The Issue Whether Petitioner's license to operate a family day care home should be disciplined, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the testimony and evidence received at the hearing, the following findings are made: The Parties Petitioner is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating child care facilities, including family day care homes. Petitioner routinely conducts inspections of licensed family day care homes to determine whether the home is in compliance with the applicable statutes and rules. Any problems found during the inspections are noted on a report which is provided to the home's operator immediately following the inspection. When appropriate, the inspection report provides a time frame within which the problems must be corrected. Regular inspections are conducted approximately twice a year. More frequent inspections--monthly or every six weeks-- are conducted on family day care homes which have a provisional license rather than a standard license. Petitioner also conducts inspections in response to complaints it receives, and it has the authority to inspect family day care homes at any time with or without notice. Respondent is the owner and operator of a licensed family day care home located at 2406 Winter Ridge Drive, Auburndale, Florida (hereinafter "Respondent's facility" or "the facility"). Respondent resides at that address as well. Respondent has operated a day care home at the above address for approximately five years, and she has been involved in child care for approximately ten years. Respondent has taken all required training in order to be licensed. As a result, she is, or should be, familiar with the rules regulating family day care homes. Respondent keeps children in her home, and children also play in Respondent's backyard. This area is enclosed by an approximately three and a half foot high chain-link fence. Respondent also owns a one-acre parcel behind her house and yard, which is apparently not fenced. Inspections and Resulting Actions by Petitioner Respondent's facility was inspected on April 16, 2003, and several areas of non-compliance were identified during this inspection. Noted as violations included Petitioner's son and husband who were in the home without a completed background screening on each of them; a fence surrounding the property had protruding chicken wire and was less than four feet in height; children's floor mats were torn and not properly covered; a bathroom sink was missing and needed replacement; no paper towels were in the bathroom for the children; one child's immunization records had expired and one child's required physical examination was out of date; and there were eight preschool children over the age of one year old in the home, where the maximum allowed was six. A re-inspection was conducted on April 23, 2003. On January 22, 2004, Petitioner's inspector Mr. Pickett went to Respondent's family day care home to carry out a routine inspection. Several areas of non-compliance were identified. Ms. Gainey's husband, Jerry Gainey, was staying in the home, but he had no letter on file showing he had been properly screened; there were too many children in the home (three children under 12 months old) when the maximum allowable is two; there were seven preschool children in the home when the maximum allowable is three; hazardous containers, a gas can and a paint can, had been left near the front door easily accessible to small children; a glass sliding door had a metal obstacle that could cause children to trip and fall; and three of the children in the home had no enrollment information on file--even their names and parents' names could not be found or names of anyone to call in case of an emergency. After Pickett completed his inspection, he discussed the results with Respondent and provided Respondent a copy of the inspection report. Pickett then went back to his office and discussed the results of the inspection with his supervisor, Ms. Hamilton. Based upon the results of the January 22, 2004, inspection and the prior incidence of non-compliance at Respondent's facility, Ms. Hamilton determined that Respondent's license should be revoked. Petitioner did not give Respondent an opportunity to bring her home into compliance with the minimum standards in Petitioner's licensing rules and standards. Thereafter, on January 26, 2004, Pickett sent a letter to Respondent informing her that her license was being revoked and advising Respondent of her right to "appeal" that decision through the administrative process. At the hearing, Ms. Hamilton testified that she was particularly concerned about Respondent's repeat violations, namely Respondent's husband not being screened for nearly nine months and the repeated ratio violations, that is, too many children in the home. She characterized these as serious child safety violations. These were the primary reasons she recommended that Respondent's child care license be revoked. Respondent, in her testimony, did not deny committing the violations noted in the inspections of April 16, 2003, and January 22, 2004. However, she did demonstrate that a re-inspection of her facility on April 23, 2003, listed her to be in compliance with all violations listed in the April 16, 2003, report, except for the background screening requirement for her husband. Respondent insisted that her son, Jerry L. Gainey, who is 28 years old, lives down the street from her and does not regularly watch the children in her home. Due to an emergency situation, she was required to leave her home in order to pick up some children from school, and she called upon her son to watch the children until her return. Respondent asserts that her son has not watched the children since that date. Respondent also asserts that her husband, who has had a stroke and is cognitively impaired and walks with the aide of a cane or scooter, does not reside with her full-time but, in fact, lives with his sister in Arkansas. The testimony in regard to her husband's permanent place of resident is not credible, since he was in the home on at least two occasions--April 16, 2003, and January 22, 2004--when it was inspected. It is undisputed that Respondent was not at the facility when Mr. McClary arrived in the early afternoon of April 16, 2003. Her husband and son were watching the children. Respondent's testimony indicated that her husband was physically impaired and not capable of supervising the children. Therefore, only her son was left in charge of the facility and the children that afternoon, and her son was not authorized to supervise the children. As a result, the children were effectively left unsupervised when Respondent left the facility that afternoon. Respondent's testimony is credible, especially when bolstered by her client's testimony, that she is a loving and caring person who goes out of her way to care for the children she keeps in her home. Respondent explained that at the time of the April 16, 2003, inspection, the sink was missing because the entire bathroom was being renovated, and the renovation has been complete for some time. Respondent also stated that she did not understand the need for Petitioner's insistence on strict compliance with the four-foot height requirement for the chain- link fence, especially since she owns the one-acre parcel in the back of her yard. Respondent also explained that the reason she had exceeded the maximum allowable number of children in her home on two occasions was concern for the custodial parents' inability to find suitable child care when they worked odd hours or the swing shift and that she was willing to inconvenience herself in order to provide this service. This testimony was corroborated by several parents and grandparents who testified in Petitioner's behalf. The evidence is clear and convincing that Respondent violated several code provisions, including failure to properly screen her husband, having too many children in the home, and failure to have current enrollment on file for each child. The evidence is not clear and convincing that Respondent violated the code provisions relating to minimum fence height requirements; improper floor mats; failure to have a functioning sink in the children's bathroom; no paper towels in the bathroom for the children; expiration of a child's shot records or that a child's physical examination was outdated. Respondent has shown mitigating evidence that she is a concerned and loving caregiver which demonstrates that her license as a family day care home license should not be revoked.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Family Services issue a final order as follows: Finding Petitioner guilty of violating the provisions of Florida Administrative Code Rules 65C-20.009(3)(a) (one count), 65C-20.010(1)(b) (one count), and 65C-20.011(4); and Subsection 402.032(7), Florida Statutes (two counts). Finding Petitioner not guilty of violating the provisions of Florida Administrative Code Rules 65C-20.010(1)(o), 65C-20.010(1)(f), and 65C-20.011(1) and (2)(a). Issuing Respondent a provisional license and imposing an administrative fine of $250.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of June, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of June, 2004.
The Issue The issue is whether to deny Petitioner's application to renew her registration to operate a family day care home for the reasons stated in the Notice of Denial dated April 7, 2017.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the agency charged with the responsibility of licensing and registering family day care homes. See § 402.313, Fla. Stat. A family day care home is an "occupied residence in which child care is regularly provided for children from at least two unrelated families and which receives a payment, fee, or grant for any of the children receiving care." § 402.302(8), Fla. Stat. In order to operate a family day care home, the home must be licensed or registered by the Department. § 402.312(1), Fla. Stat. Unlike a licensed home, which is subject to more regulatory oversight, a registered home is not subject to periodic inspections, and the home is only required to undergo an annual evaluation during the registration process. § 402.313(1), Fla. Stat. Petitioner has operated a registered family day care home under the name of Little Bright Stars of Orlando at 4419 Fairlawn Drive, Orlando, for several years. Her most recent registration expired on March 9, 2017. This proceeding concerns Ms. Rosado's application for renewal of her registration. Unless a complete renewal application is filed, the application will be denied. § 402.313(1), Fla. Stat. This is because the Department has no authority to approve an incomplete application conditioned on an applicant filing the missing items at a later time. On March 9, 2017, Petitioner filed her renewal application with the Department. The application did not have the following required items: the application fee; a list of children in her care; a copy of the current immunization record for each child in her care; a copy of a training certificate, an in-service training record form 5268, or a continuing education unit certificate documenting ten clock hours of annual in- service training; a copy of the completed Registered Family Care Home Health and Safety Checklist; a copy of the tear-off section signed by the parent or legal guardian for each child in her care; a copy of the completed Child Abuse & Neglect Reporting Requirements form, signed and dated by the substitute(s); and a Level 2 Background Screening (livescan) for the operator, adult household members, and substitute(s). Petitioner was sent an email the following day informing her that she must file the incomplete and missing items. When the application was filed, Petitioner had several health-related issues, which required her to temporarily stop caring for children in her home. At that time, she was forced to make a choice between paying her medical expenses or the costs associated with renewing her application. She chose the former and submitted an incomplete application without a filing fee. Once the Notice of Denial was issued, Petitioner decided there was no reason to incur the costs associated with the missing items until she knew whether her application would be approved. As of the date of the hearing, the application was still incomplete. Pursuant to section 39.201(6), Florida Statutes, information in the Department's central abuse hotline and automated abuse information system may be used in its evaluation of a registration application. In May 2016, the Department received a complaint that Petitioner's home was "operating illegally," and she had forced a three-year-old child to clean up his urine when he had an accident. Petitioner characterizes the complaint as "false" and asserts it is based on erroneous information provided by a disgruntled parent who just removed her two children from the home. The Department's subsequent investigation belies this contention. In response to the complaint, a Child Institutional Investigation was conducted by a Department Licensing Counselor and a Child Protective Investigator on May 23, 2016. While investigating the urine incident, the investigators observed an unscreened person, Petitioner's 17-year-old daughter-in-law, living in the home and assisting with the care of the children. They also observed children sleeping on the floor with no mats, a leaking ceiling in the area where the children play, and paint cans that were accessible to the children. These conditions violate Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C-20.010, which establishes health and safety-related requirements for family day care homes. The Department closed the investigation on July 4, 2016, with verified findings of inadequate supervision and environmental hazards. See Dep't Ex. B. The report concluded that based on the confirmed findings, the safety assessment was "low," meaning the deficiencies did not present a high risk of injury to the children. Petitioner was notified by letter dated August 16, 2016, that the investigation was closed and she could request a copy of the report. Petitioner did not request a copy, and she saw the report for the first time when the Department pre-filed its exhibits. At hearing, most of Petitioner's evidence addressed the confirmed findings in the abuse report. She questioned why she was never offered a hearing to contest those findings, but there is no statutory requirement that the Department conduct a hearing to allow a perpetrator to challenge a confirmed report. In any event, Petitioner was allowed to respond to the findings in the report and to provide evidence to mitigate or contradict the observations of the investigators. Petitioner also questioned why a second inspection was never conducted by the Department to determine if the violations observed during the May 23 investigation had been corrected. An abuse investigation, however, differs from a licensing inspection, and there is no requirement that the Department conduct a second inspection to verify that abuse violations have been corrected. At hearing, Petitioner explained that her 17-year-old daughter-in-law was a temporary occupant of the home while her husband (Petitioner's son) was on active duty in the military. She admitted, however, that the daughter-in-law was not screened, which is a requirement for all persons having contact with the children in a family day care home. She also acknowledged that her husband resides in the home but is not screened. At hearing, Petitioner denied that she had forced a child to clean up his urine. She explained that the child had actually spilled water on the bathroom floor while washing his hands and she made the child clean up the spilled water. During the investigation on May 23, 2016, however, Petitioner admitted to the investigators that the child had continued to urinate on himself and she required the child to clean up the urine in the hope that he would not do this in the future. This is a Class 1 violation of rule 65C-20.010(6)(a), which prohibits humiliating a child as a disciplinary measure. It also meets the definition of "abuse," as defined in section 39.01(2), and "harm," as defined in section 39.01(30). For these reasons, the abuse report confirmed the finding of inadequate supervision. Petitioner further explained that on May 23, 2016, her husband was in the process of making repairs to the leaking roof and the damaged ceiling in the home, and these repairs were completed shortly after the investigation. After being told that sleeping mats were required for the children, Petitioner purchased ten mats for the children. Even so, these deficiencies were observed on May 23, 2016, are confirmed by testimony and photographs received in evidence, and are grounds to verify the abuse allegations. Two parents who have used Petitioner's services attested to her good character and the quality of care that their children receive. They urged that the home be allowed to remain open. Even if the abuse report is not considered, the Department would still be required to deny the application because it is incomplete. According to a Department witness, if a complete application had been filed, denial would still be required based on the confirmed abuse report.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Families enter a final order denying Petitioner's application to renew her family day care home registration. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of July, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of July, 2017. COPIES FURNISHED: Lisa M. Eilertsen, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Families Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 (eServed) Cynthia Rosado 4419 Fairlawn Drive Orlando, Florida 32809-4409 (eServed) Rebecca Falcon Kapusta, General Counsel Department of Children and Families Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 (eServed) Brian Christopher Meola, Esquire Department of Children and Families. Suite S-1129 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801-1707 (eServed) Mike Carroll, Secretary Department of Children and Families Building 1, Room 202 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 (eServed)
The Issue The issues in these cases are: whether the Davis Family Day Care Home violated provisions of chapter 402, Florida Statutes,1/ and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 65C-20,2/ and, if so, what penalty should be imposed; whether the Davis Family Day Care Home's renewal application for a license to operate a regular family day care center should be approved or denied; and whether the Davis Family Day Care Home's initial application for a license to operate as a large family child care home should be approved or denied.
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Department is responsible for inspecting, licensing and monitoring child care facilities such as the one operated by the Davis Day Care. It is also the Department's responsibility to ensure that all such facilities are safe and secure for the protection of the children utilizing those facilities. The Department routinely conducts inspections of licensed family day care homes to determine whether the home is in compliance with the applicable statutes and rules. Following such inspections, a report is provided to the operator which provides a time frame to correct any outstanding deficiencies. The Department also conducts inspections or investigations of child care facilities in response to complaints it receives. LaShandra Davis (Ms. Davis) owns and operates the Davis Day Care, a family day care facility licensed by the Department. The Davis Day Care was initially licensed in April 2007 and was in continuous operation at all times material to these issues. No testimony was offered that the facility had prior disciplinary actions against it. Ms. Davis is a nurse, has an associate of science (A.S.) degree in nursing from Polk Community College, and is attending college to obtain an A.S. degree in early childhood education. Additionally, Ms. Davis has five sons and one daughter. Their names include (from youngest to oldest): Layla Davis, Steven Davis, Devondrae Davis, Deshawn Williams, Daniel Williams, and Rafael Davis. No testimony was received regarding Ms. Davis using any other name or names from August 3, 2010, through December 2, 2010.5/ On February 23, 2011, Ms. Davis submitted an application to obtain a license to operate a large family day care home at her current location. On March 15, 2011, Ms. Davis submitted her renewal application to retain her license to operate a family day care home at her current location. October 29, 2010, AC 1 (August 3, 2010, Inspection) On August 3, 2010, the Davis Day Care was subjected to an inspection based on a complaint that it was "over-ratio." This over-ratio issue involves the number of children in the care of a family day care operation to the number of adults providing that care. The Department received a complaint that the facility was seeking meal reimbursements for more children than were allowed for the type of child care license it held. Vicki Richmond (Ms. Richmond) testified that she conducted the inspection on August 3, 2010, and cited the facility for being over the licensed capacity ratio by more than two children. Because the facility was over ratio by more than two children, it was a Class I violation. At that August inspection, Ms. Davis explained to Ms. Richmond that she (Ms. Davis) had a license to provide child care for ten children, and she had ten children in her care. Ms. Richmond explained the ratio requirement to Ms. Davis. Based on the age of the children, Ms. Davis was authorized to have a maximum of ten children provided no more than five were preschool age, and, of those five, no more than two were under 12 months of age. At this August inspection, Ms. Davis was over-ratio by two children. Ms. Davis executed and received a copy of the complaint report prepared on August 3, 2010, that discussed the over-ratio limitations. Three other technical violations were brought to Ms. Davis's attention during that inspection, and two of those violations were corrected immediately. Ms. Davis was given a two-week extension to correct the third violation involving an expired fire extinguisher.6/ Additionally, Ms. Richmond testified that Ms. Davis's mother ("Ms. Jones")7/ was visiting the facility while Ms. Richmond was conducting this August inspection. According to Ms. Richmond, Ms. Jones had been previously screened, but did not meet the Department's standards to be in a child care facility. Ms. Jones should not have been present either for a visit or to be preparing lunches as the testimony revealed. Ms. Richmond recommended to Ms. Davis that it was important to check into getting an exemption for Ms. Jones to be at the facility. Ms. Davis later testified that Ms. Jones had cleared up the screening issue, and both had been told Ms. Jones was allowed to be present at the facility. At hearing, Ms. Davis admitted that she was over-ratio on August 3, 2010. Further, she stated that she "just flat out misunderstood" the adult-child ratio requirement issue until Ms. Richmond explained it to her in August 2010. Ms. Brooks and Mr. Giordano testified that they had each individually explained the ratio requirement to Ms. Davis during prior inspections or discussions at the facility. Although there is some discrepancy between Ms. Davis's recollection and the two witnesses on this point, Ms. Davis admitted this violation and was quite candid about her lack of knowledge with respect to it. Credible testimony from both Ms. Richmond and Shelia Nobles (Ms. Nobles) established that having two or more children over-ratio was a Class I violation, which would subject any child care facility to discipline by the Department. When Ms. Davis received the Department's three-page October 29, 2010, AC 1 advising her of the Class I violation (over-ratio by two or more children) and assessing a $500 fine, she was "shocked." Ms. Davis testified that, at the time of the inspection (August 3, 2010), Ms. Richmond had stated the fine might be $50 or maybe more, leading Ms. Davis to believe the fine would not be that high. AC 1 advised Ms. Davis that the over-ratio issue was a Class I violation of section 402.302(7). AC 1 provided one Department address for two reasons, to pay the $500 fine or to request an administrative hearing. There is no language within AC 1 that advised Ms. Davis of an optional payment plan. Ms. Davis testified she was unaware of a payment plan option, and her only option was to appeal the decision, which she did. Ms. Richmond confirmed that the Department would accept payments as long as the total fine amount was paid in full prior to the next renewal. However, that information was not shared with Ms. Davis until the hearing. Department's March 23, 2011, Proposed Denial Application to Operate a Family Day Care Home (AC 2) and Department's April 11, 2011, Proposed Denial Application to Operate a Large Family Day Care Home (AC 3). Both AC 2 and AC 3 set forth five allegations in support of the Department's denial of the renewal application and the large family child care home application. Two alleged abuse allegations from 2007 and 2008 were included in these administrative complaints; however, as previously stated, no testimony or evidence was offered, presented or substantiated at hearing. Thus, any attempt to reference either the 2007 or 2008 allegations as fact is disregarded as unfounded and not supported by credible testimony or evidence. AC 2 and AC 3 rest on three allegations: the alleged abuse of child E.B., the alleged lying during the investigation of the alleged child (E.B.) abuse, and the inspection conducted on August 3, 2010, regarding the facility being over ratio.8/ Natalie Barton (Ms. Barton), E.B.'s mother, testified that she saw marks on E.B.'s bottom at the end of November 2010 (November 30, 2010) that "could only have occurred at the day care." Ms. Barton testified she picked E.B. up from the facility prior to 5:30 p.m. and discovered the marks on E.B.'s bottom during bath time that evening. Both Ms. Barton and Ms. Davis testified that E.B.'s mother sent a picture of the injury to Ms. Davis via her cell phone the evening the injury was first seen. At that point, Ms. Davis told E.B.'s mother that she (Ms. Davis) didn't know what or how the injury occurred and recommended taking the child to E.B.'s doctor. Ms. Davis had no hesitation in making this recommendation to Ms. Barton. Ms. Barton took E.B. to her (E.B.'s) pediatrician the morning after she discovered the injury (December 1, 2010). However, E.B.'s physician indicated he wanted to see the child in two days, as he could not make a determination what, if anything, had caused the injury as there was no bruising. Ms. Barton also testified that she took E.B. back to the Davis Day Care after she was seen by her pediatrician so she could see how E.B. reacted. While at the facility, E.B. was "in her routine," that she (E.B.) walked in and sat on the couch like she did every day. Ms. Barton did not return E.B. to her own pediatrician for further evaluation. Ms. Barton testified E.B. was seen by the child protective team the day after she was seen by the pediatrician (December 2, 2010). On December 2, 2010, after receiving information about the possible physical abuse of a child (E.B.) (documented as being received at 11:08 p.m. on December 1, 2010), Deanna McCain (Investigator McCain) contacted Ms. Barton to obtain additional information. Investigator McCain also spoke with E.B., who said she had been hit by "Ms. Shawna." After observing E.B.'s injuries and obtaining a photograph of E.B.'s buttocks, an appointment was made for E.B. to be seen by a member of the child protection team, i.e., the nurse practitioner. During the afternoon of December 2, 2010, Nurse Practitioner Connie Fleming (Nurse Fleming) performed a medical evaluation of E.B., a then two-year, nine-month old child. During E.B.'s evaluation, Nurse Fleming noticed bruising on E.B.'s buttocks. When Nurse Fleming asked E.B. what happened, E.B. responded "Ms. Shawn spanked me." Nurse Fleming stated the bruising appeared to be consistent with an outline of a hand. Pictures taken during the medical evaluation reflect red areas on E.B.'s buttocks. Based on her nine-plus years of training and experience as a nurse practitioner, Nurse Fleming determined that E.B. had suffered physical abuse; however, she never stated who caused the injury. Nurse Fleming contended that the injuries were indicative of a rapid-force compression injury, typical of a slap with a hand. Later on December 2, 2010, Investigator McCain went to the facility to investigate the alleged abuse report. Upon her arrival at the location, Investigator McCain had to wait for a local law enforcement officer (LEO) before she could enter the facility. While Investigator McCain waited for the LEO to arrive (between 3:30 p.m. and 4:45 p.m.), she spoke with parents who were picking up their children from the facility. Each parent she spoke with had supportive comments about the facility ("great day care provider," their child had "no injuries," had never seen "inappropriate behavior," "no concerns"). Whether all these comments came from one parent or multiple parents is unclear. Investigator McCain did not observe any injuries to any of the children leaving the facility. Ms. Richmond also went to the facility at approximately the same time as Investigator McCain; however, Ms. Richmond could enter the home without a LEO, and she did so. Ms. Richmond made contact with Ms. Davis and explained there was a complaint. Ms. Richmond's task at the time was to obtain information about the number of children Ms. Davis had in the facility. According to the sign in sheet, there were seven children present, plus Ms. Davis's four-year-old son. Ms. Richmond testified that Ms. Davis initially stated there were four children present, but later a sleeping child was found in a crib, and her (then) four-year-old son ran through the home.9/ Although Ms. Richmond asked for the attendance sheets for the previous month (November 2010), Ms. Davis was only able to provide the attendance sheets for December 1 and 2, 2010.10/ According to Ms. Richmond, those two attendance sheets documented that Ms. Davis's facility was again over-ratio for those two days. When Investigator McCain entered the facility with the LEO, she explained the reason for her presence to Ms. Davis. Investigator McCain testified Ms. Davis was asked how many children were present and together they conducted a "walk- through" of the facility. Investigator McCain testified that, at the time of the walk-through, she was told there were four children present, three toddlers and a small child in Ms. Davis's arms. Investigator McCain also testified that, during the walk-through, they found an additional child sleeping in a crib. She further testified that, at some later point, another young child ran through the facility, and Ms. Davis identified him as her son. On December 2, 2010, Investigator McCain questioned Ms. Davis about the alleged physical abuse of E.B. During the investigation discussion, Ms. Davis reported to Investigator McCain that "she [Ms. Davis] had no idea how they [E.B.'s injuries] occurred." Ms. Davis further reported E.B. was "fully potty trained." Ms. Davis reported that the child had a toileting accident the day before and had cleaned herself. Still, later in the investigation discussion, Ms. Davis told Investigator McCain that she (Ms. Davis) had helped clean E.B. after the toileting accident, but only from the front, and she had not observed E.B.'s buttocks. Ms. Davis also shared with the investigator that when Ms. Davis questioned E.B. about the injury, E.B. said her mother (Ms. Barton) did it (the abuse). At hearing, Investigator McCain testified that Ms. Davis was "very far along in" a pregnancy and that Ms. Davis was upset, shocked, and surprised by the presence of the investigators. Investigator McCain also confirmed that DCF's presence tends to raise anxiety levels and that people feel like they are being attacked. Further, Ms. Davis confirmed that she was two weeks from her delivery due date when this investigation started. Thus, under the circumstances, forgetfulness may be perceived by some as lying, when in reality it is simply being overwhelmed by the situation. As part of the investigation, it was Investigator McCain's responsibility to also check for any hazards in the facility and to ensure adequate supervision of the children. Although Ms. Davis initially reported there were no other adults to supervise the children, she later reported that her mother, Ms. Jones, came each day around 10:15 a.m. to make lunch for the children. Ms. Barton confirmed that Ms. Jones was sometimes present in the mornings when Ms. Barton brought E.B. to the facility. Several technical violations were noted during the December 2010 investigation; however, they are not the subject of this hearing. Ms. Davis testified she did not spank E.B. Ms. Davis testified that she did not know how the injury occurred, and the child's hearsay statement that her mother had spanked her is not supported by other testimony. However, the time lapses between when the injury was alleged to have occurred (the "end of November," or November 30, 2010, according to the mother), when the injury was "discovered" (the night of November 30, 2010, according to the mother), when the alleged abuse was reported (December 1, 2010, at 11:08 p.m.), when the pediatrician's examination occurred on December 1, 2010, and when the child protective team became involved (December 2, 2010), create confusion and doubt as to when the injury actually occurred and by whom. Even taking the thought process to try to find that the events happened a day later does not relieve the doubt or confusion, nor is that supported by the Department's documentation. Investigator McCain testified that this investigation was closed with a verified finding of physical injury to E.B. However, simply finding a "verified finding of physical injury to E.B." does not establish who perpetrated that physical injury. No testimony was provided that any other possible explanation for the injury was explained. Further, other than indicating that E.B. had red marks on her bottom, no testimony was provided that indicated the degree of harm to the child. That being said, this not to say that logic has left the building with respect to some harm being caused to the child. There were marks on E.B.'s buttocks. Several current and former parents of children who attend or attended the Davis Day Care testified on Ms. Davis's behalf. Each testified that they did not have any concerns with their child attending Ms. Davis's facility. On March 11, 2011, after receipt of the facility's application for the large family day care home license,11/ the Department conducted an inspection of the facility and found it to be in compliance with all the licensing standard requirements (including those previously cited during the December 2010 inspection that were corrected). Upon completion of its investigation, the Department determined to deny Ms. Davis's renewal application and to deny her application for a large family day care license, based on "numerous complaints to our office alleging physical abuse of children in your care and Class I violations of licensing standards." There was one verified complaint of abuse, not "numerous complaints" as alleged. There was a Class I violation regarding the over-ratio issue; however, that could have been resolved with better communication skills. The misrepresentation could have been avoided. Neither notification includes any indication that the March 11, 2011, inspection was taken into consideration prior to making the denial decision. The Department presented testimony indicating that there had been past complaints regarding Ms. Davis and/or the facility. However, no documented prior complaints or final orders were submitted with respect to any prior actions.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: With respect to the October 29, 2010, administrative complaint, that a final order be entered by the Department of Children and Families finding that the facility was over-ratio on August 3, 2010, and imposing an administrative fine of $500 with no less than ten months to pay the fine. It is further RECOMMENDED that Ms. Davis be ordered to attend remedial classes on the financial operations and management of a child care facility; With respect to the March 23, 2011, administrative complaint, that a final order be entered by the Department of Children and Families renewing the family day care home license on probation status for six months with periodic inspections to ensure the continued safe operation of the facility; and With respect to the April 11, 2011, administrative complaint, that a final order be entered by the Department of Children and Families finding that the large family child care home application be issued a provisional license for a minimum of six months with periodic inspections to ensure the continued safe operation of the facility, with the ability for an additional six-month provisional period. In the event the large family child care home provisional license is not activated within two months of the issuance of the final order in this matter, a new application shall be required, subject to all the applicable statutory requirements. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of October, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of October, 2011.
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether the Department of Children and Family Services should revoke the family day care license of Respondents.
Findings Of Fact Respondent has been registered with the Department as a family home day care provider since September of 2001. A registered family home day care does not have to meet all of the requirements that a licensed day care home must meet. However, the same background screening and training requirements must be met. Registered family day care homes are not inspected as often as licensed homes. Each year, the registered provider must complete a renewal application that, among other things, identifies household members and substitute care-givers. The operator of the home and all household members are required to pass a Level 2 background screening. Additionally, registered family home applicants must pass a 30-hour family day care home training, a five-hour early literacy course, and each year, complete 10 hours of in-service of continuing education. Operators of the registered homes must designate a substitute care provider who is also required to go through the background screening. Ms. Huewitt designated Teresa Clary as her substitute care provider on her 2007, 2008, and 2009 applications. Previous Disciplinary Action On three occasions in the fall of 2008 and on one occasion in February 2009, Respondent was found to be out of compliance with ratio requirements, i.e., caring for more children than allowed. Additionally, in November 2008, the Family Services Counselor from the Department called the home and the phone was answered by one of Ms. Huewitt’s adult daughters. That daughter informed the Family Services Counselor that Ms. Huewitt was not home and would be back shortly. The Department then determined that this violated the substitute care requirement as Teresa Clary was designated as the substitute care provider. As a result, the Department issued an Administrative Complaint on January 12, 2009, regarding two incidents of being out-of-ratio and for violation of “listed substitute requirements.” A $300 fine was imposed and the registration was placed on probationary status in February 2009. In a letter dated August 27, 2009, the Department informed Ms. Huewitt that the Probationary Registration was lifted effective August 9, 2009, because “the Operator has been in compliance with ratio and capacity requirements during periodic monitoring/inspections while on probationary registration.”2/ Facts concerning the Amended Notice of Administrative Action Ms. Huewitt has three adult children: Jennifer Oliver, Stephanie Oliver, and Anthony Oliver. Jennifer Oliver was listed as an “other family/household member” on the 2007, 2008, and 2009 applications. As a result, a background screening was conducted on Jennifer. The background screening revealed a disqualifying offense. Jennifer requested an exemption from disqualification, but was denied. Consequently, Jennifer Oliver was not permitted to be in the home during the operational hours of the day care. On February 2, 2009, Ms. Huewitt entered into a safety plan in which she agreed not to allow her daughter, Jennifer, to supervise the children while in her care, or even to allow Jennifer to be in the residence while children are in her care during business hours. Despite this, on August 11, 2009, at approximately 9:25 a.m., the Family Services Counselor, Miatta Jalaber, went to Ms. Huewitt’s home and saw Jennifer in the home. Jennifer exited the home as Ms. Jalaber did her walk-through. As a result, Ms. Jalaber called her supervisor, who instructed Ms. Jalaber to write another safety plan for Ms. Huewitt. The August 11, 2009, safety plan was hand-written by Ms. Jalaber while at Ms. Huewitt’s home day care and states, “I Alisa Huewitt understand that my daughter, Jennifer Oliver, must not be present in my residence [address] during operating hours 7:30 a.m.-6:00 p.m. M-F while I have children in care.” The safety plan was signed by both Ms. Jalaber and Ms. Huewitt. Ms. Jalaber made subsequent visits to Ms. Huewitt’s home on October 30, 2009, December 29, 2009, January 29, 2010, February 5, 2010, February 19, 2010, and March 30, 2010. No other persons were present and Ms. Huewitt’s home was in ratio during those visits. She did observe Jennifer in the home on April 16, 2010, but the day care was closed that day. Stephanie Oliver is not listed on any of the applications as a person residing in the home, but has been seen at Ms. Huewitt’s during hours when the day care is open. While there was some testimony that both Stephanie and Ms. Huewitt’s son Anthony have some sort of criminal background and that they have been seen at the day care during business hours, the record is insufficient to establish that their criminal records contain disqualifying offenses, or that they actually live in the home. What is clear is that Ms. Huewitt is of the belief that it is not necessary to list persons who do not actually reside in the home, but who frequently visit the home, on her applications under the category “Other Family/Household Members.” There were instances in which Ms. Jalaber went to the day care home and was led to believe that Jennifer Oliver was Stephanie Oliver. Ms. Jalaber only learned that the daughter she saw and spoke to at the home was Jennifer, who was not supposed to be there during working hours, when she attended Jennifer’s exemption from disqualifying fact-finding meeting. While the record is insufficient to clearly support a finding that Ms. Huewitt lied to Ms. Jalaber about her daughter’s identity, she was not forthcoming with clarifying the confusion. In July 2009, the Department received an abuse report that Ms. Huewitt’s grandson, Kory Hill, Jr., sustained a skull fracture in her residence during business hours. Ms. Jalaber went to Ms. Huewitt’s home, not to investigate the abuse report, but because there was concern that Kory Hill, Sr., who reportedly was taking care of Kory Hill, Jr., on the day of the incident, was residing in the home. Kory Hill, Jr., is Jennifer’s son. Ms. Jalaber addressed her concerns with Ms. Huewitt.3/ During this visit, Ms. Jalaber learned that there was a separate structure in back of Ms. Huewitt’s house. Ms. Jalaber describes it as being just three steps in back of the main house. The structure contains a large room, a closet, and a bathroom and will hereinafter be referred to as “the apartment.” Ms. Jalaber observed clothes in the apartment’s closet and throughout the apartment, and sofa cushions on the floor. It appeared to Ms. Jalaber that someone was residing in the apartment. Ms. Huewitt denies that Mr. Hill, Sr., resided in her home. However, Ms. Huewitt acknowledges that her infant grandson, Kory Hill, Jr., was injured while in the care of his father, Kory Hill, Sr., and that the injury took place in the apartment in back of her house. The injury took place during the day while children were in her care in the main part of her house. Jhaismen Collins is a Child Protective Investigator with the Department. She was assigned to investigate the abuse report regarding this incident. Her investigation began July 1, 2009, at the emergency room where Kory Hill, Jr., had been taken. While there, she spoke to Ms. Huewitt and other family members present in the emergency room. She then made several visits to Ms. Huewitt’s home to follow-up, after the baby was discharged from the hospital. During the follow-up visits, Ms. Collins observed Stephanie in the home and observed Kory Hill, Sr., packing his belongings to leave the home. While the evidence is inconclusive as to whether Mr. Hill actually resided in the apartment behind Ms. Huewitt’s home, it is clear that he frequented the home and the apartment behind the home to visit his son. His son, Kory, Jr., and another son, Kentavious, who is also Ms. Huewitt's grandson, are now attending Ms. Huewitt’s day care. Ayuana Hale is a Dependency Case manager for the Department. Her job is to provide needed services to the child and family in the case of a verified finding of abuse, neglect, or abandonment. She was assigned to the case involving Kory Hill, Jr., after the abuse investigation was closed as verified. Ms. Hale testified that Mr. Hill is currently incarcerated. She has knowledge of this because she is obligated to try to offer Mr. Hill services while he is incarcerated. Parents of children who attend Ms. Huewitt’s home day care are extremely complimentary of the care their children receive, and are not concerned with the safety of their children while there.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Children and Family Services enter a final order placing the license on probation, requiring Respondent to attend further training in the requirements of applicable statutes and rules regarding who must be listed on her applications, requiring those listed to undergo background screening, and requiring successful completion of such training, with no further incidents, prior to approval of Respondent's application for renewal of her registration. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of June, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BARBARA J. STAROS 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 June, 2010
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent's license to operate a family day care home should be revoked.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony and evidence received at the hearing, the following findings are made: Parties The Department is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating child care facilities, including family day care homes. The Department routinely conducts inspections of licensed family day care homes to determine whether the home is in compliance with the applicable statutes and rules. Any problems found during the inspection are noted on a report which is provided to the home's operator immediately following the inspection. When appropriate, the inspection report provides a time frame within which the problems must be corrected. Regular inspections are conducted approximately twice a year. More frequent inspections -- monthly or every six weeks - - are conducted on family day care homes which have a provisional license rather than a standard license. The Department also conducts inspections in response to complaints it receives, and it has the authority to inspect family day care homes at any time with or without notice. Respondent is the owner and operator of a licensed family day care home located at 1218 Jordan Avenue in Orlando, Florida (hereafter "Respondent's facility" or "the facility"). Respondent and her husband reside at that address as well. Respondent has operated day care homes in Florida since 1992, and she has been involved in child care for approximately 21 years. As a result, she is or should be familiar with the rules regulating family day care homes. Respondent keeps children in the back portion of her home. The children also play in Respondent's backyard, which is enclosed by an approximately six-foot high wooden fence. A wooden gate in the fence connects Respondent's backyard to the backyard of the house immediately behind Respondent's home. That house has been rented by Annette Rodgers since November 2002. Respondent does not have a pool in her yard. Ms. Rodgers' yard does have a pool, which at the time of the Department's February 27, 2003 inspection (discussed below), was only partially filled with water. Ms. Rodgers' pool is not visible from Respondent's back yard because of the wooden fence and gate. The photographs and videotape received into evidence show that Ms. Rodgers' pool is now completely enclosed by a series of fences.4 The evidence does not clearly and convincingly establish that the fences were not in place on February 27, 2003. Indeed, the weeds and high grass which can be seen along the base of and around the posts of the chain-link fence and the discoloration on some of the fence posts indicate that at least that fence has been in place for quite some time.5 Previous Inspections of Respondent's Facility and Actions Taken by the Department Respondent's facility was inspected on May 28, June 14, and September 30, 2002. Several areas of noncompliance were identified during each of those inspections, including inadequate supervision of children, unsafe storage of chemicals, evidence of roaches in the home, and incomplete enrollment and health records for the children at the home. On each occasion, Respondent was given a period of time within which to correct the areas of noncompliance. The inadequate supervision for which Respondent was cited in June 14, 2002, involved several children playing unsupervised in Respondent's carport area, which has access to the street; several children playing in the backyard under the "supervision" of Respondent's mother, who was not an authorized caregiver; and several children playing unsupervised on the porch area in the vicinity of tools and small screws. The Department issued Respondent a provisional license on October 28, 2002, presumably as part of the license renewal process. The provisional license was based upon Respondent's history of noncompliance with the Department's minimum standards, and it was valid through April 2, 2003, unless Respondent applied for an received a change in license status (which she apparently did not) or "if the license is suspended or revoked by the Department." A provisional license is issued where the Department has continued concerns regarding the day care home's compliance with the applicable statutes and rules. A provisional license is issued in lieu of denying a license renewal or suspending or revoking the home's license. A provisional license gives the licensee an opportunity to correct the areas of noncompliance, and because such homes are inspected more frequently, the Department has an opportunity to monitor the licensee's progress. On October 29, 2002, Respondent was assessed an administrative fine of $100.00 based upon deficiencies identified during the May 28 and June 14, 2002, inspections. The fine was based primarily upon the incident described above involving inadequate supervision of the children at the home. Respondent apparently did not contest the administrative fine or the issuance of the provisional license rather than a standard license. Despite the provisional license and the administrative fine, the Department's inspections continued to identify areas of noncompliance at Respondent's facility. For example, the November 14, 2002, inspection identified "evidence of rodents/vermin in the home" as well as incomplete enrollment and immunization records for the children in the home. The December 18, 2002, inspection identified these same deficiencies, including "live roaches in the children's area and the kitchen," as well as the storage of plastic shopping bags and chemicals which can pose dangers to children in an unlocked cabinet accessible to the children. These violations were the same as or similar to those for which Respondent had been previously cited and which led to the imposition of the administrative fine and issuance of the provisional license. The Department did not take immediate action to suspend or revoke Respondent's license based upon the results of the November 14 and December 18, 2002, inspections. Instead, the Department continued to give Respondent an opportunity to bring her home into compliance with the minimum standards in the Department's licensing rules and statutes. Inspection of Respondent's Facility on February 27, 2003 The Department next inspected Respondent's facility on February 27, 2003. That inspection was conducted by Department employee Brandi Blanchard. Ms. Blanchard had been responsible for inspecting Respondent's facility since at least September 2002, so she was familiar with the layout of the facility and its history of noncompliance. Respondent testified that Ms. Blanchard, unlike the prior inspector, had been "very good to her." Ms. Blanchard arrived at Respondent's facility by car between 8:30 a.m. and 8:45 a.m. As she arrived, Respondent was pulling her car into the driveway/carport at the facility. Ms. Blanchard parked her car directly behind Respondent's car. Ms. Blanchard got out of her car as Respondent was getting out of hers, and she said, "Hello, Ms. Alli," to Respondent. Upon seeing Ms. Blanchard, Respondent quickly went into the house through the carport door. Ms. Blanchard followed Respondent into the facility. Ms. Blanchard lost sight of Respondent as she went down a hallway towards the back of the house where the children were located. The backdoor of the house was open, and by the time that Ms. Blanchard caught up with Respondent, Respondent was directing the children through the facility's backyard towards the back gate connecting Respondent's yard to Ms. Rodgers' yard. Several of the children, led by Ms. Rodgers' 14-year-old son carrying an infant in a car seat and Ms. Rodgers' 13-year-old son carrying a toddler had already reached Ms. Rodgers' yard. Ms. Blanchard told Respondent to stop and return to the facility with the children, which she did. Ms. Blanchard went through the open gate onto Ms. Rodgers' property and directed Ms. Rodgers' sons to return to Respondent's facility with the children, which they did. While on Ms. Rodgers' property, Ms. Blanchard saw a partially-filled swimming pool and other ongoing construction. Ms. Blanchard did not notice any fencing around the pool and saw one of the children, which she estimated to be three or four years old, walking in the construction area close to the edge of the pool. After the children had been returned, Ms. Blanchard assessed the situation and commenced her inspection of the remainder of Respondent's facility. Ms. Blanchard found roach droppings in the bathtub and in other locations in the facility. Respondent acknowledged a roach problem, but claimed that she had an exterminator working on the problem and that he was due to come out and treat the facility. Respondent did not present any documentation to Ms. Blanchard to corroborate her claims regarding the exterminator, nor did she introduce such documentation at the hearing. Ms. Blanchard found plastic bags in an unlocked cabinet accessible to the children. Respondent acknowledged at the hearing that the bags were in the cabinet and further acknowledged the suffocation danger that they posed to young children. Ms. Blanchard's review of the facility's records identified missing enrollment and immunization records for the children in the home. However, Ms. Blanchard did not document the children whose records were missing and she did not determine whether, as Respondent claimed at the time and in her testimony at the hearing, any of the missing records were for students who had enrolled in Respondent's facility within the prior two weeks. Ms. Blanchard documented the results of her inspection, including the events surrounding the movement of the children to Ms. Rodgers' yard on her inspection report. The inspection report identified each of the violations that she observed, including inadequate supervision based upon Respondent's absence from the facility, unsafe storage of materials dangerous to children (i.e., plastic bags) in a location accessible to the children, evidence of roaches, incomplete enrollment and immunization records, and more than the allowed number of children in the home. Ms. Blanchard also cited Respondent's facility for the dangers posed by Ms. Rodgers' pool since the children were being taken onto Ms. Rodgers' property. With respect to the citation for having too many children, Ms. Blanchard's inspection report did not include any detailed information about the children such as their names (or initials), ages, or descriptions. The report simply stated that Ms. Blanchard counted seven children at the facility -- i.e., "3 infants, 3 preschool and 1 school age child." Ms. Blanchard's testimony at the hearing referred to only two infants, which was consistent with Respondent's testimony on that issue. As a result, the evidence is not clear and convincing that there were seven children in Respondent's care at the facility rather than the authorized six children. During the course of her inspection, Ms. Blanchard did not see any adults (other than Respondent, who arrived as Ms. Blanchard was arriving) at the facility. It is undisputed that Respondent's husband, who is the designated substitute caregiver, was not at the facility that morning. There is no credible evidence that Respondent's 22- year-old son, Abdel, was at the facility that morning. He did not testify at the hearing, and, if as Respondent claims, Abdel was at the facility that morning, Ms. Blanchard would have seen him at some point during the commotion surrounding Respondent's rushing the children out the back door or during her subsequent inspection of the facility. In any event, Abdel was not the substitute caregiver designated by Respondent. He was not even authorized to watch the children because, although he had been background screened by the Department, he had not taken the Department's mandatory child care training program and was not certified in cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). It is more likely than not that Ms. Rodgers' teenage sons were actually left to supervise the children at Respondent's facility during the time that Respondent was gone on the morning of February 27, 2003. Indeed, that is the most likely explanation of their presence at the facility and their involvement in the movement of the children to Ms. Rodgers' yard. However, the evidence on this issue is not clear and convincing. Respondent's explanation of her actions on the morning of the inspection -- i.e., that she hurried into the house upon her arrival and directed all of the children to Ms. Rodgers' yard so she could convey an important message to Ms. Rodgers -- is not credible. Her explanation of the roach droppings that Ms. Blanchard found in the bathtub -- i.e., that it was actually dirt from washing one of the children's feet -- is also not credible. By contrast, Respondent's explanation of the incomplete records -- i.e., that the missing records were for those children who had enrolled in the facility within the prior two weeks -- is reasonable. Because Ms. Blanchard's inspection report did not identify the children whose records were missing and did not document the date of their enrollment, the evidence is insufficient to prove this violation. Respondent admitted at the hearing that she "was taking a chance" by leaving the children at the facility without her husband, the designated substitute caregiver, being present. Respondent testified that she was gone only 15 minutes to drop one of her children off at school, and that she follows that same routine every day although her husband is usually at the facility while she is gone. After Ms. Blanchard completed her inspection, she discussed the results with Respondent and provided Respondent a copy of the inspection report. Ms. Blanchard then went back to her office and discussed the results of the inspection with her supervisor, Patricia Richardson. Based upon the results of the February 27, 2003, inspection and the history of noncompliance at Respondent's facility (both before and after the provisional license), Ms. Richardson determined that Respondent's license should be revoked. Thereafter, on February 28, 2003, Ms. Richardson sent a letter to Respondent informing her that her license was being revoked and advising Respondent of her right to "appeal" that decision through the administrative process.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Family Services issue a final order revoking Respondent's license to operate a family day care home. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of June, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of June, 2003.
The Issue The issue in the case is whether the application for registration of the Tonya Rodreguez Registered Family Day Care Home (Respondent) should be denied.
Findings Of Fact Since 1994, and at all times material to this case, Mrs. Rodreguez has operated the Respondent, which is located at 2736 Lemon Street, Fort Myers, Florida. On October 25, 2010, Mrs. Rodreguez filed an application with the Petitioner for registration of the Respondent. The previous registration had lapsed. Since 1992, and at all times material to this case, Mrs. Rodreguez has been married to her husband, Terry Rodreguez (Mr. Rodreguez). In 1990, Mr. Rodreguez was convicted of possession of a controlled substance and a concealed firearm. Mrs. Rodreguez was aware of her husband's criminal conviction. The registration application included a section where an applicant was directed to list "OTHER FAMILY/HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS." The application filed on October 25, 2010, by Mrs. Rodreguez disclosed only herself and her three children. Mrs. Rodreguez did not list her husband on the application. On June 23, 2010, a child protective investigator (CPI) commenced an unrelated investigation of the Respondent and went to the Lemon Street address. Mr. Rodreguez was present in the home when the CPI arrived. The CPI testified without contradiction that Mr. Rodreguez was uncooperative. She returned to the Respondent later that day accompanied by a law enforcement officer, but, when they arrived, Mr. Rodreguez was no longer present at the Respondent. On June 24, 2010, the CPI returned to the Lemon Street address, and Mr. Rodreguez was again present. During questioning by the CPI on that date, Mr. Rodreguez stated that he resided in the home. Additionally, Mrs. Rodreguez advised the CPI that she and her husband had separated, but acknowledged that she and her husband both resided at the home. At the hearing, Mrs. Rodreguez asserted that she has been separated from her husband for many years; however, she acknowledged that they remain legally married, that he uses her address as his legal address, and that her address is listed on his driver's license. She testified that he is homeless and that he returns to the house to see her children. Mr. Rodreguez was issued several traffic citations between January and July of 2010, and all of the citations identified his address as 2736 Lemon Street, Fort Myers, Florida.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Family Services enter a final order denying the application for registration of the Tonya Rodreguez Registered Family Day Care Home. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of April, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of April, 2011.
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to an exemption from disqualification to work in a position of special trust.
Findings Of Fact On June 6, 1979, Petitioner went into a public restroom and attempted to use a urinal. To do so, he had to remove his sexual organ from his clothing. An adult male dressed in beach clothing called to him, "Come here," so Petitioner turned around and took half a step. The man asked, "What do you like?" Petitioner responded, "Women. Excuse me," and faced the urinal again. The other man, a plain-clothes law-enforcement officer, arrested Petitioner. Petitioner was charged with Section 800.03, Florida Statutes, "exposure of a sexual organ (by masturbation) -- misdemeanor." This was a misdemeanor charge at the time committed. Despite there having been no masturbation, in his opinion, Petitioner pled nolo contendere, and adjudication was withheld; he was assigned six months unsupervised probation and paid a fine. It is only on the basis of the foregoing 1979 plea that Petitioner has been disqualified from working in a position of special trust. He was notified by an April 18, 1996 letter that, pursuant to Sections 402.302(8) and 435.04(2), Florida Statutes [1995], he is disqualified as a household member in a family day care home. (Agency Exhibit 1) Petitioner also was arrested in 1982. The record is unclear as to what statute he was charged under at that time, but he did plead guilty and was fined. The circumstances surrounding the 1982 incident were established solely by Petitioner's testimony. He was in a department store restroom. There was a hole cut in the wall between two stalls "and apparently there was someone on the other side, the next stall that prompted me to put my sex organ through the hole in the wall." The person in the next stall was not a law enforcement officer. (TR 37-41, 43-45)1 Petitioner was arrested upon exiting the restroom. He has not been arrested since 1982. Petitioner has been happily married for 27 years. He and his wife have three children and five grandchildren. He and his wife are well-loved by their own children and grandchildren. They have a history of welcoming the troubled friends of their children into their home. The neighborhood children and Petitioner's grandchildren have always affectionately called Petitioner, "Grand-daddy" and have called Petitioner's wife, "Nanny." Their home is, and always has been, a gathering place for the neighborhood children. Petitioner's wife runs a licensed family day care home out of the family home from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Although she did not know about Petitioner's 1979 incident before it was disclosed through the agency screening process, she does not believe Petitioner presents a danger to children. She believes the 1979 incident constituted "entrapment". By a second letter dated April 18, 1996, Petitioner's wife was notified that, pursuant to Sections 402.302(8) and 435.04(2) Florida Statutes [1995] (Agency Exhibit 2), Petitioner was forbidden from having contact with any children in her family day care home and that if he is allowed to have contact with children in her care, she would be subject to an administrative fine and possible criminal penalties. The four children currently paying to attend Petitioner's wife's day care home are respectively aged one, two, three, and four years of age. For the last eight years, due to his trade as a self- employed leather worker, Petitioner has traveled a wide circuit from flea market to flea market throughout the week. He is only present in the family home from 10:30 p.m. Fridays to 3:00 a.m. Mondays. His wife's day care home does not operate during those periods that Petitioner is typically at home. Petitioner is a devout Seventh Day Adventist and an elder of his local church. He is the church's Sabbath School Superintendent. Petitioner's daughter and former daughter-in-law wrote letters entered in evidence and also testified that the family home is warm and loving and that Petitioner is a great "Grand- daddy." They rely on Petitioner and his wife for baby-sitting services. In their mutual opinion, Petitioner is not a danger to children, however some of their testimony minimized Petitioner's problems as only being "past mistakes." Neighbors' letters to the effect that Petitioner does not pose a threat to children, is active in his church, and travels except on weekends were admitted in evidence without objection, as was a statement by his pastor that Petitioner is a man of "impeccable character." However, none of these persons was available for cross-examination, and their letters do not clearly show that they had knowledge of Petitioner's past lewd acts or any reason or opportunity to know if he had committed any subsequent ones.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is , reluctantly, RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Families enter a Final Order removing Petitioner from the registry of disqualified persons.RECOMMENDED this 6th day of March, 1997, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax FILING (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of March, 1997.
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
