The Issue Whether sufficient grounds exist to justify denial of Petitioner's license renewal application to operate a child care facility.
Findings Of Fact Based on the persuasive and credible evidence presented, the undersigned concludes that: The Department proved that the violations outlined in the September 25, 2015, "Checklist" (Department's Exhibit 3) existed on September 25, 2015. Further, that on October 1, 2015, it was clear under section 402.308 that all standards required by sections 402.301 through 402.319 and chapter 65C-22 had not been met. Petitioner had not corrected any of the Checklist violations as of October 1, 2015, and several material violations, which justify disciplinary action, existed and were still not corrected by October 9, 2015. Based on the credible and persuasive evidence, the undersigned finds that the Class I violation under section 14-04 of the "Checklist" was not brought into compliance by October 9, 2015. Nonetheless, the undersigned is constrained by the explicit and clear provisions of rule 65C-22.010, which sets forth a mandatory progressive disciplinary scheme that the Department was obligated to follow. This rule was created by and must be read in pari materia with the enabling statute, section 402.310(1)(c), which provides: The department shall adopt rules to: 1. Establish the grounds under which the department may deny, suspend, or revoke a license or registration or place a licensee or registrant on probation status for violations of ss. 402.301-402.319. (Emphasis added). The rule adopted to implement this provision, 65C-22, expressly provides that a license may only be revoked or denied for a Class I violation for the third or fourth violation in a two-year period.19/ Since this was the first Class I violation for Petitioner in a two-year period, the mandatory progressive disciplinary sanctions of rule 65C-22.010(2)(e)1.a. applied and had to be followed. The Department was entitled to impose a fine of not less than $100, nor more than $500 per day, for each violation and had the discretion to impose other disciplinary sanctions in addition to the fine.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the undersigned is constrained by the progressive disciplinary standards mandated by rule 65C-22.010(2)(e)1.a. to recommend the following: Children's Academy Preschool Inc., d/b/a Children's Academy Preschool I, be issued its renewal license converted to probation status as permitted by section 402.310(1)(a)2. See Dep't of Child. & Fams. v. Davis Fam. Day Care, Case No. 11-0916 (Fla. DOAH Oct. 25, 2011; Fla. DCF Feb. 8, 2012). As conditions of the probation status, unannounced periodic inspections by the Department should be made, requiring strict compliance with licensing standards. Furthermore, as a condition of probation, adequate monthly pest control and cleaning services must be provided to the extent reasonably necessary to control the problem and eliminate the exposure of children and staff to health or safety concerns. Conversion to probation status should be imposed for a minimum of six (6) months from the date of the Department's final order. Children's Academy Preschool Inc., d/b/a Children's Academy Preschool I, should be assessed a daily administrative fine of $100 for the period from September 25 through October 9, 2015, for a total amount of $1,400, to be paid as a condition of probation within 60 days. In closing, this recommendation comports with the progressive discipline required by rule 65C-22.010. It also strikes the best balance of respecting the legislative intent to provide child care services to the economically disadvantaged, while at the same time protecting the safety and welfare of the children using a child care facility which had been used by the local community for over 15 years. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of March, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT L. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of March, 2016.
The Issue Should Respondent have her application to renew her child care facility license denied by Petitioner for reasons set forth in the Administrative Complaint brought by Petitioner? §§ 402.308 and 402.310, Fla. Stat. (2005).
Findings Of Fact The Department of Children and Family Services has jurisdiction over Respondent by virtue of the provisions set forth in Sections 402.301-402.319, Florida Statutes (2005). The Respondent, Sherlane Craig, is licensed to operate Sunniland Nursery and Preschool, as a child care facility in compliance with Chapter 402, Florida Statutes (2005), and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 65C-22. Petitioner is the administrative agency of the State of Florida, charged with the duty to enforce and administer the provisions of Chapter 402, Florida Statutes (2005). Petitioner issued a child care facility certificate of license to Respondent for the Sunniland Nursery and Preschool effective June 1, 2004, through June 1, 2005. Petitioner issued Respondent a child care facility certificate of license that was provisional for the period June 1, 2005, through August 1, 2005. The provisional license was sent to Respondent on June 7, 2005, and was received by Respondent later in June 2005. In addition to the license itself, the transmittal letter to Respondent stated: Enclosed is the provisional license from the Department of Children and Families to operate a childcare facility. A provisional license is being issued at this time based on the facility's continued non-compliance with the state's minimum standards. Specifically the facility was cited five times during the last licensing year for non-compliance regarding the maintenance of fall zone material on the playground. The Department has offered suggestions on creating a framing system to hold fall zone material in place. As of today the Department has been unable to verify compliance. This license is valid until August 1, 2005. An annual license will be issued when all of the above requirements have been met. The license is not transferable to another owner or any other location. If at some point in the future you discontinue operation of your facility, we would appreciate you notifying our childcare licensing office. * * * In advance of the decision to provide Respondent with a provisional license, Petitioner had performed inspections of the facility on May 2, 18, and 24, 2005. On June 8 and June 10, 2005, additional inspections were made at the facility. The May 18 and May 24, 2005 inspections revealed problems with the fall zone on the playground that was the subject of the letter informing Respondent that she had been issued a provisional license. The May 24, 2005, investigative report referred to as a reinspection checklist made mention of the citation for the fall zone during previous inspections. The June 8, 2005, inspection continued to note a problem with the playground area and the fact that Petitioner had issued Respondent a provisional license for continued non- compliance by the failure to maintain the proper cover or protective surface in the fall zone area on the playground. The June 10, 2005, report on the inspection did not mention the fall zone on the playground. More importantly, Respondent testified without being refuted that the fall zone area on the playground was corrected on a date beyond June 8, 2005, the more recent inspection date noting non-compliance for conditions on the playground. To that end, during a visit on June 29, 2005, Dinah Gallon and Kathy Schmitz Petitioner's employees found the conditions of the outdoor play area with the addition of the sand to be satisfactory. Dinah Gallon is a license counselor for Leon County, employed by Petitioner. Respondent also presented evidence in the form of an invoice from Esposito's Nursery concerning the purchase of "2/3 cu yd of coarse sand" and for its installation. That invoice was dated June 22, 2005. On July 8, 2005, Respondent wrote Joseph Alexander, Childcare Services Supervisor, District Two, Department of Children and Family Services, concerning the status of the playground called into question under the terms of the provisional license. That correspondence was received at District Two on July 11, 2005. It stated: Responding to previous instruction from your office to pad our playground with sand in an effort to add protection, in the way of ground cushioning, for our attendants; I have five loads of large gravel, beach sand delivered and spread through our outdoor play area. In the instruction I received it was suggested that barriers be placed around the areas where sand was necessary in an attempt to prevent its erosion. Upon purchasing the large gravel, beach sand from Esposito's, I was informed that barriers for this particular sand was not necessary due to the fact that the sand would absorb the water therefore would not wash away. * * * Although Respondent explained the difficulty experienced in providing resilient and proper cover for the fall areas near the playground equipment, she has not denied the lack of compliance over time with the requirement to maintain a safe fall zone by providing appropriate cover material in those areas. In response to the problem, the type of sand more recently placed has been less prone to erode. Aside from the lack of adequate maintenance of fall zone material on the playground, it is the failure to meet child ratio standards and the failure to provide adequate supervision as observed in the more recent inspections that has led Petitioner to bring the Administrative Complaint, which could lead to the denial of the annual license renewal. The Administrative Complaint is also drawn in recognition of the past history by the Respondent of violations of various kinds. In the category of what is described in the Administrative Complaint as "current violations," the May 2, 2005, inspection of the facility revealed non-compliance with Section 402.305(4), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C-22.001(4)(a) and (b). In particular, the one 1:4 ratio of staff to children for 0-to-12-month-old children required was not met, in that the ratio found was 1:6. The two- year-old category which called for a 1:11 ratio was not complied with, in that the ratio was 1:12 at the facility. Two of the three rooms in which the children were found were out of compliance with the ratio requirement. These problems were corrected on the date of inspection. On May 18, 2005, in a return visit to the facility, the inspection revealed continuing problems in relation to staff to children ratios under the statutory and rule provisions that have been previously described. In this visit, the 0-12 month category calling for a ratio of 1:4 was in actuality 1:5. The mixed group involving 1-to-5-year-olds was not in compliance in that it had a ratio 2:23. In a second observation involving the 0-to-12-months-age group, the ratio was then 1:6, instead of the called for 1:4. Every classroom was found out of compliance with the needed ratio upon this re-inspection. The problem was corrected when additional staff arrived to cover the classes. On May 24, 2005, when the facility was inspected there were continuing ratio problems contrary to the statute and rule. Among the observations, there was one in the initial contact calling for a 1:4 ratio for infants. The ratio found was 1:5. A mixed group of one to five-year-olds calling for a ratio of 1:6, in fact had a ratio of 2:21. All rooms observed were out of compliance with the ratio standards during the first observation. Upon the last observation of the rooms, corrections had been made and the rooms were in compliance. On that same visit, the facility was not compliant with Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C-22.001(5)(a), (b), and (d). It was noted that there was "A classroom of two-year-old children that had no direct supervision. There were three napping in a room and no adult was present." These conditions related to supervision were corrected at the time of the inspection. On June 8, 2005, when an inspection was made at the facility there was a problem found in relation to Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C-22.001(5)(a), (b), and (d). It was observed that the children had gone to Levy Park with one adult present, when an additional adult was needed to supervise the outing. On June 10, 2005, at the next inspection of the facility continuing problems with ratios were found contrary to the statute and rule. On this occasion, two of the three classrooms observed were out of compliance during the initial observation. During a second observation, the infant room remained out of compliance with the ratio standards. The initial observation for the 0-to-12-month-old infants showed a ratio of 1:5, when the ratio called for was 1:4. On the second observation for that age group, the ratio found was 1:4. There was also a problem related to non-compliance with Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C-22.001(5)(a), (b), and (d), in that "Direct supervision of children in the [2 year old] group was inadequate in that [while the provider of the two year old group assisted children in the bathroom, the remainder of her [sic] was left unattended]." By way of history, as far back as July 31, 2000, problems were observed at the facility in relation to non- compliance with standards pertaining to direct supervision. Over time, problems of compliance with ratio standards were also found. A similar pattern was found on August 4, 2000, December 8, 2000, August 7, 2001, April 2, 2002, August 6, 2002, January 30, 2004, and April 27, 2005. Other forms of violation were also found on those dates and additional dates as well. Significantly, in the past, formal discipline has been imposed against Respondent. On April 8, 2002, a $100.00 fine was imposed against Respondent by the Leon County Health Department, predecessor to Petitioner. The basis for that administrative fine was "Your center was found operating over capacity with 46 children (19 children at the center and 26 children at Levy Park). Your current capacity is 45." That was as of August 10, 2001. On April 2, 2002, a visit had also been made in which it was discovered that the number of children present was 48 as opposed to the capacity of 45. On June 3, 2002, the Leon County Health Department imposed a $50.00 fine associated with the May 28, 2002, inspection in which it was found that one of the rooms had children in which the ratio of staff to children was not in compliance. On October 31, 2002, the Leon County Health Department imposed a $100.00 fine premised upon non-compliance with ratio standards on September 30, 2002. On February 6, 2004, Petitioner brought an Administrative Complaint against Respondent. This was premised upon non-compliance with ratio standards on January 30, 2004, and February 6, 2004. A $1,000.00 fine was imposed, consistent with the proposed administrative fine suggested in the Administrative Complaint. In each instance recounted, the administrative fines were paid by the Respondent. Petitioner's Composite Exhibit numbered 1, which sets out the inspection reports during the period contemplated by the overall Administrative Complaint, demonstrates that Petitioner through its employees explained the nature of the problems to Respondent and provided her copies of the inspection reports. By these arrangements, Respondent was reminded of the need to comply with the requirements related to the license. Given the findings made during the inspections, those reminders were frequently stated, to the extent that Respondent could not reasonably contend that she was unaware of her obligation to comply with the law. Concerning the internal process within the Petitioner Agency as to the classification of violations, there is no formal rule. The response to the violations from the policy perspective is to perceive the staff ratio and supervision issues as being more serious than other forms of violations. Class 1 violations are those posing a more immediate threat to safety and harm to the children in a facility. Under Petitioner's internal policy staff ratio and supervision, violations fall within Class 1.
Recommendation Upon the consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered denying Respondent's child care facility license. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of February, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 27th day of February, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Lee Dougherty, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 2639 North Monroe Street, Suite 104 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Deveron Brown, Esquire Brown and Associates, LLC 223 East Virginia Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gregory Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204B 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Slye, Acting General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
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)
