervision. Based upon her investigation, Ms. Provost concluded that the facility was in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C-22.001(5), which reads, in pertinent part, as follows: Direct supervision means actively watching and directing children’s activities within the same room or designated outdoor play area, and responding to the needs of the child. Child care personnel at a facility must be assigned to provide direct supervision to a specific group of children at all times. Ms. Provost also determined the violation was a Class I violation of Department rules, which is described as “the most serious in nature, [which] pose[s] an imminent threat to a child including abuse or neglect and which could or does result in death or serious harm to the health, safety or well- being of a child.” Fla. Admin. Code R. 65C-22.010(1)(d)1. At hearing, Ms. Mitchell admitted that, on November 2, 2016, L.C. was indeed faced with a serious or imminent threat to his safety which could have resulted in injury or death. As such, Ms. Mitchell admitted the Department properly determined the incident was a Class I violation of rule 65C-22.001(5). Ms. Mitchell’s contention was that Kids Village was not completely at fault, and that the penalty assessed should be reduced to account for the mother’s negligence. L.C. was known to the staff at Kids Village as a “runner.” He experienced separation anxiety and would frequently try to follow his mother when she left the facility after dropping him off for school. Ms. Mitchell testified that L.C.’s mother had been instructed to walk L.C. to his classroom and hand him over to his teacher before leaving the facility. Ms. Mitchell faults the mother for having signed the child in on the morning of the incident, but leaving the facility without walking the child all the way to his classroom. The evidence adduced at hearing did not support that version of the facts. Ms. Walker was the only witness who testified at the final hearing who was actually at the facility on the day in question. Her recollection of the events was clear and her testimony was credible. Ms. Walker works in the “baby room,” which is located to the left of the reception area past the reception desk. The gate separating the reception area from the hallway to the classrooms is to the right of the reception desk. Ms. Walker testified that after his mother signs L.C. and his older brother in on most mornings, L.C. comes to stay with her in the baby room. Ms. Walker gives him hugs and extra attention to help overcome his anxiety, then walks him to his classroom when he is calm. On the morning in question, L.C.’s mother came into the facility and signed the children in at the reception desk. Signing a child in requires both completing a physical sign-in sheet, and an electronic interface with a computer system. While his mother was signing in the children, L.C. went to the baby room where Ms. Walker greeted him and hugged him. L.C.’s mother finished signing in the children and talking to the staff, then she turned to find both children gone. The mother “hollered out” to Ms. Walker something to the effect of “Where did the children go?” Ms. Walker replied that they had gone “to the back.” L.C.’s mother walked over to the gate separating the reception area from the classroom hallway and peered around it down the hallway. She then exited the facility. Shortly thereafter, L.C. came back through the gate, into the reception area, and exited the facility through the front door unaccompanied. L.C. was alone outside the facility in a crowded parking lot of a retail strip mall for almost five minutes. He had crossed the parking lot during morning traffic to almost reach the Dollar General store. L.C. was spotted by a stranger who got out of their own vehicle to pick up the child. L.C. was recognized, and returned to the facility, by someone who worked at a nearby store. One does not need an overactive imagination to list the dangers that could have befallen the child during that brief time period. Kids Village has taken corrective action since the incident and installed a security system on the front door which requires a person to push a button on a panel next to the door in order to exit the facility. There was no testimony regarding any prior citations against Kids Village for violation of child care licensing standards. The investigative summary prepared by Ms. Provost states, “Kid’s Village has one prior with the Department earlier in 2016[;] there were no indicators of inadequate supervision.” Rule 65C-22.010(2)(e) provides appropriate disciplinary sanctions to be imposed for Class I violations, as follows: For the first and second violation of a Class I standard, the department shall, upon applying the factors in Section 402.310(1), F.S., issue an administrative complaint imposing a fine of not less than $100 nor more than $500 per day for each violation, and may impose other disciplinary sanctions in addition to the fine. Section 402.310(1)(b) provides: In determining the appropriate disciplinary action to be taken for a violation as provided in paragraph (a), the following factors shall be considered: The severity of the violation, including the probability that death or serious harm to the health or safety of any person will result or has resulted, the severity of the actual or potential harm, and the extent to which the provisions of ss. 401.301-402.319 have been violated. Actions taken by the licensee or registrant to correct the violation or remedy complaints. Any previous violations of the licensee or registrant. In determining to impose a $500 penalty, Ms. Provost considered the subsequent remedial action taken by Kids Village to prevent future escapes by children in its care. She also considered the serious threat of harm or death posed to L.C. due to inadequate supervision by Kids Village. Imposition of the maximum fine for the Class I violation is supported by the record in this case. Neither the statute nor the rule direct the Department to consider the negligence of persons other than the licensee in determining the appropriate penalty to be imposed for a Class I violation.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the evidence presented at final hearing, and based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Respondent, Department of Children and Families, finding Kids Village Early Learning Center committed a Class I violation of child care facility licensing standards and imposing a monetary sanction of $500. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of August, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of August, 2017. COPIES FURNISHED: Lisa M. Eilertsen, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Families Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 (eServed) Camille Larson, Esquire Department of Children and Families 2383 Phillips Road, Room 231 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed) Angela Mitchell Kids Village Early Learning Center Suite 24 1000 West Tharpe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303 (eServed) Michael Andrew Lee, Esquire Department of Children and Families 2383 Phillips Road, Room 231 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed) Mike Carroll, Secretary Department of Children and Families Building 1, Room 202 1317 Windwood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 (eServed) Rebecca Kapusta, General Counsel Department of Children and Families Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 (eServed)
The Issue The issue is whether to deny Respondent's application to renew its child care facility license and impose an administrative fine for the reasons stated in the Department's letter dated September 16, 2016.
Findings Of Fact Ms. Garcia operated a child care facility at 5600 Old Cheney Highway, Orlando, for almost two years. A probationary license expired on September 21, 2016. This proceeding concerns Ms. Garcia's application for renewal of her license. The Department has regulatory authority over the licensing of child care facilities. To ensure compliance with regulations, the Department conducts periodic inspections of licensed facilities. Unless violations are observed during an inspection, the Department's Orlando office annually conducts two routine and one license renewal inspection of each of the 395 licensed facilities in Orange and Seminole Counties. If a license is placed on probation because of violations, inspections are made at least once a month during the probationary period to ensure the deficiencies are corrected. Violations by a licensee of Department rules or a statute are treated as Class 1, 2, or 3 violations. A Class 1 violation is the most serious, as it "pose[s] an imminent threat to a child including abuse or neglect and which could or does result in death or serious harm to the health, safety or well- being of a child." Fla. Admin. Code R. 65C-22.010(1)(d). For example, it is a Class 1 violation for a facility operator to allow unsupervised individuals who have no current background screening to be with children. This is because all child care personnel must have a current Level 2 background screening performed before they begin work in the facility. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 65C-22.006(4)(d)1. In 2015, Respondent's facility was inspected on at least four occasions: January 13, March 20, May 18, and August 11. On each occasion, violations of Department rules and relevant statutes were observed. Because the first three inspections were performed by a non-Spanish speaking counselor, Ms. Garcia requested that her facility be inspected by a counselor who spoke Spanish. In June 2015, the Department assigned Roy Garcia (no relation to Ms. Garcia) to perform future inspections, as he is bi-lingual. Later, Ms. Garcia expressed her dissatisfaction with Roy Garcia as well. On January 15, 2016, Roy Garcia conducted an inspection of Respondent's facility. Based on violations observed during the inspection, on February 19, 2016, the Department issued an Administrative Complaint seeking to impose a $270.00 fine. See Dep't Ex. 2. The Administrative Complaint cited the following violations observed during the inspection: Two violations of sections 402.302(3) and (15) and 402.305(2) and Florida Administrative Code Rule 62C-22.006(4)(d) by failing to perform required background screening for two employees. Two violations of rule 65C-22.006(d) and (e) by failing to have background screening documents in the staff files. Three violations of the staff/ratio rule, as required by section 402.305(3) and (4) and rule 65C-22.001(4). Two violations of section 402.302(3) and rule 65C-22.001(5) by allowing a volunteer to supervise children without a qualified employee being present. Four violations of rule 65C-22.006(2) by failing to have student health examinations on file. Four violations of rule 65C-22.006(2) by failing to have required student immunization records on file. At hearing, Ms. Garcia took the position that the charges were not warranted. However, in April 2016, she paid the $270.00 fine. Even though the Department informed her that she could request a hearing, a request was not filed. Therefore, the agency action became final. On April 29, 2016, Roy Garcia conducted another inspection of the facility. Based on violations observed during the inspection, on June 30, 2016, the Department issued an Administrative Complaint seeking to impose a $125.00 fine and to convert her annual license to probationary status, given the number of recurring violations during the preceding year. See Dep't Ex. 3. The Administrative Complaint cited the following violations observed during the inspection: Three violations of section 402.305(3) and (4) and rule 65C-22.001(4) by failing to maintain a ratio of two staff personnel for each five infants under one year of age. One violation of rules 65C-22.006 and 65C-22.010 for failing to have background screening documents and employment history checks in the facility files. At hearing, Ms. Garcia disagreed with the merits of these charges. However, in August 2016, she paid a $125.00 fine. Even though the Department informed her she could request a hearing to contest the charges, a request was not filed. Therefore, the agency action became final. A probation-status license was issued on July 31, 2016, with an expiration date of September 21, 2016, which coincided with the date on which her original annual license expired. See Dep't Ex. 4. A probation-status license is issued for a short period of time during which the licensee must come back into compliance. See § 402.310(1)(a)2., Fla. Stat. On August 4, 2016, Ms. Garcia filed an application for renewal of her license. Because the license was on probation, follow-up inspections of the facility were conducted by Roy Garcia on August 26, 29, 30, and 31, 2016. Multiple inspections were conducted because he believed the safety of the children was at risk. Although Ms. Garcia contends these inspections constituted an "abuse of authority," the Department routinely performs follow-up inspections if a facility's license is on probation. Multiple violations were observed during these inspections. See Dep't Ex. 1. They included the following: Four Class I violations of section 402.305(2)(a) by allowing unscreened individuals to be left alone to supervise children in the facility's care. These violations call for a fine of $400.00, or $100.00 per violation. Three Class 2 violations of rule 65C- 22.002(3)(a) by failing to maintain 20 or 35 square feet per child in areas occupied by children. These violations call for a fine of $180.00, or $60.00 per violation. Three Class 2 violations of section 402.305(4) and rule 65C-22.001(4)(a) and (b) by failing to maintain a sufficient staff to children ratio. These violations call for a fine of $300.00, or $100.00 per violation. Two Class 2 violations of rule 65C- 22.006(4)(d)1. by failing to have Level 2 background screening documentation on file. These violations call for a fine of $150.00, or $75.00 per violation. Two Class 2 violations of rule 65C- 22.006(4)(d) by failing to have employee CF- FSP Form 5131 on file. These violations call for a fine of $150.00, or $75.00 per violation. Two Class 2 violations of rule 65C- 22.006(4)(d)2. by failing to have employment history checks on file. These violations call for a fine of $150.00, or $75.00 per violation. One Class 2 violation of rule 65C- 22.003(2)(a) for a facility employee having not completed the 40-clock-hour Introductory Child Care Training. This violation calls for a fine of $75.00. One Class 3 violation of rule 65C- 22.006(2)(a) and (d) by failing to have on file student health examinations for all children enrolled in the facility for at least 30 days. This violation calls for a fine of $40.00. One Class 3 violation of rule 65C- 22.006(2)(c) and (d) by failing to have on file immunization records for all children enrolled in the facility for at least 30 days. This violation calls for a fine of $40.00. The Department's letter of September 16, 2016, proposes to impose an administrative fine in the amount of $1,565.00. See § 402.310(1)(a)1., Fla. Stat. Ms. Garcia did not challenge the amount or manner in which the fine was calculated. Rather, she contends the charges were not justified and therefore no fine should be imposed. However, by clear and convincing evidence, the Department has proven the allegations described in its letter. After each inspection, Roy Garcia explained the nature of each violation and how it must be corrected in order to comply with Department rules. Despite his efforts to help Ms. Garcia, repeat violations were observed. Unscreened individuals were supervising the children on two of the four days. Therefore, it was necessary for Roy Garcia to call the parents and ask that they come to the facility and pick up their children. After observing staff ratio violations on August 29, Roy Garcia returned the next day and observed the same violation. He also observed unsupervised volunteers alone with children three times (August 29, 30, and 31) during the same week.2/ When Roy Garcia asked Ms. Garcia why she was not following his instructions, she would argue with him, deny that any violation occurred, and contend he was out to shut her down and discriminate against her because she was an "entrepreneurial woman." While conceding that she made "mistakes," Ms. Garcia contended Roy Garcia was harassing her and simply trying to find violations when he inspected the facility. She also contends the violations were not serious, were technical in nature, and did not threaten the safety or welfare of the children. However, Class 1 violations were repeatedly observed. Ms. Garcia stressed the fact that her family is dependent on the income she derives from operating the facility, and she will not be able to support her family if the license is not renewed. She added that she is now in limbo on whether to prepay the rent on the building where her current facility is located. Had the facility been operated in compliance with Department rules, these concerns would not be present. Ms. Garcia also contended that Roy Garcia would not allow her husband, Elmer, to substitute for a missing teacher. However, Elmer works in the kitchen, drives a facility vehicle, and at that time did not have the minimum training necessary to qualify as a facility employee who supervises children. Ms. Garcia further contended she was never given appropriate training on how to determine if a prospective employee has current background screening, especially since she has very few computer skills. This assertion is contrary to the accepted evidence, as she could have simply called the Department's Orlando office to verify the eligibility of prospective employees or volunteers before they were hired. Notably, even after a series of administrative complaints were issued concerning unscreened employees/volunteers, as of January 5, 2017, four persons who had worked or volunteered at the facility still had no Level 2 background screening. Ms. Garcia presented the testimony of four mothers whose children used the facility when the license was active. All were pleased with the care of their children. They especially appreciate the fact that the facility is open until midnight, is located in an area convenient to where they live or work, and charges less than other child care facilities in the area.
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 the application to renew Respondent's license and imposing an administrative fine of $1,565.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of February, 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 9th day of February, 2017.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner is entitled to the renewal of her license as the operator of a child care facility.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was licensed to operate a child care facility continuously from December 31, 1985, through June 30, 1997. Several licenses issued by Respondent to Petitioner were provisional due to Respondent's concerns about Petitioner's compliance with various statutes and rules governing child care facilities. (References to Respondent include the predecessor agency to the Department of Children and Family Services.) On June 5, 1997, Respondent notified Petitioner that it would not renew her child care facility license when it expired on June 30, 1997. Presumably because Petitioner timely requested a hearing, Respondent allowed her to continue to operate her facility past June 30. However, on July 3, 1997, Respondent issued an order of emergency suspension pending review of the decision not to renew. Petitioner has not since operated her child care facility. The two major issues in this case involve Petitioner's repeated failures to employ sufficient staff to satisfy the staff-to-child ratios and repeated failures to ensure that staff directly supervise all children. Although these standards are related in purpose, the staffing-ratio standard requires that a certain number of staffpersons be responsible for a maximum number of children, with a lower ratio for younger children, and the direct-supervision standard requires in most instances that a staffperson be in the same room as the children. As a result of 31 facility inspections, Respondent identified 40 violations of these two standards. Five of these inspections resulted in Respondent filing administrative complaints, in response to which Petitioner eventually paid relatively small fines. The remaining 26 inspections resulted in nothing more serious than Respondent issuing warning letters. The first Administrative Complaint, which is dated February 8, 1993, alleges that Respondent conducted inspections on August 9 and September 22, 1992, and found each time insufficient staff to satisfy the required ratio of staff to children. The Administrative Complaint alleges that Respondent sent Petitioner a letter on October 2, 1992, warning that further infractions of the staffing ratio could result in a fine, but Respondent's inspectors found on December 16, 1992, another staffing-ratio violation, as well as a direct-supervision violation. The Administrative Complaint seeks a fine of $30. Petitioner did not contest the allegations of the February 8 Administrative Complaint. Instead, she paid the $30 fine on April 19, 1993. Respondent filed another Administrative Complaint dated June 9, 1993. The Administrative Complaint alleges that a 15-year-old staffperson had not undergone the necessary screening. Three months later, Respondent converted the Administrative Complaint to a warning due to Petitioner's confusion concerning the screening requirements applicable to such a young staffperson. Respondent filed a third Administrative Complaint on December 9, 1993. The Administrative Complaint alleges that, on November 17, 1993, three staffpersons were supervising 37 children, in violation of the staffing ratios and Petitioner's licensed capacity. Issuing a warning as to the capacity violation, Respondent sought a $75 fine for the staffing-ratio violation. Petitioner did not contest the December 9 Administrative Complaint. Instead, she paid the $75 fine on February 17, 1994. Respondent filed a fourth Administrative Complaint on February 17, 1995. The Administrative Complaint alleges, among other things, that Petitioner did not have a sink with the required number of compartments to allow the kind of food preparation that she was undertaking at the facility. The parties settled this allegation without the imposition of a fine or other discipline. Respondent filed a fifth Administrative Complaint on May 23, 1996. The Administrative Complaint alleges that Petitioner's employees propped up three feeding bottles for infants. The Administrative Complaint seeks a $50 fine. Petitioner paid the $50 fine on June 27, 1996. Respondent filed the sixth and seventh Administrative Complaints on February 11 and 26, 1997. Petitioner contested these allegations, as well as the allegations contained in an eighth Administrative Complaint dated March 18, 1997. All three complaints were consolidated for a single hearing. The partial final order resulting from the hearing on the three complaints imposed $400 in fines against Petitioner for two violations of the staffing ratios (alleged in the February 11 Administrative Complaint), one violation of the staffing ratios (alleged in the February 26 Administrative Complaint), and one violation of the direct-supervision requirement (alleged in the February 26 Administrative Complaint). The partial final order dismissed the March 18 Administrative Complaint and remanded allegations of inadequate training of staff. (The administrative law judge declined the remand, and the Respondent has appealed the order declining remand.) In addition to the above instances of violations of staffing ratios or direct supervision, Respondent also proved numerous other instances of violations of these two minimum- care standards. Respondent proved that Petitioner violated the following minimum-care standards: May 7, 1986 (staffing ratio); May 13, 1987 (staffing ratio and capacity limit); June 20, 1987 (staffing ratio); November 18, 1987 (staffing ratio); April 14, 1988 (staffing ratio); May 6, 1988 (staffing ratio); June 7, 1988 (staffing ratio); August 16, 1988 (staffing ratio); May 16, 1989 (staffing ratio and direct supervision); March 2, 1990 (staffing ratio); June 22, 1990 (direct supervision); October 2, 1990 (staffing ratio); October 5, 1990 (staffing ratio and direct supervision); November 5, 1990 (staffing ratio and direct supervision); November 8, 1990 (staffing ratio); November 15, 1990 (staffing ratio); May 14, 1991 (direct supervision); December 16, 1992 (staffing ratio and direct supervision); March 26, 1993 (staffing ratio); April 7, 1994 (staffing ratio and direct supervision); June 29, 1994 (direct supervision); July 28, 1995 (staffing ratio and direct supervision); December 6, 1995 (staffing ratio); January 28, 1997 (staffing ratio and direct supervision); February 17, 1997 (staffing ratio and direct supervision); June 25, 1997 (staffing ratio); and June 30, 1997 (staffing ratio). Respondent issued inspection reports for all of the violations listed in the preceding paragraph and provided Petitioner with copies of this documentation. Respondent periodically wrote letters to Petitioner advising her of the legal requirements as to staff ratios and direct supervision. Respondent repeatedly offered Petitioner technical advice regarding these crucial minimum standards for the provision of child care. There is no possibility that Petitioner did not understand the staffing-ratio and direct-supervision requirements. Petitioner's noncompliance constituted nothing less than defiance of these two minimum-care requirements over a period of 11 years. From 1986 through 1990, Petitioner violated these two standards 16 times. In 1991, she violated them only once. However, she violated them three times in 1992--resulting in the first administrative fine for the violation of these standards. Petitioner violated these standards twice in 1993--the second violation resulting in the second administrative fine for the violation of these standards. Petitioner violated the staffing-ratio and direct- supervision standards twice in 1994 and twice in 1995, but not at all in 1996. However, she violated these standards six times in 1997, including twice after the issuance of a third administrative complaint concerning the violation of these standards. These last two, particularly ill-timed violations, led directly to the decision not to renew her license and the later decision not to allow her to operate pending review of the nonrenewal decision. Although Petitioner has greatly reduced the number of her violations of the staffing-ratio and direct-supervision standards, she has nonetheless refused to comply with these important requirements designed to ensure the safety of the children for whom she is caring. Her violation of these standards while cases were still pending over earlier violations betrays a hardened resolve not to comply with these two standards. Respondent also proved that Petitioner repeatedly violated other requirements, such as for timely screening of employees and recordkeeping. However, Petitioner's repeated failures to comply with the staffing-ratio and direct- supervision requirements are sufficient to warrant the denial of her application for renewal of her license or, in the alternative, the revocation of her license.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Family Services enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for renewal of her child care facility license. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of April, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of April, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce A. Tischler Greene & Tischler, P.A. 10175 Six Mile Cypress Parkway Suite 4 Fort Myers, Florida 33912 Eugenie G. Rehak District Legal Counsel Department of Children and Family Services Post Office Box 60085 Fort Myers, Florida 33906 Gregory D. Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Richard A. Doran, General Counsel Office of the General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
