The Issue Whether Petitioner, Department of Children and Families’ (the Department), intended action to cite Respondent, Kids Village Early Learning Center, with a Class I violation and impose a fine in the amount of $500, is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact The Department is responsible for licensing and monitoring “child care facilities,” as that term is defined in section 402.302(2), Florida Statutes. Kids Village is a child care facility licensed by the Department. Kids Village is operated by Angela Mitchell and is located at 1000 West Tharpe Street, Suite 24, Tallahassee, Florida. Kids Village is located in a shopping area commonly referred to as a “strip mall,” a series of retail and office establishments located along a sidewalk with exterior entrances. A Dollar General store is located across the parking lot from the strip mall. On November 2, 2017, L.C., a two-year-old child enrolled at Kids Village, exited the facility unaccompanied and on his own volition. A stranger spotted the child in the parking lot near the Dollar General store and left her vehicle to pick up the child. A parent of a former student at Kids Village, who works in the strip mall, recognized L.C. and returned him to the facility. L.C. was absent from the facility for approximately four minutes. Teresa Walker, a teacher at Kids Village, who was working on the day of the incident, called and reported the incident to Ms. Mitchell, who was not working at the facility that day. Both Ms. Walker and Ms. Mitchell completed required incident reports and filed them with the Department. The incident was also the subject of an anonymous complaint received by the Department’s child abuse hotline the same day. Elizabeth Provost, a Department family services counselor, received both the incident reports and the complaint and began an investigation. As part of her investigation, Ms. Provost interviewed the child protective investigator who received the complaint from the abuse hotline, as well as Ms. Mitchell and Ms. Walker. Ms. Provost also viewed the facility’s security camera footage from the day of the incident. Based on her investigation, Ms. Provost determined that L.C.’s mother arrived at the facility on the morning of November 6, 2017, signed the child in at the reception desk, engaged in conversation with another employee of the facility, looked around the corner where a gate separates the reception area from a hallway leading to classrooms, then exited the facility. Afterward, security video shows L.C. exiting the facility without supervision. Based upon her investigation, Ms. Provost concluded that the facility was in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C-22.001(5), which reads, in pertinent part, as follows: Direct supervision means actively watching and directing children’s activities within the same room or designated outdoor play area, and responding to the needs of the child. Child care personnel at a facility must be assigned to provide direct supervision to a specific group of children at all times. Ms. Provost also determined the violation was a Class I violation of Department rules, which is described as “the most serious in nature, [which] pose[s] an imminent threat to a child including abuse or neglect and which could or does result in death or serious harm to the health, safety or well- being of a child.” Fla. Admin. Code R. 65C-22.010(1)(d)1. At hearing, Ms. Mitchell admitted that, on November 2, 2016, L.C. was indeed faced with a serious or imminent threat to his safety which could have resulted in injury or death. As such, Ms. Mitchell admitted the Department properly determined the incident was a Class I violation of rule 65C-22.001(5). Ms. Mitchell’s contention was that Kids Village was not completely at fault, and that the penalty assessed should be reduced to account for the mother’s negligence. L.C. was known to the staff at Kids Village as a “runner.” He experienced separation anxiety and would frequently try to follow his mother when she left the facility after dropping him off for school. Ms. Mitchell testified that L.C.’s mother had been instructed to walk L.C. to his classroom and hand him over to his teacher before leaving the facility. Ms. Mitchell faults the mother for having signed the child in on the morning of the incident, but leaving the facility without walking the child all the way to his classroom. The evidence adduced at hearing did not support that version of the facts. Ms. Walker was the only witness who testified at the final hearing who was actually at the facility on the day in question. Her recollection of the events was clear and her testimony was credible. Ms. Walker works in the “baby room,” which is located to the left of the reception area past the reception desk. The gate separating the reception area from the hallway to the classrooms is to the right of the reception desk. Ms. Walker testified that after his mother signs L.C. and his older brother in on most mornings, L.C. comes to stay with her in the baby room. Ms. Walker gives him hugs and extra attention to help overcome his anxiety, then walks him to his classroom when he is calm. On the morning in question, L.C.’s mother came into the facility and signed the children in at the reception desk. Signing a child in requires both completing a physical sign-in sheet, and an electronic interface with a computer system. While his mother was signing in the children, L.C. went to the baby room where Ms. Walker greeted him and hugged him. L.C.’s mother finished signing in the children and talking to the staff, then she turned to find both children gone. The mother “hollered out” to Ms. Walker something to the effect of “Where did the children go?” Ms. Walker replied that they had gone “to the back.” L.C.’s mother walked over to the gate separating the reception area from the classroom hallway and peered around it down the hallway. She then exited the facility. Shortly thereafter, L.C. came back through the gate, into the reception area, and exited the facility through the front door unaccompanied. L.C. was alone outside the facility in a crowded parking lot of a retail strip mall for almost five minutes. He had crossed the parking lot during morning traffic to almost reach the Dollar General store. L.C. was spotted by a stranger who got out of their own vehicle to pick up the child. L.C. was recognized, and returned to the facility, by someone who worked at a nearby store. One does not need an overactive imagination to list the dangers that could have befallen the child during that brief time period. Kids Village has taken corrective action since the incident and installed a security system on the front door which requires a person to push a button on a panel next to the door in order to exit the facility. There was no testimony regarding any prior citations against Kids Village for violation of child care licensing standards. The investigative summary prepared by Ms. Provost states, “Kid’s Village has one prior with the Department earlier in 2016[;] there were no indicators of inadequate supervision.” Rule 65C-22.010(2)(e) provides appropriate disciplinary sanctions to be imposed for Class I violations, as follows: For the first and second violation of a Class I standard, the department shall, upon applying the factors in Section 402.310(1), F.S., issue an administrative complaint imposing a fine of not less than $100 nor more than $500 per day for each violation, and may impose other disciplinary sanctions in addition to the fine. Section 402.310(1)(b) provides: In determining the appropriate disciplinary action to be taken for a violation as provided in paragraph (a), the following factors shall be considered: The severity of the violation, including the probability that death or serious harm to the health or safety of any person will result or has resulted, the severity of the actual or potential harm, and the extent to which the provisions of ss. 401.301-402.319 have been violated. Actions taken by the licensee or registrant to correct the violation or remedy complaints. Any previous violations of the licensee or registrant. In determining to impose a $500 penalty, Ms. Provost considered the subsequent remedial action taken by Kids Village to prevent future escapes by children in its care. She also considered the serious threat of harm or death posed to L.C. due to inadequate supervision by Kids Village. Imposition of the maximum fine for the Class I violation is supported by the record in this case. Neither the statute nor the rule direct the Department to consider the negligence of persons other than the licensee in determining the appropriate penalty to be imposed for a Class I violation.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the evidence presented at final hearing, and based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Respondent, Department of Children and Families, finding Kids Village Early Learning Center committed a Class I violation of child care facility licensing standards and imposing a monetary sanction of $500. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of August, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of August, 2017. COPIES FURNISHED: Lisa M. Eilertsen, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Families Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 (eServed) Camille Larson, Esquire Department of Children and Families 2383 Phillips Road, Room 231 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed) Angela Mitchell Kids Village Early Learning Center Suite 24 1000 West Tharpe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303 (eServed) Michael Andrew Lee, Esquire Department of Children and Families 2383 Phillips Road, Room 231 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed) Mike Carroll, Secretary Department of Children and Families Building 1, Room 202 1317 Windwood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 (eServed) Rebecca Kapusta, General Counsel Department of Children and Families Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 (eServed)
The Issue At issues are whether Respondent committed the violation alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Department is authorized to regulate child care facilities pursuant to sections 402.301-402.319, Florida Statutes. Section 402.310 authorizes the Department to take disciplinary action against child care facilities for violations of sections 402.301-402.319. Ms. Hall owns and operates the child care facility doing business as Children of Liberty pursuant to License Number C04DU0101. The facility is located at 232 East 19th Street, Jacksonville, Florida. Ms. Hall testified that she has operated the facility for 21 years. C.R. was born on October 21, 2013. C.R. was four years old on August 27, 2018, the date of the event that precipitated the investigation in this case. L.S. is the mother of C.R. She enrolled C.R. at Children of Liberty from November 2017 through early August 2018. As of August 9, 2018, L.S. withdrew C.R. from Children of Liberty in order to enroll him in “big boy school,” i.e., the voluntary pre-kindergarten (“VPK”) program at North Shore Elementary School (“North Shore”). Because of his age, C.R. was not yet eligible to attend kindergarten in a Florida public school. See § 1003.21(1)(a)2., Fla. Stat. Therefore, C.R. was not a “school-age child” for purposes of Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C-22.008, or the “School-Age Child Care Licensing Handbook” adopted by reference therein. Supervision of C.R. was governed by the Department’s “Child Care Facility Handbook,” adopted by reference in rule 65C-22.001(6). L.S. is a full-time nursing student during the week and works at Panera on the weekends. She testified that her only support system in Jacksonville is her grandparents, both of whom are in precarious health. L.S. stated that it would be very difficult for her to take C.R. to VPK given her school schedule. She was hesitant to place C.R. on a school bus at his young age. She had hoped that her grandparents would be able to help her get C.R. back and forth from the North Shore VPK program, but her grandfather told her that he was unsure of their ability to do so. After discussing the situation with Ms. Hall, L.S. re- enrolled C.R. at Children of Liberty because Ms. Hall agreed to take C.R. to and from his VPK program. L.S. would drop off C.R. at Children of Liberty at 7:30 a.m. C.R. would be given breakfast and then be driven to VPK by 8:00 a.m. Ms. Hall then would pick up C.R. in the afternoon and keep him at Children of Liberty until L.S. could pick him up at 4:30 p.m. North Shore requires its students to wear uniforms. The uniform for North Shore is royal blue, navy blue, or white shirts, and black, khaki, or navy blue pants. Parents sometimes send their children to school out of uniform, but the school sends reminders home to inform the parents of the correct uniform colors. Children are not sent home for being out of uniform. C.R.’s first day of being transported to North Shore by Ms. Hall was August 27, 2018. L.S. brought C.R. to Children of Liberty that morning. C.R. was dressed in the uniform for North Shore. L.S. testified that she had made it clear to Ms. Hall that C.R. was attending North Shore. L.S. was taken aback that morning when Ms. Hall mentioned that C.R. would be attending Andrew Robinson Elementary School (“Andrew Robinson”). L.S. corrected Ms. Hall, reminding her that C.R. was going to North Shore. Ms. Hall said, “That’s right, that’s right.” Ms. Hall denied that any such conversation took place and denied that L.S. ever told her that C.R. was attending North Shore. Ms. Hall testified that when L.S. first broached the subject of C.R.’s needing school transportation, she told L.S. that she drove only to Andrew Robinson. Ms. Hall believed that L.S. understood that Andrew Robinson was the only option for transportation from Children of Liberty to school. Ms. Hall testified that on two occasions prior to August 27, 2018, L.S. asked her to pick C.R. up from school in the afternoon. On both occasions, Ms. Hall drove to Andrew Robinson and did not find C.R. there. She assumed that C.R.’s grandparents had picked him up. Ms. Hall stated that she had no reason to believe she had driven to the wrong school because she never heard a complaint from L.S. about her failure to pick up C.R. C.R.’s enrollment form at Children of Liberty indicated “Andrew Robinson” as the school attended by the child. However, this form was completed by L.S. well before she enrolled the child in VPK. The “Andrew Robinson” notation was made later, apparently by Ms. Hall, and is therefore at best indicative of Ms. Hall’s state of mind on August 27, 2018.2/ Ms. Hall drove another child, K.A., to Andrew Robinson every morning. K.A. was born on January 12, 2013. She was five years old on August 27, 2018, and eligible to attend kindergarten at a Florida public school. Therefore, K.A. met the Department’s definition of a “school-age child.” On the morning of August 27, 2018, K.A. was wearing the uniform of Andrew Robinson. The Andrew Robinson uniform varies depending on the day of the week, but the uniform shirts are required to bear the school’s logo. However, as with North Shore, children are not sent home or disciplined for failing to wear the correct uniform. On this day, the Andrew Robinson uniform was green or pink shirts with khaki, blue, or black pants. Ms. Hall testified that she generally pays little attention to the uniforms the children are wearing. Her experience is that children often go to school out of uniform. The Children of Liberty transportation log for August 27, 2018, shows that C.R. and K.A. left the child care facility at 8:15 a.m. It is undisputed that Ms. Hall was driving the children in a van. Billing records for Ms. Hall’s cell phone show that she phoned or attempted to phone L.S. at 8:15 a.m. on August 27, 2018. The call lasted one minute. Ms. Hall phoned or attempted to phone L.S. again at 8:16 a.m. This call lasted two minutes. Ms. Hall had no explanation for why she phoned L.S. at the precise time she was also driving C.R. to school. She speculated that she must have been returning a call from L.S., but produced no documentation to support her theory. The Children of Liberty transportation log indicates that Ms. Hall dropped off C.R. and K.A. at Andrew Robinson at 8:18 a.m. Ms. Hall testified that she pulled up at the front of the school, made sure that the school patrol and teachers were at the drop-off point, and dropped off the children. Ms. Hall stated that C.R. told her that he knew where to go. She did not personally hand the child off to responsible school personnel at the drop-off point. Ms. Hall’s practice of dropping off the students was acceptable under Department standards for K.A., who was a school-age child. See Section 2.5.2, “Driver Requirements,” of the School-Age Child Care Licensing Handbook. However, C.R. was not a school-age child. Ms. Hall was required by Department standards to directly place C.R. into the care of an authorized individual from the school. See Section 2.4.1E of the Child Care Facility Handbook. Ms. Hall claimed that Department rules prevented her from leaving the van to ensure that an authorized individual took over supervision of C.R. However, the Department standard referenced by Ms. Hall requires only that the correct staff-to- child ratio be maintained during transportation. See Section 2.5.4.C of the Child Care Facility Handbook. Because Ms. Hall was dropping off both of the children in her van, nothing prevented her from exiting the van to make sure that C.R. was received by an authorized individual at the school. Had Ms. Hall escorted C.R. onto the Andrew Robinson campus, she likely would have learned the child was not enrolled at that school. The school patrol at Andrew Robinson realized that C.R. was not a student there. They brought C.R. to school staff, who took him to the main office. They looked through the child’s backpack and found paperwork indicating C.R. was enrolled at North Shore. They contacted their counterparts at North Shore, who in turn contacted C.R.’s family. L.S. testified that she learned of the situation from her grandmother, who had received the call from North Shore. She was not sure why they called her grandmother first, but shortly thereafter she got a call from the principal of North Shore. L.S. was informed that the school could not undertake the liability of transporting C.R. and that she would have to pick him up at Andrew Robinson and deliver him to North Shore. She drove to Andrew Robinson and picked up C.R., then headed to Children of Liberty to find out why Ms. Hall dropped her child off at the wrong school. C.R. was at the wrong school for at least an hour before his mother picked him up. Ms. Hall testified that L.S. cursed and threatened her bodily harm upon her arrival at Children of Liberty, although no physical altercation took place. L.S. conceded that she was very angry and used inappropriate language, though she said much of her anger was due to Ms. Hall’s refusal to take responsibility for taking C.R. to the wrong school. L.S. never took C.R. back to Children of Liberty after August 27, 2018. Ms. Hall testified that she believed C.R. was enrolled at Andrew Robinson. Her phone calls to L.S. during the drive to the school raise the question of whether she was in doubt about the matter. Her alteration of C.R.’s enrollment form, and her unlikely story about her two attempts to pick up C.R. at Andrew Robinson, also call into question her good faith belief that the child attended Andrew Robinson. As she stated repeatedly, Ms. Hall had no reason to drop off the child at the wrong school. Nonetheless, Ms. Hall took on the responsibility for C.R.’s safe transport to and from his VPK. Even giving full credit to her good intentions does not change the fact that she left C.R. at the wrong school and, in so doing, failed to supervise the child in accordance with the standards set forth in the Department’s rules and Child Care Facility Handbook.
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 finding that Respondent provided inadequate supervision in violation of Section 2.4.1E of the Child Care Facility Handbook, and imposing a fine of $250.00 upon Terri Hall, d/b/a Children of Liberty Child Care Center. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of May, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of May, 2019.
The Issue Whether Respondent’s1 religious exemption from licensure as a child care facility, pursuant to section 402.316, Florida Statutes, should be revoked as alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated March 18, 2019.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for licensing and disciplining “child care facilities,” as that term is defined in section 402.302, Florida Statutes (2020). Respondent is an entity which operates both a Pre-K through 12th grade private school (“the school”) and a child care facility, Dr. D.D. Brown Christian Academy of Hope Early Learning Center (“the daycare”), in Ocala, Florida. The daycare is a “child care facility” as defined by section 402.302. The daycare is exempt from licensure by the Department as a facility “which is an integral part of a church,” pursuant to section 402.316. The Department has issued to the Academy child care license exemption number X05MA0214 for the daycare. All child care facilities with a religious exemption are subject to the background screening requirements, set forth in sections 402.305 and 402.3055, for all child care personnel. “Failure by a facility to comply with such screening requirements shall result in the loss of the facility’s exemption from licensure.” § 402.316, Fla. Stat. Exempt facilities are also subject to “school readiness inspections” performed by the Department for child care facilities which receive public school readiness funding. On March 18, 2019, the Department issued the Complaint against the Academy for failure to comply with the background screening requirements for Erroll Washington and Jeanette Crowell. In the Complaint, the Department alleged that Mr. Washington was screened on March 8, 2019, and was determined to be ineligible to work in the facility. The Complaint alleged that Ms. Crowell “has not yet been screened.” The Campus The Academy is owned and operated by the Greater Apostolic Outreach Holy Church of God, Inc. (“the Church”), a non-profit corporation organized under Florida law in September 1991. Dr. Deborah Brown-Washington is the Church President and Registered Agent. The daycare and the school are located on the same grounds as the physical church building. The property will be hereinafter referred to as “the campus.” The daycare and school are connected by a sidewalk. Entry to the daycare and the school can be obtained from the sidewalk, independent of the other buildings. A cafeteria is located on the campus between, and connected to both, the daycare and the school. From the daycare, one can access the cafeteria via a covered breezeway connecting the two buildings. Access to the school from the cafeteria can be obtained either through double doors at the back of the cafeteria (which open into the administrative offices of the school) or via the sidewalk. The cafeteria is integral to both the daycare and the school because it is the location in which the students are served meals on a daily basis. The church is freestanding and located across the parking lot from the daycare and school. In addition to the Academy, the Church also operates other churches, at least one of which is located in Texas, and another in Atlanta, as well as some small businesses. These operations are not located on the campus and are not the subject of the Complaint. Ms. Crowell Jeanette Crowell is a cook employed by the Academy to prepare meals served to the children enrolled at both the daycare and the school. Barbara Brinkley is employed by the Department as a family services counselor in the child-regulation unit in Marion County. Ms. Brinkley conducts annual inspections, school readiness inspections, and complaint inspections of exempt child care facilities. On or about March 1, 2019, Ms. Brinkley conducted a school readiness inspection of the daycare, including the cafeteria. Ms. Brinkley observed Ms. Crowell in the kitchen along with several children from the daycare. One of the children was Ms. Crowell’s granddaughter, who is enrolled at the daycare. On the date of Ms. Brinkley’s inspection, Ms. Crowell did not have background screening documentation in her employee file. Ms. Brinkley again visited the facility on April 3, 2019, and observed Ms. Crowell interacting with children from the daycare. On that date, Ms. Crowell’s employee file again contained no documentation of a required background screening.3 Ms. Crowell is an employee of the Academy who prepares and serves meals to children enrolled at the daycare. Because the cafeteria is integral to the daycare, Ms. Crowell “works in the daycare.” Mr. Washington During Ms. Brinkley’s March 1, 2019 school readiness inspection of the daycare, she noted that there was no employee file for Mr. Washington, and she inquired whether he had been screened for employment in child care. Despite the fact that Mr. Washington does not agree that he is required to undergo background screening, on March 8, 2019, 3 The record was insufficient to establish whether Ms. Crowell has subsequently undergone the background screening process and, if so, whether she has been found eligible to work in child care. Mr. Washington completed the background screening process and was determined to be ineligible to work in child care. Mr. Washington is the Vice President and a member of the Board of Directors of the Church. He testified that he is an employee of the Church, rather than the Academy.4 Mr. Washington maintains an office in the administrative offices of the school. Prior to 2012, the daycare director had unfettered discretion in all decisions regarding daycare operations. In 2012, following an incident in which a prior daycare director contracted for services to be provided to the daycare, without the knowledge of the Church, and which resulted in a lawsuit against the Church, the Church authorized Mr. Washington, rather than the daycare director, to sign all legal documents obligating the Church in any capacity. To that end, Mr. Washington has taken it upon himself to be present, when possible, for inspections of the daycare by government officials (i.e., the Early Learning Coalition, the Fire Marshal, and the Department). The stated purpose of his presence is to keep the Church’s Board of Directors informed of issues associated with the daycare. In that capacity, Mr. Washington is familiar with the employees of the daycare and the children enrolled therein. Mr. Washington has knowledge of the location of employee files at the daycare. Mr. Washington is the signatory on the documents attesting that child care personnel employed by the daycare have been background screened and found eligible to work in child care. Ms. Brinkley conducted inspections of the daycare in February, March, April, May, and June 2019. Each time she arrived at the daycare, she met first with then-director, Joyce Johnson. After her arrival at the daycare, 4 The record is insufficient to establish the business relationship between the Church and the Academy. Presumably, the Academy is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Church. Ms. Johnson contacted Mr. Washington and requested him to come to the daycare to meet with Ms. Brinkley. Mr. Washington provided some of the information sought by Ms. Brinkley during her inspections, accompanied her on at least one walk through of the daycare, and showed her the location of employee and student files at the daycare. During one of her inspections, Ms. Brinkley met with Mr. Washington to review security camera footage. That technical equipment is housed in the administrative offices of the school, which is located in the building next to the cafeteria. Ms. Brinkley testified, several times, that a determination whether an individual is child care personnel at a child care facility depends on their interaction with children in the child care facility. Ms. Brinkley explained that “[t]hose persons who were in contact with children who are in care at a facility” are required to be background screened.5 She was emphatic that employees “have to be interacting with the children to be considered child care personnel.[6]” She confirmed that “[i]f they were not with the children, they are not required to be background screened.[7]” Further, Ms. Brinkley relies upon her personal observations of persons in the child care facility to make the determination that someone is child care personnel. Ms. Brinkley testified that she observed Mr. Washington in contact with the children the day she requested to look at employee files at the daycare. Those files are kept in a small office just off the infant room; thus, both Ms. Brinkley and Mr. Washington had to enter the infant room of the daycare. To the extent this constitutes “contact with the children,” it is incidental. 5 T.50:22-25. 6 T.106:5-7. 7 T.101:23-24. Ms. Brinkley did not testify to any other observation of Mr. Washington interacting with children at the daycare. Instead, Ms. Brinkley testified that her conclusion that Mr. Washington needed to be background screened was based on her observations of his role at the daycare, which she characterized as operational. For example, she noted that he signed the paperwork attesting to the required background screening of child care personnel employed at the daycare, that daycare staff frequently referred her to Mr. Washington to answer her questions, and that he reviewed employee files with her and accompanied her on inspection tours. In her paperwork concerning the daycare, Ms. Brinkley listed Mr. Washington as the director. However, on all of her visits to the facility, she met with Ms. Johnson, the now-former director, as well as Mr. Washington. Following the discovery that Mr. Washington had not passed the background screening process, the Department prepared a safety plan for consideration by Respondent. The safety plan would allow Respondent to continue operating the daycare as a religious exempt facility under certain conditions. Ms. Brinkley visited the campus on either the 29th or 30th of May 2019, to present the safety plan. At that time, she met with Ms. Johnson, as well as Dr. Brown and Mr. Washington. Ms. Brinkley again met with Dr. Brown, Ms. Johnson, and Mr. Washington on the campus regarding the safety plan in June 2019. It is Ms. Brinkley’s understanding that Ms. Johnson left the facility as director in June 2019, presumably after the last meeting relating to the safety plan. Mr. Washington is not, nor has he ever been, a director of the facility. Nor does he instruct, supervise, or otherwise care for, children enrolled at the facility. No evidence was introduced to suggest that Mr. Washington managed the day-to-day operations of the daycare, such as processing enrollment applications, meeting with parents (prospective or otherwise), billing, supervising student drop-off and pickup, hiring or disciplining daycare workers, or scheduling staff days.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Department of Children and Families, enter a final order revoking the religious exemption for the daycare operated by the Academy, and not recognize the Academy’s Notice of Child Care Facility Operation as Religious Exemption. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of September, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of September, 2020. 8 However, if Ms. Crowell has subsequently undergone the required background screening and has been found eligible to work in child care, the Department may consider that fact when determining how to act on this Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Stefanie Beach Camfield, Esquire Department of Children and Families Building 2, Suite 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 (eServed) Errol Washington Dr. D.D. Brown Christian Academy of Hope 907 Southwest 3rd Street Ocala, Florida 34471 (eServed) Lacey Kantor, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Families Building 2, Room 204Z 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 (eServed) Ivory Avant, Esquire Department of Children and Families Building 2, Room 204Q 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 (eServed) Javier A. Enriquez, General Counsel Department of Children and Families Building 2, Room 204F 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 (eServed) Chad Poppell, Secretary Department of Children and Families Building 1, Room 202 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 (eServed)
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondents' license to operate a child care facility should be revoked.
Findings Of Fact The Department first issued a child care facility license to Respondent God's Little Angels in 1999. On October 30, 2007, the Department's inspector went to Respondent God's Little Angels to conduct a routine inspection. Several items on the Department's form checklist are marked as being in "noncompliance." Those items are either given a date by which they must be corrected or are marked "complete." Although the Department presented no evidence as to the meaning of the notation "complete," a review of the types of items marked "complete" suggests that the item was corrected immediately and/or before the inspection was finished. Those items marked "complete" were four staff members in a room instead of five; no soap in one of the bathrooms; one child did not wash his or her hands after using the bathroom; a toy in the outdoor play area was broken; water was standing in toys and equipment outside; and one bottle was not labeled with the child's first and last name. As to the standing water in the outdoor toys, no information is provided as to whether it was raining or whether the sprinklers were operating at the time or whether any children were outside. A number of items on the October 30, 2007, form checklist are marked as being in "noncompliance" and have a deadline by which they must be corrected. They are: the facility's storage of linens was not sanitary, due date October 31, 2007; and outdoor toys need to be cleaned, due date November 5, 2007. There are also several recordkeeping items noted: 3 children out of 45 did not have a current physical examination record, due date November 9, 2007; 5 children did not have a current immunization record, one child's record did not have an expiration date, and 2 records had expired, due date November 10, 2007; and 19 children had incomplete enrollment information on file, due date November 3, 2007. The Department's inspector returned to the facility on November 30, 2007. The form checklist carries a notation that the owner's spouse indicated that the Department and the facility could only deal with each other through their attorneys. When the inspector asked her supervisor for advice, her supervisor told her to leave the facility. November 30, 2007, is subsequent to the Department's referral of this case to the Division of Administrative Hearings. On December 28, 2007, the Department conducted a routine inspection of God's Little Angels. The form checklist has attached to it a hand-written explanation of the visit of November 30, 2007, by the inspector who went to the facility on that date. Her explanation is more detailed and states that the owner's spouse denied her access because the facility was "in the process of revocation" and that his lawyer had told him that everything now had to go through the facility's lawyer and the Department's lawyer. The explanation also states that the owner's spouse tried to contact his lawyer but was unable to. The owner's spouse then called the inspector's supervisors and talked to them; they then told the inspector not to do the inspection that day. The items marked to be in "noncompliance" and "complete" on the December 28, 2007, form checklist are as follows: the back door did not have a screen and was open; some outdoor toys were splashed with mud, some had standing water in them, and two were cracked; the posted menu did not have the date on it; and an evacuation plan was missing from "the back room." The Inspection Checklist contains a notation that the inspector came to the facility on December 28, 2007, but was denied access by the owner's spouse. When the inspector returned later that day, the owner's spouse and the Department's program administrator had conferred, and the owner's spouse advised the inspector that the inspection could take place. The items marked to be in "noncompliance" and which have a deadline for correction are as follows: side fence is not secure, due date January 7, 2008; the facility did not have documentation to show completion of a five-hour literacy training course for one staff member, due date January 7, 2008; the facility did not have an Attestation of Good Moral Character for that same staff member, due date January 4, 2008. The only item on the December 28, 2007, inspection checklist that also appeared on the October 30, 2007, inspection checklist is the standing water in the outdoor playground equipment or toys. On both checklists that notation is marked "complete" so it is assumed that the water was removed before either of those inspections was completed. No item on the October checklist was found to remain in non-compliance in December. Checklists for three inspections after the December inspection were admitted in evidence but no testimony explaining the entries or the actual inspections was offered. The January 29, 2008, inspection checklist has an entry related to the fence, but the description is different than on the December inspection form. It cannot be assumed, therefore, that the deficiency was the same. The February 28, 2008, and the March 28, 2008, checklists indicate that Respondents were in compliance with all statutory and rule requirements. Respondents have obtained assistance from the grandmother of one of the children attending God's Little Angels. That lady has assisted Respondents to organize the required paperwork, has given Respondents computer programs to track the required paperwork, and has created spreadsheets to handle Respondents' finances. Since she is also a state- certified firefighter, she has inspected the facility regarding safety issues and made suggestions for improvements. Those suggestions have been implemented. Respondents have also hired a woman to be the operations manager at God's Little Angels. She will computerize God's Little Angels' records and ensure that all of the Department's rules and regulations are being met by Respondents and by the parents of children attending the facility. Her background is as a medical office supervisor, overseeing 12 facilities, and, according to her testimony at the final hearing, has never failed an inspection by the State regarding those facilities. Respondents have made a number of physical changes to the facility and organizational changes to the required recordkeeping in their attempt to avoid revocation of their license.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that the Department failed to prove the allegations in its Addendum to the Amended Intent to Revoke License and dismissing the Addendum filed against Respondents in this cause. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of July, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINDA M. RIGOT 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 2nd day of July, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert A. Butterworth, Secretary Department of Children and Family Services Building 1, Room 202 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John J. Copelan, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204B 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Robin Whipple-Hunter, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services Post Office Box 2417 Jacksonville, Florida 32231-0083 Randall A. Schmidt, Esquire 620 West 37th Street Savannah, Georgia 31415
