The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner is entitled to have her home licensed and registered as a family day care home under the provision of Chapters 402 and 435, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact On October 17, 2001, Petitioner, Betty Baumstark, submitted an application for a license to operate a family day care home at her residence. On November 29, 2001, the Department conducted an institutional staffing meeting to consider Petitioner's application. During the institutional staffing, the staff recommended that Petitioner's application for a license to operate a family day care home at her residence be denied. Although the institutional staffing committee made a recommendation regarding Petitioner's application, the Department's licensing specialist and supervisor made the final decision regarding the family day care home license. More than two months after the Department's institutional staffing, on February 8, 2002, the Department notified Petitioner by letter that her application to operate a family day care home was denied. The denial letter advised Petitioner that the family day care home license was denied based on the following grounds: (a) Abuse Report 2000-045218 indicated that Petitioner gave temporary custody of her son to friends on or about August 8, 1999, and that Petitioner's friends stated that they asked for the child because Petitioner "could not and would not care" for him; (b) Abuse Report 1999-095828 was closed with some indicators of inadequate supervision with caretaker present; (c) a domestic violence injunction was issued in 1997 against Petitioner's fiancé, Michael Canty; and (d) Petitioner had stated that she had experimented with drugs. The Department does not allege any other basis for denial of the license. Accordingly, it is found that, except for any requirements and minimum standards covered by those allegations, Petitioner met all the requirements and minimum standards necessary for licensure as a family day care home. With regard to the allegations in the 2000 Abuse Report, Petitioner did, in fact, give temporary custody of her son to Greg Davis in August 1999, while she was pregnant with her second child. The reason Petitioner gave Mr. Davis temporary custody was because her son acted out his hostility and became unmanageable. Concerned about her son, Petitioner actively sought assistance from various community resources to help her son, but was unsuccessful in doing so. After becoming aware of the situation with Petitioner's son, Mr. Davis, a friend of Petitioner and Michael Canty, offered to allow Petitioner’s son to live with him in an effort to improve the boy’s behavior and performance is school. Because Petitioner had been unsuccessful in obtaining any assistance to address her son's problems, she agreed to allow him to stay with Mr. Davis because she believed it was in her son’s best interests. In fact, during the time Petitioner’s son has lived with Mr. Davis, there has been a significant and positive improvement in the boy’s behavior and his grades in school. Petitioner's son is still living with Mr. Davis and has continued to do well in that setting. Given her son's progress and improvement, Petitioner has allowed him to remain with Mr. Davis. However, Petitioner has not abandoned her son and is still very involved in his life. Petitioner has a good relationship with her son and has maintained contact with him through regular visits and telephone conversations. Petitioner never stated that she could not and would not care for her son. The 1999 Abuse Report of inadequate supervision is based on a limited portion of the investigation which reported that Petitioner was called to pick up her son from a treatment facility and that she failed to pick up her child. This report makes no claim that anyone from the Department or the treatment facility ever spoke to Petitioner and told her to pick up her son from the treatment facility. Moreover, the credible testimony of Petitioner is that she was never contacted and told her that her son was being discharged from the facility and needed to be picked up. During the time period covered in the 1999 Abuse Report, as noted in that report, Petitioner’s son was in the custody of his father and stepmother and not in the custody of Petitioner. The domestic violence injunction referenced in the denial letter names Michael Canty as a party in that proceeding. Mr. Canty was Petitioner’s fiancé at the time of the hearing and, in the event the license was issued, Mr. Canty, who lived with Petitioner, was listed as the person who would be present at the family day care home to assist in Petitioner’s absence. As alleged in the denial letter, a domestic injunction was issued against Mr. Canty in 1997. However, there is no indication of the underlying factual basis for issuance of that injunction. Nothing in the domestic violence injunction, dated November 6, 1997, mentions that any violence had occurred or that the interests of the children in question had been harmed. Moreover, in a subsequently issued order in that case, it is noted that Mr. Canty's ex-fiancée, the person who initiated the injunction proceedings, withdrew her supporting affidavit. According to the credible testimony of Mr. Canty, his ex-fiancée obtained an injunction so that she could take the couple’s children to another city and not because he had committed an act of violence against her. During the years Mr. Canty and his ex-fiancée lived together, there were never any complaints filed with the police that indicate that Mr. Canty engaged in conduct that constitutes domestic violence nor were the police ever called to their home. The Department presented no evidence to the contrary. At some point during one of the investigations, there was an accusation that Petitioner used drugs. In response to a question from someone from "HRS" who talked to her, Petitioner told the person that she had experimented with drugs. Petitioner's experimentation with drugs was limited to smoking marijuana when she was fourteen years old, twelve or thirteen years prior to the hearing in this proceeding. Since that time, Petitioner has not experimented with or used illegal drugs. In 1999, Petitioner submitted to drug testing as a condition of employment with the YMCA and both of the tests were negative. The Department’s notification of denial of Petitioner’s application was more than ninety (90) days from the date the Department received Petitioner's application. The Department made no written request to Petitioner for any additional information concerning her application, but claims that the request for additional information was made by a Department employee during a conversation that employee had with Petitioner. However, the Department employee who allegedly requested that Petitioner provide additional information on the domestic violence injunction involving Mr. Canty did not testify at hearing. Moreover, the Department employees who testified at hearing had not requested any additional information from Petitioner and did not know whether any other Department employee had requested such information from Petitioner. Contrary to the Department's claim, the credible testimony of Petitioner was that the Department never requested or asked her to provide additional information to supplement her application. The Department failed to act on Petitioner’s application within ninety days of receiving it. This statutory time period was not extended because the Department did not request that Petitioner provide additional information regarding her application. Having failed to timely act on Petitioner’s application, the Department is required to grant a family day care home license to Petitioner. Even if the Department had timely acted on Petitioner's application, the substantive bases upon which it seeks to deny the family day care home have not been established in this record.
Recommendation Base on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Children and Family Services enter a final order granting Petitioner a license to operate a family day care home. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of August, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 30th day of August, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: David P. Rankin, Esquire 14502 North Dale Mabry Boulevard Suite 300 Tampa, Florida 33618 Ralph J. McMurphy, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 1601 West Gulf Atlantic Highway Wildwood, Florida 34785-8158 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 this matter is whether the Department of Children and Families should deny Respondent’s application for registration as a family day care home.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with regulating providers that are licensed or registered as family day care homes. Family day care homes must register annually with the Department. See § 402.313(1)(a), Fla. Stat. Respondent is owned and operated by Cherrie Scally. Ms. Scally has registered Respondent as a family day care home since 1997. In or about August 2015, Ms. Scally filed an application with the Department to renew Respondent’s registration as a family day care home for 2016. Respondent's registration for 2015 expired on October 30, 2015. Upon receiving Ms. Scally’s application, the Department reviewed whether to renew Respondent’s registration as a family day care home. As part of its determination, the Department examined the Florida Central Abuse Hotline Records Search (“CAHRS”). In CAHRS, the Department identified an Investigative Summary involving Respondent that verified a finding of “inadequate supervision” in March 2015. Based on the CAHRS Investigative Summary, the Department issued an Administrative Complaint in November 2015, revoking Respondent’s registration as a family day care home.2/ The Department determined that it could no longer approve Respondent’s registration “based on the verified finding of inadequate supervision.” The CAHRS resulted from an incident that allegedly occurred on March 5, 2015. On March 6, 2015, the Central Abuse Hotline received an anonymous phone call reporting an injury to a child at Respondent’s family day care home. A four-year-old girl who attended Respondent’s family day care home reported to her mother that another child had hurt her.3/ Jessica Baloy, a child protective investigator with the Department, was assigned to investigate the incident. Her duties include investigating facilities regarding complaints of child abuse and neglect. Ms. Baloy prepared the CAHRS Investigative Summary. Ms. Baloy visited Respondent's family day care home on March 9, 2015, to investigate the allegation. Ms. Scally informed Ms. Baloy that she had no knowledge of how or when the child was injured. Ms. Scally did not learn of the incident until the child’s mother called her the evening after the child was picked up. Ms. Scally thought that the incident may have occurred in her “playroom” while she was in her kitchen either cleaning up another child or preparing snacks.4/ During her visit, Ms. Baloy found that the part of Ms. Scally’s home used for childcare consists of two rooms, a “playroom” and a kitchen. The rooms are located next to each other, but a wall separates them. Ms. Baloy observed that the wall obstructs the view between the playroom (where the injury allegedly occurred) and the kitchen where Ms. Scally believes she was located at the time of the incident. Ms. Scally admitted to Ms. Baloy that, while she is able to hear the children in the playroom from the kitchen, she is unable to see directly from the kitchen into the playroom. In her investigation, Ms. Baloy reported that the child had “no indicator” of physical injury. In other words, Ms. Baloy did not find evidence to suggest the child had sustained an injury. Ms. Baloy personally interviewed the child and did not observe any discomfort or physical injuries. Ms. Baloy also received information from the child’s mother that a doctor had examined the child and determined that she had not suffered any trauma, just “some irritation.” The child’s mother decided that no further medical treatment or examination was needed. In her Investigative Summary, Ms. Baloy reported that “[o]bservations of the home daycare were positive that it was not hazardous for the children.” Ms. Baloy also declared that Ms. Scally “once notified by a parent completed the proper notifications needed in regards to this incident.” However, Ms. Baloy did have “some concerns in regards to supervision.” She found that when Ms. Scally was working/standing in her kitchen, she could not view the children in the playroom. Consequently, if something bad happened, she would not be able to see it. Also during her visit to Respondent, Ms. Baloy observed 11 children in Respondent’s facility. Consequently, Respondent was over capacity by one child. (As discussed below, family day care homes are restricted to a maximum of ten children at one time.) After her visit, Ms. Baloy closed her investigation with “verified findings for inadequate supervision.” Ms. Baloy was not aware of any prior investigations involving Respondent. Dinah Davis is the policy supervisor for the Department’s Office of Childcare Regulation. Her responsibilities include approving applications for family day care home registrations with Samantha Wass de Czege, the Department’s Director for the Office of Childcare Regulation. Ms. Davis expressed that the Department was concerned with Ms. Baloy’s Investigative Summary because the finding of “inadequate supervision” indicated that Ms. Scally left the children unattended outside of her direct supervision. The Department’s “rule of thumb” regarding supervision is that a caregiver must be within “sight and sound of the children and [be] able to respond to emergency situations.” Ms. Davis expressed that a constant sightline is crucial to allow the caregiver to respond to and prevent an emergency or potentially harmful situation. Adequate “sight” supervision means that children should be at least within the caregiver’s peripheral vision. In addition, Ms. Davis explained that, by statute, no family day care home is allowed to care for more than ten children at one given time. Ms. Davis referred to section 402.310 as the Department’s authority to deny Ms. Scally’s application. Although section 402.310 allows the Department to place a family day care home registration on probation status, Ms. Davis stated that the Department did not consider the option to place Respondent on probation. Ms. Wass de Czege also testified regarding the Department’s decision to revoke (deny) Respondent’s application for registration. Ms. Wass de Czege stated that the Department’s action was based on the child protective investigator’s findings of “inadequate supervision” and overcapacity. Ms. Wass de Czege agreed with Ms. Davis that supervision in a family day care home requires “direct sight and hearing of the children at all times” so that the caregiver is “able to respond to meet the needs of the children.” Ms. Wass de Czege explained that based on the floor design of Ms. Scally’s home, “she could not have the children in her sight. So, she was not meeting that parameter of the definition of supervision.” Ms. Wass de Czege explained that the Department’s definition of “inadequate supervision” for family day care homes is found in Florida Administrative Code Chapters 65C-22 and 65C-20.5/ Ms. Wass de Czege also remarked that having more than ten children in care at a family day care home is considered overcapacity. Therefore, having 11 children present in the home at the time of Ms. Baloy’s visit caused Respondent to be out of compliance with the governing regulation. Ms. Wass de Czege also conveyed that registration of a family day care home is basically a paper process. The applicant submits the paperwork. The Department checks off the information listed in section 402.313(1)(a). If approved, the applicant can care for children. Ms. Wass de Czege commented that, because of a lack of manpower and resources, a registered family day care home is not subject to routine inspections by the Department. Consequently, the Department has little regulatory oversight of Ms. Scally’s home. Based on its review of the CAHRS, the Department determined that Respondent failed the background check necessary to register as a family day care home for 2016. Ms. Scally testified on behalf of Respondent at the final hearing. Ms. Scally has operated her family day care home since 1997. She has successfully registered with the state every year since then. She cares greatly for the children entrusted to her. This current matter is the first issue she has encountered regarding her registration. Regarding the incident on March 5, 2015, Ms. Scally did not learn that a child may have been harmed at her home until the child’s parent called her that evening to report an injury. The parent relayed that her daughter told her that another child had poked her in a sensitive area, drawing blood. Upon learning of the injury, Ms. Scally immediately took action. That evening, she spoke with the parents of both children involved to make sure all parties were aware of the situation. The next morning, Ms. Scally called the injured child’s parent back to inquire of her well-being. Ms. Scally also contacted her own pediatrician seeking advice on the situation. Ms. Scally offered to arrange for her pediatrician to examine the child. Ms. Scally herself was the anonymous caller reporting the incident to the Central Abuse Hotline.6/ She called the abuse hotline on the next morning. (The CAHRS Investigative Summary notes that the call was received on March 6, 2015, at 10:38 a.m.) Ms. Scally called the abuse hotline because she knew reporting the injury was the proper and legally required step to take. Ms. Scally commented that the Department would not have learned of the incident but for her phone call. Ms. Scally conceded that, when she is standing in her kitchen, she does not have a direct line of sight with the children in her playroom. Consequently, Ms. Scally admitted that if the child was injured in the playroom while she was in the kitchen, the child was out of her sight for a short period of time. On the other hand, Ms. Scally asserts that she can always hear her children from the kitchen. Furthermore, no child is ever out of her eyesight for more than a couple of moments. Ms. Scally also represented that she has taken steps to ensure that she can maintain “sight and sound” supervision over her children in the future. She has purchased a mirror to place in the hallway between the playroom and the kitchen. This mirror allows her to see into either room from the other. Ms. Scally stated that in her 19 years of childcare, she has never had any incidents in her family day care home. Ms. Scally acknowledged that she might have had 11 children in her care on the occasion of Ms. Baloy’s visit to her home on March 9, 2015. Ms. Scally explained that it was likely during a “transition” period as her children were being picked up and dropped off and was not a regular occurrence or for an extended period of time. Based on this incident, Ms. Scally asserts that she will be extra cautious about the interactions between the children in her care. Ms. Scally presented testimony from several parents whom she serves. They each asserted that Respondent provides a valuable service, and they trust her with their children in her home. Mia Carla Hagins placed her daughter with Respondent from 2009 through 2014. Ms. Hagins testified that Ms. Scally ensures safety, nurturing, and care for the children she supervises. Thomas Breck placed two children with Ms. Scally from 1996 through 2000. Mr. Breck testified that Ms. Scally provided excellent care and demonstrated complete professionalism. Mizanne Brown placed her child with Ms. Scally for ten years. Ms. Brown testified that Ms. Scally was fabulous, nice, and wonderful. Ms. Scally also produced 26 letters of recommendation from parents and teachers of children for whom she has cared. Ms. Scally asserted that these letters show how positively her community views her, her home, and her childcare services. Based on the competent substantial evidence presented at the final hearing, the Department failed to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, sufficient grounds to deny Respondent’s application for registration as a family day care home under the provisions of section 402.310. Accordingly, the Department should approve Respondent’s application to register as a family day care home.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Families enter a final order approving Respondent’s application for registration as a family day care home. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of August, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. BRUCE CULPEPPER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of August, 2016.
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Petitioner's registration to operate a registered family daycare home should be revoked.
Findings Of Fact The Department is an agency of the State of Florida charged with registering family daycare homes in Florida and regulating their practices and operations. The Petitioner has been registered to operate a family daycare home since 1998. That registration was conditional because of an incident which occurred on January 14, 1999, involving the Petitioner's daughter, Cleta Brantley, in which Ms. Brantley purportedly brandished a knife and threatened a neighbor in the daycare home in the presence of the children being kept there. The investigation of that incident (not directly involved in this proceeding) resulted in the Petitioner's registration being made conditional, based upon her ensuring that in the future Cleta Brantley would never be present in the home. James Farrar is a child protective investigator with the Department. He testified on behalf of the Department in this proceeding. He is personally engaged in three investigations regarding child abuse, abandonment or neglect involving the Petitioner's home, including one investigation which was still in progress as of the date of the hearing. The earliest investigation involved an incident of domestic violence which occurred on January 14, 1999. That incident was a violent altercation between the Petitioner's daughter, Cleta Brantley and the neighbor, during which Ms. Brantley brandished a knife in the daycare home in the presence of the clients' children. The investigation revealed that three of Ms. Parker's relatives, Cleta Brantley, Thomas Brantley, and William Ousley, were residing with Ms. Parker, at least part of the time. Mr. Farrar made findings of maltreatment, verified, for domestic violence and associated with a deadly weapon. The second investigation involving Mr. Farrar related to concerns involving an incident occurring in May 2002. In this incident, Ms. Parker's son William Ousley, was residing at the home when a verbal altercation erupted between Mr. Ousley and other family members and the Petitioner's assistant who worked in the daycare operation at the home. Mr. Ousley was under the influence of alcohol during this altercation and children were present in his immediate vicinity in the home. Mr. Farrar's investigation revealed that Mr. Ousley had a criminal background involving a felony conviction and had not been subjected to "level two screening" before the Petitioner allowed him to occupy the home, at least on a part-time basis. On the day in question Mr. Ousley was in a drunken state and became very angry and argumentative and engaged in a shouting altercation with a person or persons in the home, culminating in his throwing a beer bottle inside the home. The daycare worker or assistant of Petitioner ordered him to leave or she would call the police. Ultimately she summoned the police who arrived, investigated the incident and made a report. One of the officers involved testified at the hearing. Mr. Farrar made verified findings of maltreatment regarding the children in the home on the basis of their being exposed to a person who was abusing alcohol and for possible physical harm to the children. Mr. Farrar also had an active investigation of child abuse at the time of this hearing. This investigation involved an incident occurring less than two weeks before the administrative hearing. In this incident some dogs which the Petitioner was keeping at her home, which belonged to her son Thomas Brantley, attacked a child in the front yard of the home, resulting in injuries to the child requiring some 50 stitches and staples in the child's head and back. Four other children were present in the home at the time of the attack. The dogs had been living in the home for approximately two years at the time of the incident. This incident is not itself a basis for the proposed revocation in this case and was not noticed as a ground for proposed revocation by the Department's charging letter of June 11, 2002. The evidence of this incident is used as corroborative evidence to the testimony and evidence offered concerning the incidents giving rise to the charging letter and proposed agency action. Debra Ann Martin is a family counselor in the licensing department of the Department of Children and Family Services. She testified at the hearing. She is the caseworker who has been assigned to the Petitioner's home since March of 1999. She described the Department's requirements concerning background screening for anyone over the age of 12 who lives in, occupies or resides in a registered daycare home. Ms. Martin established that Ms. Parker has been advised a number of times concerning these rules regarding screening and has knowledge of the screening requirements. The Department's Composite Exhibit One in evidence consists of Ms. Parker's registration applications with the Department, each dated in December 1999, 2000 and 2001, respectively. Other than her granddaughter, listed on the 1999 application, Ms. Parker did not list anyone as a family or household member in any of those applications. Ms. Martin offered a chronology of history of disturbances and incidents involving the Lucille Parker Daycare Home. Ms. Martin established that the Department had denied Ms. Parker's application to re-new her registration in 1999 based upon the concerns of the Department involving Ms. Parker's daughter, Cleta Brantley, referenced above. Ultimately, however, Ms. Parker was allowed to re-register her home on the condition that Cleta Brantley would not live at the home or be allowed any access to the children in the home. During a visit on December 22, 1999, however, Ms. Martin observed Cleta Brantley in the home with her belongings and clothing. The Petitioner testified that Ms. Brantley was merely at the home briefly that day to pick up belongings and clothing which had been left at the home at an earlier date and that she did not actually reside at the home. Further contact by Ms. Martin in the year 2000 and 2001, however, showed that Cleta Brantley and William Ousley both stayed at the home or spent the night on occasions. Ms. Martin described several other incidents when she found evidence that one or more of Ms. Parker's children were sleeping in the daycare home, including an incident in which Thomas Brantley threatened to turn his dogs on her. All of these children or relatives were over the age of 12 at the times in question. They were not and have not been subjected to screening by the Department. Officer Frank Van Schmidt of the Fort Walton Beach Police Department testified on behalf of the Department. Officer Van Schmidt was involving in an incident in May of 2002, in the daycare home of the Petitioner, Lucille Parker. The incident involved Ms. Parker's son, William Ousley. Officer Van Schmidt described observing Mr. Ousley as very intoxicated, angry, yelling and screaming. Officer Van Schmidt testified that Mr. Ousley made it clear to him that he lived at Ms. Parker's home. Officer Van Schmidt established that the Petitioner, Lucille Parker, initially told him that Mr. Ousley did indeed live there but changed her story later on the same day. This was the day when Officer Van Schmidt investigated the incident, described above, involving William Ousley and the angry drunken altercation. Officer Van Schmidt testified that during the investigation of the incident he overheard Lucille Parker telling someone that she had previously advised the Department several times that Mr. Ousley did not live in the residence because if the Department found out that he did live there she could lose her license. This was after Ms. Parker had advised the officer that Mr. Ousley did not reside at the residence. This is also after Ms. Clayborne, who worked for Ms. Parker and Ms. Gibson, who was present at the scene, had earlier advised the officer that Mr. Ousley did live at the residence. Before he left the home on that day Officer Van Schmidt advised Ms. Parker that the case would be forwarded to the Department of Children and Families. She asked him not to contact the Department and he advised her that he had to tell them according to law. She then stated that she would pay him money if he would not say anything to the Department but he advised her that they had already been notified and that a report would be sent to them. The Petitioner, Lucille Parker, testified on her own behalf. She testified generally that various persons often stayed at her home for limited periods of time. She testified that William Ousley would "stay" with her when he was in town and that the Department found out about that when Ms. Martin discovered Mr. Ousley at the home. Ms. Parker acknowledged that Ms. Ousley had never been given or requested a background screening. Ms. Parker stated that she told Debra Martin that Mr. Ousley was not living there. She further acknowledged that she had kept Mr. Thomas Brantley's dogs at her home for several years and that these were the same dogs involved in the October 2002 attack on a child on her premises. The Petitioner called her other witnesses, some of whom have had their children kept by the Petitioner for substantial periods of time in the last two decades. They uniformly described the Petitioner as given good care to their children, maintaining a safe environment for them and being a very loving keeper of their children. These witnesses who have had their children kept by the Petitioner uniformly testified that they would not hesitate to have her keep their children once more or to continue to keep them as the case may be. Additionally, the Petitioner's minister described the Petitioner as good Christian person who has been an active worker in her church for some 40 or more years, of the highest moral character and otherwise quite well suited to continue to keep children in her home.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That the Petitioner's registration to operate a registered family daycare home should be revoked; however, the revocation should be suspended for a period of one year, during which time the Petitioner, operating under reasonable, but frequent inspection and reporting requirements imposed by the Department, should be given an opportunity to show that the violations of the relevant statutes and rules have been corrected and that she is maintaining the operation of her registered family daycare home in a manner which precisely comports with the rules, policies and statutes that the Department is charged with enforcing. If she demonstrates such compliance to the Department at the end of one year then her registration should be restored in an unimpeded status. If she does not, then revocation should be carried out. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of May, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 9th day of May, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Lucille Parker 2112 Ajax Drive Pensacola, Florida 32548 Rick D. Cserep, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 160 Governmental Center, Suite 601 Pensacola, Florida 32501 Paul 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 in the case is whether the Petitioner's application for renewal of a family day care home license should be granted.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this case, the Petitioner owned and operated a licensed family day care home in Lakeland, Florida. On March 26, 2003, representatives of the Respondent arrived at the Petitioner's facility to assist in distributing materials that had been obtained by the facility. There were six children in the facility on March 26, 2003. The Petitioner was the only adult present and available to supervise the children. Upon arriving at the facility, one of the Respondent's representatives discovered an unsupervised "toddler" playing in the bathroom. The child's hands were in a toilet that was unclean and unflushed. One of the Respondent's representatives removed the child's hands from the toilet intending to wash the child's hands, but there was no soap or toweling available. It is unclear whether the Petitioner was aware that the child was in the bathroom, but in any event the child was unsupervised. Subsequently during the same visit, the Petitioner took the children outside into a play area and then returned inside to talk to the Respondent's representatives, leaving all of the children outside and unsupervised. The Respondent's representatives terminated their visit after advising the Petitioner to return outside and supervise the children. On March 27, 2003, a child protective investigator (CPI) employed by the Respondent arrived at the facility to investigate a report of inadequate supervision received on the previous day. Upon arriving, the CPI asked the Petitioner, who was the only adult present in the facility, as to the census and was advised that there were five children in the facility. The CPI observed the five children in a playroom. A few minutes later, the CPI responded to noise coming from the bathroom and discovered a sixth child, unsupervised and playing in the apparently-clean toilet water. The CPI removed the child's hands from the water. At one point, the Petitioner took another child into the bathroom and left him there. At another point, the Petitioner put infants into a room to nap, leaving the other children unsupervised while she did so, and then leaving the infants unsupervised while they napped. One child ran into an enclosed garage area without the Petitioner's knowledge. The Petitioner was unable to properly identify all of the children by name when requested to do so by the CPI. When asked to retrieve files on the children, the Petitioner left all the children unsupervised while she went to her automobile to get the files. The Petitioner asserted that the CPI had offered to watch the children while she went outside to get the files. The CPI denied having agreed to supervise the children. The greater weight of the evidence fails to support the Petitioner's assertion that the CPI offered to supervise the children during the visit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent enter a Final Order denying the Petitioner's application for renewal of licensure as a family day care home. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of September, 2003, 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 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 September, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack Emory Farley, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 4720 Old Highway 37 Lakeland, Florida 33813-2030 Wanda Williams Williams Family Daycare Home 1630 Fruitwood Drive Lakeland, Florida 33805 Paul 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 Jerry Regier, Secretary Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 1, Room 202 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
