The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Department of Children and Families (DCF) should fine the Respondent for alleged violations in the operations of two child care centers in Lakeland.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Faith Without Works, Inc., d/b/a The Early Years CDC, is licensed by DCF to operate a child care facility at 5100 U.S. Highway 98, North, and at 2933 Duff Road, both in Lakeland. The Respondent's license certificate for the Highway 98 facility is C10PO0696; its license certificate for the Duff Road facility is C10PO0799. The charges in this case pertain to the Highway 98 license, C10PO0696. Late License Renewal The Respondent's annual license for Highway 98 was due to expire on December 14, 2013. On November 4, 2013, the Respondent's principal, Elizabeth Jackson, telephoned DCF on behalf of the Respondent to report that no renewal packet had been received. Normally, DCF sends licensees a renewal packet in time to file a renewal application at least 45 days prior to the license expiration date (i.e., by the filing deadline). The evidence was not clear why the Respondent had not received the packet. The Respondent picked up a renewal packet from DCF and filed its renewal application on November 6, 2013. There was no evidence of an affirmative misrepresentation from an authorized DCF employee that reasonably led the Respondent to delay filing its license renewal application. At best, there was evidence that the Respondent's license renewal application was late in 2011, but that no fine had been assessed. In that year, the Respondent asked DCF in early December as to the whereabouts of the renewal packet and was told that one had been sent on October 27, 2011. The Respondent then reported to DCF that a renewal packet was received on December 10, 2011, four days before expiration of its annual license, but the packet pertained to a different licensee. The Respondent picked up a renewal packet from DCF and filed for renewal. The Respondent was not fined for late renewal that year. Children Left in Van On October 18, 2013, the Respondent's van driver took a four-year-old boy and his one-year-old sister home from the Highway 98 facility. On the way, he stopped at the Duff Road facility to drop off a box lunch. He parked the van in front of the building, very close to the door, went inside briefly, returned to the van to get what he was delivering, and brought the delivery into the building. He then returned to the van and continued on his way to deliver the children to their destinations. During the time he was at the Duff Road facility, the driver left the two children in the van with the engine running. The driver recalled: that the door to the facility was unlocked; that he entered the building the first time just to announce his presence; that the entire delivery process took just 30 seconds; and that the Duff Road facility staff was watching the van from the door the entire time. The Duff Road employee testified that the door was locked; that she interrupted her lunch break to unlock it and hold the door open; and that she was watching the van from the doorway the entire time. An employee of the Early Learning Coalition, who happened to drive up for a scheduled appointment just before the van arrived, testified that she saw no one at the door; that she could see the older child squirming in his seat; and that the children were left alone in the van long enough for her to make her observations, telephone her supervisor, report her observations, and ask what she should do, which probably took considerably longer than 30 seconds. A child protective investigator testified that she learned from interviews with the driver, the older child, and the child's father that the child had a history of removing, or attempting to remove, his seat belt and moving about, or attempting to move about, while in vehicles. However, the evidence was not clear and convincing that the driver, who was a new employee, knew the child's propensities in that regard. During the incident and the investigation on it, the Respondent accepted DCF's expression of concern that the driver's conduct could have resulted in serious harm to the children. The Respondent blamed the incident on the driver being a new employee, who was a school bus driver but was inexperienced transporting preschool children. The Respondent reprimanded the driver and required him to take training in transporting young children. The driver was appropriately remorseful and welcomed the training as being appropriate and helpful. All involved were grateful that no actual harm to the children occurred. In its defense of the charge and during the hearing, the Respondent took the position that there was no serious harm, or threat of serious harm, based on the testimony of the driver and the Duff Road employee. The Respondent attempted to impeach the testimony of the protective investigator, that the driver did not mention the purported supervision by the Duff Road employee during her interview of him, by eliciting that the investigator did not directly ask whether staff was watching from the door. However, in the context of the interview, the driver would have been expected to offer that information had it been true. Overall, the contemporaneous reaction and statements of all involved belie the Respondent's current position and the referenced testimony of its witnesses. It is found that the driver's conduct posed an imminent threat that serious harm could have occurred. The boy could have climbed out of his seat and gotten out of the van, which may not have been detectable by staff standing at the front door to one side of the van, or started playing with the van's gear shift and accelerator, which also may not have been observable from that vantage point, even assuming staff was monitoring the van the entire time. Employee Work History Not Checked The driver of the van on October 18, 2013, had Level 2 screening, but there was no documentation that his work history was checked. On July 16, 2012, during a routine DCF inspection, it was revealed that the Respondent had three employees whose work history had not been checked at the time. DCF provided "technical assistance" by telling the Respondent that all employees should have their two-year history checked before starting work, which should be documented. At the time of this earlier violation, DCF gave the Respondent a formal warning stating its intent to take administrative action if further violations of the standard were found. Employee Not Screened On July 19, 2013, the Respondent employed Desaundra Oldfield, who did not have Level 2 screening at the time. In its defense against this charge, the Respondent took the position that Ms. Oldfield was a participant in the Welfare-to-Work Program of Polk Works and was screened through that program. However, it is clear that Ms. Oldfield did not get required Level 2 screening until July 20, 2013. On March 19, 2013, the Respondent was unable to produce documentation that Regina Curtis, who was employed for 30 days and also a parent of a child at the daycare center, had Level 2 screening. The Respondent's defenses at the time of the hearing were that Ms. Curtis was a participant in the Polk Welfare-to- Work Program, and also that she was no longer employed on March 19, 2013, so that on-site documentation was not required. However, the evidence was clear and convincing that Ms. Curtis did not have required Level 2 screening during the time she was working for the Respondent. Non-compliance was noted. Since Ms. Curtis no longer was employed, nothing further was done in the way of technical support. At the time of this earlier violation, DCF gave the Respondent technical support and a formal warning stating its intent to take administrative action, if further violations of the standard were found. Inadequate Supervision On June 7, 2013, a DCF inspector responding to an unrelated (and unfounded) complaint observed a single employee in charge of a room of 19 four-year-olds having a party. While the employee's back was turned to help one child in the adjoining bathroom, the other children were jumping off tables and playing with balloons. One parent was in the room with the other children while this was going on, but the parent was not an employee, was not screened, and did not have her work history checked. A balloon burst while in a child's mouth, and the DCF inspector attended to the child to make sure the child did not swallow the burst balloon and choke. On October 26, 2012, a DCF inspector responding to an unrelated (and unfounded) complaint came upon a child in a room by himself. Unnoticed, the child left the room where he was being supervised by an employee of the Respondent to look for candy and was in an adjoining room when seen by the DCF inspector. According to the inspector, when she returned the child, the employee indicated not knowing the child had left. During the hearing, the Respondent asserted that the employee saw the child walk around the DCF inspector, undetected, and enter the adjoining room. The defense was not supported by any competent evidence and was not presented in the Respondent's proposed order. At the time of this earlier violation, DCF gave the Respondent technical support and a formal warning stating its intent to take administrative action, if further violations of the standard were found. Safety Violation Rule 65C-22.002(1)(a) and (b) requires child care facilities to be free from health and safety hazards and not be used for any activity that endangers the health and safety of children. DCF proved a violation of this rule during a routine inspection on August 14, 2013, because several electrical sockets did not have required safety plugs. This was a Class III violation. DCA also proved by clear and convincing evidence two previous violations of this rule, one on June 7 and another on July 19, 2013. After the earlier violations, DCF gave technical support; after the second, DCF gave the Respondent a formal warning stating its intent to take administrative action, if further violations of the standard were found. Selective Enforcement Defense The Respondent asserts as an additional defense that it was the victim of selective overzealous and picayune enforcement because of the personal prejudices and animosity of certain DCF personnel for various reasons, including that the Respondent licensed a second facility (at Duff Road) and intended to expand further. The evidence did not prove the alleged prejudice and animosity, or selective enforcement.
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 the Respondent guilty of the alleged violations and fining the Respondent a total of $475. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of April, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 30th day of April, 2014. COPIES FURNISHED: Esther Jacobo, Interim Secretary Department of Children and Families Building 1, Room 202 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Marion Drew Parker, General Counsel Department of Children and Families Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Families Building 2, Room 204B 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Karen I. Meeks, Esquire Meeks, Lewis and Cabrera, P.A. Post Office Box 1598 Bartow, Florida 33831-1598 Cheryl Dianne Westmoreland, Esquire Department of Children and Families 1055 U.S. Highway 17, North Bartow, Florida 33830-7646
The Issue Whether respondent committed the violations alleged in paragraphs 3(b), (c), (d) and (e) of the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Kinder Kastle Day Care Center (Kinder Kastle), located in Bradenton, Florida, is licensed to operate as a child day care facility under Chapter 402, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 10M-12, Florida Administrative Code. On June 17, 1987, and on July 17, 1987, Kinder Kastle was inspected by Laura D. Winfrey to determine whether Kinder Kastle was in compliance with the provisions of Chapter 402, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 10M-12, Florida Administrative Code. When Ms. Winfrey inspected Kinder Kastle on June 17, 1987, there was one staff person in the room with 10 babies between one year and 18 months old. On July 17, 1987, when Ms. Winfrey reinspected the facility, there was one staff person responsible for nine babies between the ages of one year and 18 months. The staff person present in the room advised Ms. Winfrey of the children's ages. During the inspection of June 17, 1987, Ms. Winfrey noted that the exit lights were not turned on. At the time of reinspection on July 17, 1987, the exit lights still were not lit. However, the rooms where the exit lights were located had windows. Therefore, because the facility was only used during the daytime, the exit lights were visible even when they were not turned on and the regular lighting was off. Ms. Pillsbury, the respondent, testified that she had attempted to have the exit lights fixed in early July, so they would be continuously lit, but due to equipment that had to be ordered and other difficulties, the lights were not permanently turned on until October of 1987. During both inspections, Ms. Winfrey noted that respondent was using two different types of baby gates to block interior doorways. Ms. Winfrey considered that one of the gates was unsafe because it was not approved by the Consumer Product Safety Board. 1/ The gate had a bar and clip type mechanism and had to be moved to the side to allow exit from the room. Ms. Winfrey remembered seeing a bulletin from the Consumer Product Safety Board regarding that particular type of gate; however, she could not remember what was in the bulletin concerning the gate. Ms. Winfrey felt that the gate might be a hazard because it is not permanently attached to the wall. If it were removed from the doorway and set aside, Ms. Winfrey felt that the gate could fall and injure a child. The "approved" gate is of latticed design, consisting of hinged wood slats. The gate is permanently attached to one side of the door and opens and shuts in accordion fashion. Because of the manner of opening and closing, it is very easy for children to get their fingers pinched in the gate. The slats in the accordion gate are not as sturdy as those in the other gate and are more easily broken. There was no competent evidence presented to establish that the accordion gate was safer or more effective than the other gate respondent was using. When Ms. Winfrey inspected the facility on both occasions, she requested random samples of children's files to determine whether they contain the information required. On June 17, 1987, none of the files contained statements outlining respondent's disciplinary policies signed by the children's parents. On July 17, 1987, Ms. Winfrey inspected four files from each age group, and only four of the files had disciplinary policy statements signed by the children's parents. Ms. Pillsbury stated that of the files checked on the second visit, many of the children had not been back to the day care center since the first inspection. However, Ms. Pillsbury picked the files to be inspected by Ms. Winfrey. Ms. Pillsbury stated that all parents did get a copy of a disciplinary statement; however, there was nothing in the files documenting that this had been done. Respondent did not dispute the allegation that she failed to submit a fingerprint card, affidavit of good moral character and Abuse Registry Form within the required time frames in violation of Section 402.3055(3), Florida Statutes, and Rule 10M-12.002(1)(b)2. and (1)(e), Florida Administrative Code. On June 17, 1987, Ms. Winfrey advised Ms. Pillsbury of the violations she observed and informed Ms. Pillsbury that the violations needed to be corrected by July 17, 1987, when the facility would be reinspected. Kinder Kastle has been cited for violations on previous occasions and has paid an administrative fine.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that respondent violated Rule 10M-12.002(1)(b)2. and (1)(e), Florida Administrative Code, Rule 10M- 12.002(5)(a)1., Florida Administrative Code, and Rule 10M-12.008(2)(f)2., Florida Administrative Code, as alleged in paragraphs 3(a), (b), and (e) of the Administrative Complaint; dismissing the charges set forth in paragraphs 3(c) and (d) of the Administrative Complaint; and imposing a total administrative fine of $135 to be assessed as follows: $30 for the Class III violation, $30 for the Other violation, and $75 for the Class II violation. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of January, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE A. GRUBBS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of January, 1988.
The Issue Whether the Respondent’s group home license issued by the Agency for Persons with Disabilities (APD) should be revoked or otherwise disciplined on charges stated in an Administrative Complaint, APD License 5604-6GA.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Aspiring Ambitions, LLC, is owned and operated by Tanya Warren. The Respondent holds APD license 5604- 6GA to operate a group home for developmentally disabled residents on Spillers Avenue in Tampa. The license was issued in April 2017 and had no prior incidents of any kind until September 2017. Tanesha Clarke3/ was listed on the Respondent’s license application as a “director,” but the evidence was that Ms. Clarke was not an owner or director, but rather an employee providing direct care to residents and performing some additional duties for the Respondent. Count I On September 12, 2017, Ms. Clarke and another employee of the Respondent were on duty at the Spillers Avenue home. Ms. Clarke became frustrated when H.B., a resident in the home, urinated on the floor and couch. In her frustration, Ms. Clarke struck and kicked H.B., who was defenseless due to his disability. The other employee on duty did not immediately call the abuse hotline or report the incident to Ms. Warren. The next day, the incident was reported via the abuse hotline. The identity of the reporter is confidential by statute. It was not Ms. Warren, who still did not know about the incident. A sheriff’s office child protective investigator responded to the group home to investigate on behalf of the Department of Children and Families (DCF). It was quickly established that Ms. Clarke had physically abused H.B., and she was arrested. Ms. Warren could not be contacted immediately, and APD sent a licensing specialist to the home to help take care of the residents in Ms. Clarke’s absence until Ms. Warren arrived about 20 minutes later. Ms. Warren fully cooperated with the investigation. She denied having any reason to be concerned that Ms. Clarke would abuse a resident. Two of the three other staff interviewed, plus a social worker who provided services to residents of the group home, also denied ever seeing Ms. Clarke behave in an abusive manner towards a resident and denied having any reason to be concerned that Ms. Clarke would abuse a resident. The staff member who was on duty with Ms. Clarke on September 12, 2017, stated that she had seen similar behavior by Ms. Clarke previously but did not report it to Ms. Warren or to anyone else. The investigation verified the abuse by Ms. Clarke, and APD licensing explained to Ms. Warren that her license would be in jeopardy if Ms. Clarke continued to work at the group home. Ms. Warren understood and fired Ms. Clarke. Ms. Warren also provided additional in-service training to the rest of her staff on the Respondent’s zero tolerance for abuse and on what to do and how to report incidents of abuse against residents of the facility. No further follow-up by the child protective team was deemed necessary. Count II On November 24, 2017, which was the Friday after Thanksgiving, a resident of the Spillers Avenue group home bit another resident, A.S., on the shoulder. The bite was fairly severe and resulted in a red bite mark. On that evening, there were five residents and only one direct care employee at the home. A second employee who was scheduled to work that evening called in sick and arrangements were not made to replace the sick employee for the evening. Because of their disabilities, the Respondent’s residents that evening were considered in moderate need of supervision, and two direct care employees were required to be on duty to meet staffing requirements. The Respondent’s employee on duty that evening noticed the bite mark while bathing A.S. and made a record of it in the home’s log. She did not call the abuse hotline or report the incident to Ms. Warren. The employee, who had been working for the Respondent for a few months, had not been trained on the policy of zero tolerance for abuse, including what to do and how to report in the event of an incident causing injury to a resident. On the following Monday, A.S. went to school, where the bite mark was noticed, and A.S. was seen and treated by a physician. The physician reported the abuse, and a DCF investigation was opened. At first, it was not clear how or when the bite was inflicted. Ms. Warren was contacted and fully cooperated. She discovered the bite incident entry in the home’s log, and the investigation was converted to an investigation of the Respondent. The DCF investigation was closed as substantiated for inadequate supervision by the Respondent (i.e., Ms. Warren) for two reasons: first, inadequate staffing; and, second, inadequate training of staff on what to do and how to report in the event of an incident causing injury to a resident. No findings were made against the employee on duty at the time of the bite incident because she had not been trained adequately, which was the responsibility of the Respondent (i.e., Ms. Warren). In response to the incident, Ms. Warren expressed her intention to ensure proper staffing and to train staff on the policy of zero tolerance of abuse, including what to do and how to report in the event of an incident causing injury to a resident. On follow-up by APD on December 27, 2017, it was determined that staffing was correct, the required zero tolerance training had been delivered, and there were “no other concerns at this time.” Count III In December 2017, APD conducted an annual licensing survey of the Respondent’s group home. It was determined that there was a broken window in one of the bedrooms. The Respondent had the window fixed before the follow-up inspection in January 2018. Shortly before (perhaps the night before or morning of) the re-inspection, a resident broke the window again, punching it completely out this time. When the inspector arrived, the bedroom was cold (well below 68 degrees Fahrenheit), as the temperature had gone down into the 30s overnight. Ms. Warren promptly had the window fixed again. The Respondent did all that could reasonably be expected under the circumstances.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that APD enter a final order dismissing Counts I and III, finding the Respondent guilty under Count II, and fining the Respondent $1,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of August, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 20th day of August, 2018.
The Issue Whether allegations in the Administrative Complaint dated September 21, 1992, constitute grounds for revoking or failure to renew the license of Alice White, d/b/a Miss Patty's Day Care Center.
Findings Of Fact Alice P. White is the owner/operator of Miss Patty's Day Care Center in Bradenton, Florida which is licensed for 30 children. This facility has been in operation for approximately 15 years. On August 14, 1992 an infant at this day care center was checked by Respondent and found to be not breathing. Respondent called 911 for emergency medical assistance and commenced CPR. Emergency medical support arrived shortly thereafter and took the infant to the hospital where it was pronounced dead. Sheriff's deputies investigated the incident immediately and questioned Respondent who was quite upset over the incident. Respondent initially told the deputy that the baby choked while she was feeding him in her arms. This was false which Respondent admitted after being informed a couple of days later that the medical examiner had concluded that the infant died from Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS). Factually, the eight month old infant had been put to bed in his crib shortly after noon with a bottle feeder for the nap. One of the attendants at the day care center was overseeing the infants in this room. She did not stay in the room every minute but periodically went in and out of the room. On August 14, 1992 Respondent returned from a trip to bring children back from a Bible study course and when she entered the area where the babies were sleeping she observed the aide in charge of these babies having some lunch. Respondent then went into the room with the babies and found the infant not breathing. The only charges in the Administrative Complaint regarding this incident is contained in paragraphs 5 and 8 of the Administrative Complaint. Paragraph 5 alleges the baby died and paragraph 8 alleges that Respondent had provided the sheriff's department with misinformation regarding the infant choking while she was feeding him and that this infant had been left alone for 30 minutes without supervision before being noticed by Respondent. No credible evidence to support the lack of adequate supervision of this infant before its death was presented. The discrepancies found during the quarterly inspections of the facility for the past 3 1/2 years were predominantly minor offenses such as inadequate record keeping, failure to document all staff had received prescribed training or innoculations, lack of current vehicle driver certificate, unsafe outdoor equipment, or minor food service violations, failure to provide employee background screening, inadequate staff to child ratio, inadequate bathroom supplies, and lack of immunization records. These are all classified as Class III violations as defined in Rule 10M-12.011(7)(c), Florida Administrative Code. All of the violations noted in paragraph 9 above were corrected within the prescribed time period and no Administrative Complaint was ever issued against Respondent prior to the instant Administrative Complaint. During the investigation at this day care center following the infant's death, and while the sheriff's deputies were on the scene questioning Respondent and her employees, three additional violations are noted in paragraph 7 of the Administrative Complaint. The first of these allege the center had 18 children in part of the facility with no staff present in the room. At the time this infraction occurred Respondent was out on the patio being interrogated by a deputy and another deputy had called the aide supervising the 18 children out of the room to question her. When Respondent returned inside the center and observed the aide being questioned by the deputy she sent another aide into the room with the 18 school age children. The second allegation was that there were 36 children in the facility although the center was licensed for only 30. Without attempting to justify the violation Respondent testified that this occurred a day or two before school started when the teachers had to be at school but the pupils did not. These excess children were children of teachers who requested Respondent to take them during the time these teachers had to be at school. As a favor to these mothers who had previously used her day care center Respondent temporarily exceeded her authorized number of children. The third violation resulted when Respondent left the children she was supervising to open the door to admit the HRS inspector who supervised the facility. While Respondent was opening the door to let the inspector into the facility the proper ratio of staff to child was not maintained. In response to the inspection reporting the lack of supervision of the 18 school age and excess children in the facility (Exhibit 20) Respondent prepared a list of the facility's weak points and steps initiated to correct them (Exhibit 23). On August 28, 1992 Respondent voluntarily closed her day care center pending the completion of all investigations (Exhibit 24). One witness who has used Respondent's facility for her children for some ten years or more ardently and emotionally supported the renewal of Respondent's license. In addition eight other letters from parents of children who used Respondent's facility voiced strong support for Respondent and expressed an earnest desire for her facility to reopen. Also another letter (Exhibit 26) signed by 19 additional parents strongly supported the renewal of Respondent's license. All of these people, with full knowledge of the unfortunate incident of August 14, 1992, expressed an intent to return their children to Respondent's facility as soon as it is reopened.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued finding Alice P. White, d/b/a Miss Patty's Day Care Center, not guilty of all charges in the Administrative Complaint and that the license to resume operations be issued forthwith to Alice P. White d/b/a Miss Patty's Day Care Center. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of May, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of May, 1993. APPENDIX Proposed findings submitted by Petitioner are accepted except as noted below. Those proposed findings neither noted below nor included in Hearing Officer's findings were deemed unnecessary to the conclusions reached: Rejected insofar as child not being supervised. See HO #6. See HO #11 and #12. Fifth sentence rejected insofar as it states child was without supervision for 30 minutes. Sixth sentence inconsistent with fifth sentence. Proposed findings submitted by Respondent are accepted. Those not included in Hearing Officer's findings were deemed unnecessary to the conclusions reached. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert Powell, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Slye, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Raymond Deckert, Esquire 4000 W. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. Tampa, Florida 33614 Donald B. Hadsock, Esquire 1806 Manatee Avenue West Bradenton, Florida 34205
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner, Department of Children and Families (Department), should impose a $75 fine on Respondent, Jumpstart Enrichment Program, Inc. (Jumpstart), and place it on probation for up to six months for not complying with child care facility staff-to-children ratio requirements for the fourth time.
Findings Of Fact The Department has issued Respondent license C09OR0629 to operate a child care facility in Orlando under sections 402.301 through 402.319, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 65C-22. The statutes and rules have minimum staff-to-children ratio requirements that are clear, but not uncomplicated, and not always easy to implement. It is necessary to have one staff person for every four children from birth to age one, for every six aged one to two, for every ten aged two to three, for every 15 aged three to four, for every 20 aged four to five, and for every 25 aged five or older. Generally, the ratio requirement for a mixed group of children aged two or older is dictated by the age group with the largest number of children in the group. However, if children under the age of two are present, the ratio requirement for a group is dictated by the age of the youngest child. It was undisputed that staff-to-children ratio requirements are Class II standards under the Department's rules. Citation Issued January 6, 2012 The Administrative Complaint alleges that a citation for insufficient staff was issued to Respondent during a Department inspection on January 6, 2012. It alleges that this was the fourth violation of the standard, justifying a $75 fine and probation for up to six months conditioned on being subject to unannounced visits to ensure compliance with all statutes and codes and on ensuring the maintenance of appropriate staff-to- children ratio. On January 4, 2012, Sabrina Hayles and Conswela Green were the staff on duty at Jumpstart. Eight children were present that morning when Ms. Hayles left the facility to go to lunch. She took two of the children with her so that Ms. Green would meet ratio requirements for the remaining six. While Ms. Hayles was gone, a grandmother dropped off another child, which put the facility out-of-compliance with staffing ratio requirements. Ms. Green asked the grandmother to stay until Ms. Hayles returned, but she said she had an appointment and could not stay. Ms. Green accepted the child into the facility and telephoned Ms. Hayles to tell her to return to the facility because they were out-of-compliance. Ms. Hayles, who already was on her way back, arrived several minutes later. The facility's being out- of-compliance was observed by staff from the Early Learning Coalition of Orange County (ELCOC), who happened to drop some paperwork off at the facility at that time. ELCOC reported the ratio violation to the Department, which investigated the allegation on January 6 and issued a citation. The Administrative Complaint alleges that this was Respondent's fourth insufficient staff violation and that the previous violations were on September 9 and April 14, 2011, and on August 20, 2010. Alleged Violation on September 9, 2011 There was no evidence of a staffing ratio violation on September 9, 2011. Actually, there was a staffing violation on September 7, 2011. One staff was caring for an infant and five toddlers; two staff were required. ELCOC reported the violation to the Department. When apprised of the violation, Michael Collins, the owner and director of the facility, took immediate action to increase staffing and bring the violation to an end as soon as possible. The Department investigated on September 9, 2011, verified the violation through interviews with Shawnda Bernard, and cited Respondent for the violation on September 9, 2011. Alleged Violation on April 14, 2011 Another entity involved in child care and school readiness, referred to in the hearing as Devoreaux, reported to the Department on April 12, 2011, that there was one staff caring for 13 children, when two staff were required. The Department investigated on April 14, 2011, determined from interviews with staff that the violation had in fact occurred, and cited Respondent for the violation. There was hearsay evidence of another staffing violation after the Department's inspection on April 14, 2012. The second alleged violation was not proven by any direct evidence or by any hearsay evidence that would be admissible over objection in a civil action. See § 120.57(1)(c), Fla. Stat. Alleged Violation on August 20, 2010 On August 20, 2010, the Department conducted a routine inspection and cited Respondent for having six children at its facility and no staff, just the owner/director, Mr. Collins. Two qualified staff were required for the six children. There was an unscreened volunteer there, who would have counted and made the staffing ratio sufficient prior to August 1, 2010, when the law changed to require staff to be screened. First Affirmative Defense In May 2011, the Department filed an Administrative Complaint against Respondent charging staffing ratio violations on August 20, 2010, and on August 6 and December 28, 2009, plus numerous other kinds of violations, including some on August 20, 2010. In October 2011, the Department and Respondent settled the charges in that Administrative Complaint by payment of a $500 fine (reduced from $2,205) and a reduced period of probation, through August 15, 2011. The alleged facts and charges were not admitted as part of the settlement. The settlement included a provision that the Department would "make no further orders and will take no further action on the Administrative Complaint and underlying violations in connection with this proceeding that is being settled." It also including a provision in the next numbered paragraph saying: However, if in the future, the Petitioner should have to take administrative action against the Respondent, the Respondent agrees that the Petitioner shall not be estopped from using the facts set forth in the Administrative Complaint in this case as additional basis' [sic] for any future denials, revocations or other administrative actions, taken against the Respondent by the Petitioner resulting from any future non- compliances with applicable statute, code or agreements, by the Respondent. Since one of the "facts set forth" in the settled Administrative Complaint was that Respondent had insufficient staffing on August 20, 2010, the Department was not estopped from using those facts as it does in this case--i.e., as one of the three staffing violations that preceded the one in January of 2012. Second Affirmative Defense Because of the insufficient staffing on January 4, 2012, ELCOC withheld payment for that day under the federal school readiness program it administers, which requires qualified staff to be present.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Families enter a final order: finding Respondent guilty as charged; fining Respondent $75; and placing Respondent on probation for six months, with unannounced visits to ensure compliance with all statutes and codes, including the maintenance of appropriate staff-to-children ratio. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of September, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 17th day of September, 2012. COPIES FURNISHED: Stefanie C. Beach, Esquire Department of Children and Families Suite S-1129 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801-1782 Jack P. Caolo, Esquire 131 East Woodland Drive Sanford, Florida 32773 Gregory Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Families Building 2, Room 204B 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Marion Drew Parker, General Counsel Department of Children and Families Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 David Wilkins, Secretary Department of Children and Families Building 1, Room 202 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
