The Issue The issue is whether Respondent should renew Petitioner's license to operate a large family child care home.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner has owned and operated Jeannie's Child Care in her home as a licensed 24-hour facility since 1988. Petitioner's license allows her to keep up to 12 children at a time. She also owns another offsite daycare center that is not at issue here. Petitioner's license to operate a large family child care home expired on December 2, 2001. Prior to the expiration of the license, Respondent designated Petitioner's facility as a Gold Seal Quality Care Program. There is no credible evidence that Petitioner is responsible for any child being spanked with a paddle or a belt. She normally puts children in the corner for time out when they misbehave. However, competent evidence indicates that Petitioner sometimes threatens to spank children that are difficult to control. On at least one occasion, Petitioner spanked third and fourth grade sisters with a rolled up newspaper, telling them that if they behaved like dogs, she would treat them like dogs. On other occasions, Petitioner spanked C.F. and F.D. by hand. Because C.F. was particularly hard to manage, his mother and her boyfriend gave Petitioner permission to spank C.F. The children in Petitioner's care sometimes bite other children. Usually these children are toddlers. To discourage biting, Petitioner told her staff to put a drop of hot sauce on a finger then put the finger in the child's mouth and on the gum. Petitioner used hot sauce in the manner described on F.D. and at least one other toddler. Petitioner's adult son drove the facility's vans. He also played with the children in the yard. At times, he would let the children exercise with him by doing push ups or sit ups and running laps. Occasionally, Petitioner's son or teachers at the facility would encourage C.F. or other school-aged children to exercise and run laps. The purpose of the exercise was to burn excess energy. To the extent that exercise was used to control the behavior of the children, there is no persuasive evidence that it was excessive. It is acceptable to discipline children by placing them in time-out. It is not acceptable to require the children to hold their hands up in the air or to hold books in their hands during a time-out period. There is no persuasive evidence that Petitioner was responsible for children having to hold their hands in the air or to hold books in their hands while they were in time-out. Petitioner's method of disciplining children varied depending on how difficult it was to control them. In some cases, the parents of the children approved Petitioner's unorthodox discipline. However, there is no evidence that any child in Petitioner's home facility were bruised or physically injured as a result of punishment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent enter a final order renewing Petitioner's license to operate a large family day care home subject to appropriate terms and conditions. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of July, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 18th day of July, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Ralph J. McMurphy, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 1601 West Gulf Atlantic Highway Wildwood, Florida 34785 Edward L. Scott, Esquire Edward L. Scott, P.A. 409 Southeast Fort King Street Ocala, Florida 34471 Paul F. Flounlacker, Jr., Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204B Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Josie Tomayo, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue in the case is whether the allegations of the Administrative Complaint filed by the Petitioner against the Respondent are correct and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the state agency responsible for licensure and regulation of child care facilities operating in the State of Florida. The Respondent is a licensed child care facility, Florida license number 400-9, located at 1221 South Washington Avenue in Apopka, Florida. On March 1, 2001, the Petitioner received a complaint related to alleged poor conditions at the Respondent facility, including unclean bathrooms, and unsupervised children. An investigator employed by the Petitioner was assigned to inspect the facility. He visited the child care center on the afternoon of March 1, 2001, and recorded his observations on an "inspection checklist." On March 1, 2001, the facility was observed to be "dirty and cluttered." One of the restrooms was unclean and apparently not functional. Additionally, three infants were left alone in a room without adult supervision. The closest adult to the infant room was conducting business with a customer and was not within sight of the children.
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 imposing a fine of one hundred dollars ($100) against the Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of August, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 29th day of August, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Craig A. McCarthy, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 400 West Robinson Street, Suite 1106 Orlando, Florida 32801 Carol Wiggins Central Avenue Child Care 1221 South Washington Avenue Apopka, Florida 32703 Virginia A. Daire, 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
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations herein, the Petitioner, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, (Department), was the state agency responsible for the maintenance of a register of reports of abuse and neglect of children, the elderly and the disabled in Florida. Respondents, Clifford and Nancy Stephan operated a foster care home for children in St. Petersburg, under license issued by the Department. On August 13, 1993, J.B., a 2 1/2 year old boy, was placed as a resident in Respondents' foster home. J.B. is described as a rambunctious child who demonstrated behavioral problems but who had no documented clinical problems. The placement was made by Teresa Harris, a child protective investigator for the Department who, when she delivered the child, spent a lot of time with the Respondents describing him and his problems. The care packet she left with the Stephans did not, however, have his Medicaid card included with it. Without that card, the Stephans could not get medical care for the child under Medicaid. At the time he was delivered to the Stephans, J.B. had been abandoned and abused. He had some scars, (cigarette burns), and old abrasions as well as the normal lumps and bruises which might be expected on an active child of his age. After the placement, follow-up visits were made by either Early Service Intervention personnel or by Ms. Harris who indicated that some time during the following week, the Medicaid card was to be delivered by ESI. It was several weeks after the placement, however, before the card was actually delivered and during that time, Ms. Stephan made repeated requests to Department personnel for it. At the time of delivery, it had only 10 days remaining validity. According to Ms. Harris, during the week of September 20, 1993, Mrs. Stephan called, upset, saying that J.B. was acting up and had hurt himself when he dove into the couch and hit his face on a bar running across the back, giving himself a black eye. According to Ms. Harris, Mrs. Stephan also stated that they had had to lock J.B. in the bathroom when he became excited and had bruised himself when he hit himself on the toilet paper holder or rolled around on the floor. Mrs. Stephan categorically denies having placed J.B. in the bathroom, much less locked him there, and claims he would go in there himself for solitude and remain so long, they had to call him out. She notes the bathroom door does not lock from the outside - only from the inside. Taken as a whole, it is found unlikely that the Stephans would lock or even confine in any way a child as young as J.B. in a bathroom, the one room in the home where there is little softness but an abundance of hard, potentially injurious surfaces on which he could hurt himself. As a result of Mrs. Stephan's call, Ms. Harris went to the Stephan home on September 22, 1993 where, she claims, she asked Mrs. Stephan if she wanted J.B. removed from the home. According to Mrs. Harris, Mrs. Stephan said she did, but, again, Mrs. Stephan denies she was asked or indicated she did want him out. Ms. Harris also states that when she arrived at the home, early in the morning, she found J.B.'s things already packed and waiting. At this point, Ms. Harris observed an altercation between Mrs. Stephan and her eldest son in which the boy spoke rudely and provocatively to his mother. Mrs. Stephan did not respond in kind. At this same time, Ms. Harris also noticed that J.B. had two black eyes and bruises on his back. She already knew of the black eyes as a result of Mrs. Stephan's report of his dive into the sofa, but he also had on his back oddly shaped round bruises which concerned her. She told Mrs. Stephan she would have to call in and report the bruises and that Mrs. Stephan should expect an inquiry into how the child got them. Ms. Harris took J.B. from the Stephan home that day, taking him to her office where she showed the bruises to her supervisor. During the ride from the home to the office, she asked J.B. how he got the bruises and, she relates, he stated "Cliff did it." Other witnesses who discussed the bruises with the child, including Dr. Morris with the child protective team, indicate that J.B. indicated that "Charlie" did it. In light of the inconsistency, it is found that J.B. did not accuse "Cliff", (Mr. Stephan), but, more likely, "Charlie", another, also very aggressive foster child living in the home. That same day, the child was examined by Dr. Morris who discovered some of the old bruises he had noted in a prior examination conducted on August 4, 1993, before the child was placed with the Respondents. The doctor also noted some new bruises, however, on the face and on the back. The bruise on the face was consistent with the story told regarding the dive into the couch and could well be accidental. The bruises on the child's back were, however, in the doctor's opinion, consistent with an inflicted injury, (child abuse). These bruises were linear, uniform in shape and dimension, and not likely to have resulted from an accident. They are not compatible with either tumbling exercises on a hard floor or bites. Their location on the body supports that conclusion. The most common cause of this type of injury is a beating by a belt or cord. While it is hard to tell the age of the person who may have inflicted these bruises, they are not characteristic of play between young children. No evidence was presented to indicate how the bruises were actually inflicted. Their cause is unknown. The child does not indicate in any way that either Respondent administered them. Immediately after the report concerning J.B.'s bruises was filed, an investigation was conducted into the incident by a representative of the Department. At the time, there were at least 5 foster children in the home, including J.B.. The others were R.M., age 11; his sister, Sunshine, age 9; C.J., age 2; N.K., age 1; and T.H., age 1 1/2. All these children were removed from the home pending investigation. The investigation, when completed, failed to indicate who inflicted the bruises to J.B.'s back or how they were inflicted. The report was, therefore, closed without classification. Nonetheless, by letter dated November 23, 1993, the Department notified the Respondents that while they might again use their home for the shelter of children, only children 10 years of age and older would be allowed. This was unsatisfactory to the Stephans who are most drawn to the younger children. The Department's restriction was based on the conclusion that the Stephans showed favoritism to some of the children placed with them and on the assertion that certain children, about whom the Stephans had noted aberrant behavioral actions, ceased that behavior when removed from the Stephan home. Mr. Bonollo, the child protective officer who picked J.B. up at the Respondents' home and took him to the Department office noted that Mr. Stephan was quite upset by the removal of the children from the home. When he asked why this action was being taken, Mr. Stephan was told that it was standard Department procedure when an allegation of abuse is made. Mr. Davis, the Gardian ad Litem volunteer who is responsible for J.B., felt from the very beginning of the placement that Respondents did not like the child. They consistently complained about him, noting he didn't have proper clothing or proper paperwork, and Davis felt they liked the other children in their care more. He specifically concluded that N.K. and C.J. were more to the Respondents' liking and received more attention and affection from them. He admits, however, that from his observation, the Respondents were no more harsh in their approach to J.B. than to the other children. Since J.B. was removed from the Respondents' home, he has been doing much better, but he is also six months older than he was at the time he lived there. This might have something to do with the change. According to Ms. Cremer, the protective services worker who oversaw the Respondents' operation, all the children there were given adequate care, food and attention. There seemed to be a good bonding and affection shown by Respondents to the younger children, however, to whom this witness also feels they showed favoritism, blaming J.B. for things the younger ones did. She was bothered by the fact that the Respondents discussed the older children's behavior in their presence, commenting about destruction of property, wasting of food, and cutting the bed with a knife, for example. While she never saw any physical abuse by either Respondent, Ms. Cremer felt their reporting of the older children's misconduct was abuse. Respondents deny showing any favoritism to any child though there is some indication they wanted to adopt C.J.. Departmental policy in cases of this nature, where abuse is alleged and the report is later closed without classification, is to submit a copy of the report for review by an administrator who can, and did here, make the decision to restrict the age and type of children who can be accommodated in a foster home. The decision to restrict children to those 10 and up was made in this case because there were issues in doubt regarding the care of the children even though there was no confirmed report of abuse. Authority for the Department to make that decision is found in Rule 10M-6.025, F.A.C.. The decision was made to place with Respondents only children who were more verbal and more visible and better able to report what happened to them. Here, since so many of the children in the home were unable to accurately verbalize and tell the story, and because the licensing investigator recommended no children under 10, the file was forwarded to L. Britt, a Senior Operations Program Administrator who made the ultimate decision on the restriction. That decision was made on the basis of the report of investigation, the meeting with staff members, the family dynamics, and the increased risk factor for children under 10. Both Departmental rules and pertinent statutes require foster parents to immediately report any injuries to children and this was not done here. Since the decision to restrict as to age was made, the initial restriction against all children has been removed and Respondents have been offered foster children who meet the criteria set in the remaining restriction. Respondents have refused, however. Child care experts from agencies other than the Department, who are familiar with Respondents and how they operate their foster home, indicate Respondents are caring and responsible parents. Their home is set up for children who are treated like family. Mr. Stephan, though big, is not intimidating. In discipline he was firm but not frightening. They impressed Debra Dahl, a representative of the Pinellas Association for Retarded Children, which placed four children with Respondents since 1991, as being caring, very nurturing and very aware of the children's needs. Any children she has placed with Respondents have thrived. Mrs. Stephan worked with children for 9 years while residing in New York, and after moving to Florida, became a substitute care provider for a day care center. She has been licensed as a foster parent, with her husband, for 4 years. They have taken the required training and attend continuing education courses in the field. It has been Mrs. Stephan's experience that most children act up a bit when they come to a new home. Usually, however, the aberrant behavior abates after a while. Prior to the arrival of J.B., the only report of bad behavior the Stephans made was concerning S.M. They also, at one time, had a foster child run away from the home and report abuse, but upon investigation by the Department, the report was classified as unfounded. In addition, a report of neglect was filed against them when, upon the advice of a specialist, they took a child off a particular medication, because of bad side effects, two days before he was to be seen by the physician who had prescribed it and who made the report. This report, too, was classified as unfounded. All foster children are supposed to be taken to a doctor within 3 days of placement. In this case, however, because the Department representatives had failed to provide the child's Medicaid paperwork in a timely manner, Respondents did not feel they could take him. A Department representative took the child to a doctor one time and returned him with a prescription for medication, but again, because Respondents did not have the Medicaid paperwork, they did not feel they could have it filled. When they advised the Department worker of this, they were, allegedly, told to forget it because it was for a mole. J.B. also got the same fever all the other children got, but they could get no treatment for him without the paperwork. This pertinent Medicaid paperwork was not provided until 10 days after J.B. came into the Respondents' care and, even then, it was good only for 10 days. Without that paperwork, Respondents could not get medical care for the child without paying for it themselves. The attitude that medical care will be withheld from a child if public funds are not provided immediately is disturbing. In this case, it is fortunate that no serious illness or injury was involved. There is no evidence, however, to indicate what the Respondents' response would have been in a more serious case.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Respondents' protest against the restriction against placing children under the age of 10 in their foster home be denied. RECOMMENDED this 28th day of March, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 March, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 93-6588 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: Not a Finding of Fact but a stipulation between the parties confirming a previous determination made by the undersigned to change the designation of the parties. & 3. Accepted and incorporated herein. 4. & 5. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 12. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. & 15. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Not a Finding of Fact. More a recitation of and comment on the evidence. Not a Finding of Fact but a recounting of the testimony of a witness. FOR THE RESPONDENT: Not a Finding of Fact but a stipulation between the parties confirming a previous determination made by the undersigned to change the designation of the parties. - 4. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 9. Accepted and incorporated herein. 10. & 11. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 17. Not Findings of Fact but recitations of testimony. 18. - 20. Accepted. Accepted. Not a Finding of Fact but a recitation of testimony. Rejected. A probability of abuse, (injury caused by someone), was indicated, but the identity of the perpetrator was not determined. COPIES FURNISHED: Frank H. Nagatani, Esquire David Jon Fischer, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services District V 11351 Ulmerton Road Largo, Florida 34648-1630 James L. Berfield, Esquire Ameri-Life Towers First Floor East 2536 Countryside Boulevard Clearwater, Florida 34623 Robert L. Powell, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Kim Tucker General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner should revoke Respondent's license to operate a foster home for dependent children.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for issuing licenses to operate foster homes for dependent children. Petitioner also prosecutes license discipline proceedings. Respondent is the maternal aunt of three female children, Deanna, Angelique, and Antoinette. Respondent is a retired teacher. She worked for the state of New York before she moved to Florida. She also receives Social Security payments. Prior to 1990, Respondent's three nieces lived with their biological parents in the state of New York. New York adjudicated the children dependent and assigned the children to the foster care of Respondent. The three nieces were approximately 5, 7, an 8 years old. New York paid Respondent $2,100 a month to provide foster care for the three children. New York pays a monthly board rate of $700 per child. Petitioner agreed to supervise Respondent's foster care on behalf of New York. On March 12, 1992, Petitioner and Respondent entered into an Agreement To Provide Foster Care For Dependent Children ("Foster Care Agreement"). Each Foster Care Agreement provided, in relevant part: We will not give the child into the care or physical custody of any other person(s) . . . without the consent of a representative of the Department. * * * We will notify the Department immediately of any change in our address, . . . living arrangements, family composition, or law enforcement involvement. * * * We will comply with all requirements for a licensed foster care home as prescribed by the Department. * * * This child is placed in our home on a temporary basis and is at all times under the supervision and control of the Department. We are fully and directly responsible to the Department for the care of the child. We will take no action to acquire legal custody or guardianship of the child. * * * The Department may remove the child from our home at any time but will, whenever possible, give us at least two weeks notice. Until May 2, 1995, Respondent provided foster care for her three nieces without incident. Respondent was a loving and caring foster parent while the children were young. The children regarded Respondent as their mother. On April 25, 1995, Petitioner increased Respondent's licensed capacity for the period May 2, 1995, through May 1, 1996, to five children. Petitioner assigned two Florida foster children to Respondent. Petitioner paid Respondent $592 a month to provide foster care for the two Florida children. Florida pays a monthly board rate of $296 for each child. Problems developed in the foster home due to overcrowding. Tiffany, one of the two Florida foster children, had an infant child. Tiffany did not maintain good hygiene for herself or her child. Tiffany neglected her child. The additional parenting responsibilities fell on Respondent. Petitioner reduced the overcrowding by removing the two Florida foster children. Petitioner removed Tiffany and her child on December 8, 1995, and removed the second foster care child as soon as the school year ended. Other problems persisted in the foster home separate and apart from the problem of overcrowding. The three nieces were growing up and were beginning to manifest problems from unresolved childhood issues. Each niece had unresolved issues that presented very difficult parenting problems. As the nieces grew older, Respondent did not have the parenting skills necessary to parent her three nieces. Deanna's unresolved issues are illustrative. Deanna weighed under four pounds at birth. The mother was a cocaine addict throughout the gestational period. There was some fetal distress related to withdrawal. Deanna was always irritable. She had a very low frustration tolerance. She had frequent tantrums in which she would throw, spit, and hit her siblings and Respondent. Deanna had been treated with various medications. They included Ritalin, Depakote, Dexedrine, and Clonidine. The other two nieces presented Respondent with similar parenting problems. They hit Respondent when they did not get their way, frequently lied, and stole items from home and school. The problems presented by the three nieces would have been difficult enough to deal with for the best of parents. However, Respondent practiced inappropriate parenting techniques. Respondent used excessive corporal punishment to discipline all of her foster children. She practiced humiliation tactics on her oldest niece. Respondent gave preferential treatment to the youngest niece. Respondent arbitrarily allowed the youngest niece to have privileges denied to the other nieces. Respondent routinely gave the youngest niece excessive amounts of money for nominal tasks. For example, Respondent paid the youngest niece $100 for two hours work around the house. Respondent manages her own money poorly. Her income is insufficient to cover her expenditures. She is evasive and vague about her finances. Respondent became depressed and withdrawn. She remained non-verbal with lengthy periods of silence. She stared at the wall. When counselors and case workers confronted Respondent regarding her depression, she became very angry and agitated. She retreated into denial and relied on adolescent responses to distance herself from those trying to help her and her nieces. Petitioner conducted a critical case review on June 28, 1996. Petitioner provided numerous intervention services for Respondent and her nieces from July through November, 1996. Petitioner provided counseling through The Harbor Mental Health Services ("Harbor"). Respondent and her three nieces attended group therapy at Harbor. In addition, each niece participated in individual counseling at Harbor. Petitioner provided an Intensive Crisis Counseling Program ("ICCP") for Respondent. ICCP is an intense in-home counseling program over six weeks. It is designed to prevent removal of foster children from the home. Petitioner extended the ICCP in Respondent's home for an additional six weeks. Petitioner provided psychological evaluations to determine if Respondent was suicidal or suffered from alcoholism. The evaluations found no evidence of either problem. Therapists attempted to assist the individual family members toward effective communication, establishing boundaries, reasonable consequences, and consistent discipline. The intervention services provided by Petitioner were unsuccessful. Respondent and her nieces persisted in their inappropriate behavior. Petitioner issued a provisional license to Respondent for the period August 2, 1996, through November 2, 1996. The license required weekly visits by a foster care counselor. Petitioner conducted a routine home visit on September 26, 1996. The situation had not improved. On October 4, 1996, Petitioner conducted another critical case review. At the critical case review, the foster care counselor learned from members of the ICCP team that Respondent planned to leave Florida to visit New York. On October 10, 1996, the foster care counselor telephoned Respondent. Respondent confirmed that she was leaving for New York on October 11, 1996. When the foster care counselor asked Respondent to provide the location of her three nieces and the identity of the respite caregiver during Respondent's absence, Respondent stated only that she was leaving the nieces with her mother. Respondent told the foster care counselor that if Petitioner wanted to see her nieces while Respondent was in New York, the foster care counselor should telephone Respondent's home and leave a message on Respondent's voice mail. Respondent's mother would check the messages each day and return the case worker's telephone call. Respondent's manner and tone were abrupt, cryptic, abrasive, and angry. The foster care counselor was unable to obtain any further information. Respondent terminated the telephone call. Respondent violated several requirements of each Foster Care Agreement. Respondent allowed the removal of each niece from her home by someone other than Petitioner's representatives. Respondent gave each foster child into the care or physical custody of another without the consent of Petitioner. Respondent failed to provide Petitioner with adequate notice of any change in the living arrangements or family composition of the foster children. Respondent's mother was not, and never has been, an authorized foster care parent or respite caregiver. Respondent did not consent to Respondent giving her nieces to the physical care and custody of Respondent's mother. Respondent did not give Petitioner the information needed for Petitioner to adequately supervise the foster children during Respondent's absence. Petitioner determined that it could no longer supervise Respondent's foster care on behalf of New York. Petitioner ascertained the location of the foster children. On October 17, 1996, Petitioner removed the nieces from the home of Respondent's mother. Petitioner returned the nieces to the appropriate authorities in New York. By letter dated, October 17, 1996, Petitioner notified Respondent of the action taken. The letter also notified Respondent that the foster care home was closed and that Respondent's license was being revoked.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating material provisions of the Foster Care Agreement for each of her three nieces, failing to effectively supervise and safeguard her foster home, and revoking Respondent's license to operate a foster care home for dependent children. RECOMMENDED this 28th day of April, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of April, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard Doran General Counsel Department of Children and Families Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory D. Venz Agency Clerk Department of Children and Families Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Ralph McMurphy, Esquire District 13 Legal Office Department of Children and Families 1601 West Gulf Atlantic Highway Wildwood, Florida 34785 Patricia Genovese Qualified Representative 13140 Jessica Drive Spring Hill, Florida 34609 Yvonne B. Butler, Esquire 6341 Gainsboro Avenue Spring Hill, Florida 34609
Findings Of Fact The Respondents operated a "therapeutic foster home" in Lee County, North Fort Myers, Florida. A therapeutic foster care home such as this is licensed to accept and care for emotionally disturbed children such as the 9- year-old girl, T.P., involved in this case and, as such, has a mental health technician from the Department available for consultation should such assistance be needed. The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged, as pertinent hereto, with administration of the foster care program mandated by Chapter 409, Florida Statutes, and the above-cited chapter of the Florida Administrative Code. The child involved in this dispute, "T.P.", is a 9-year-old girl who has been diagnosed as emotionally disturbed. The Respondents were aware that she was an emotionally disturbed child when she was placed in their home with one other foster child and were also aware that theirs was a licensed therapeutic foster home with a mental health technician available for consultation. They failed to make use of the services of that technician in dealing with the child's problem involving enuresis and ecopresis. This child's medical problem, involving incontinence of bowel and bladder, is related to the child's emotional disturbance. Because of the nature of this problem and its psychological ramifications, it is even more critical than with ordinary children that slapping or hitting as a punishment for bed- wetting or soiling of clothes or bedding should be avoided. If the child is so punished for incontinence, then the child's guilt feelings or feelings of inadequacy for having "accidentally" soiled bedding or clothes is greatly aggravated. On February 10, 1982, the Respondent, Russell Ostrander, administered corporal punishment to the child T.P. on two occasions, leaving multiple black and blue marks or bruises on the buttocks and thighs of this child "because she was messing in her britches." The child, either later that day or one or two days thereafter, visited with her natural mother who observed the bruises and reported the matter to Mrs. Parker, the Petitioner's first witness, who is a "district intake counselor." Mrs. Parker, and/or the other HRS personnel testifying for the Petitioner, felt that an instance of child abuse had occurred and removed the child from the foster home. The despondent admitted spanking the child on several occasions, but did not believe he could have caused the bruises shown in Exhibits 1 and 2. The Respondents admitted however that the child was spanked as punishment for "messing in her britches."
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, the evidence in the record, it is therefore RECOMMENDED: That the license of Janet and Russell Ostrander to operate a foster home be revoked. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of May, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of May, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Anthony N. DeLuccia, Esquire District Legal Counsel Post Office Box 06085 Fort Myers, Florida 33906 Russell and Janet Ostrander Rt. 2, Box 382 Ruden Road North Fort Myers, Florida 33903 David H. Pingree, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in the case is whether the registration of Thorpe Lindsay's family day care home should be revoked.
Findings Of Fact The Department is responsible for the registration and supervision of family day care homes, pursuant to Section 402.313, Florida Statutes (2007). Respondent, Thorpe Lindsey, has been registered to operate a family day care home at 2306 Savoy Drive, Orlando, Florida, since December 18, 2006. 3. On June 27, 2007; July 13, 2007; and July 26, 2007, Respondent allowed an unscreened and unapproved substitute, Sheneka Henderson, to be alone with and supervise children in the family day care home. Respondent was not present in the home on at least two of these occasions. On all three occasions, Respondent appeared after the Department's protective investigator or child care licensing supervisor noted his absence and the presence of Ms. Henderson as the caregiver.2 On July 13, 2007, Respondent was cautioned in person about the repercussions of allowing unscreened personnel to supervise children. On September 14, 2007, the Department issued an Administrative Complaint against Respondent, seeking to impose a civil penalty in the amount of $500.00 for the three instances of using an unscreened and unapproved substitute caregiver. Respondent refused to accept service of the Department's certified letter. The copy of the Administrative Complaint sent by regular U.S. Mail was not returned to the Department, and Respondent never sought a hearing or otherwise contested the allegations of the Administrative Complaint. Aside from the problem of unscreened personnel, Respondent also had a recurring problem of caring for a number of children greatly in excess of the ratios allowed by statute in his family day care home. Under any circumstances, a family day care home may provide care for no more than ten children. See § 402.302(7), Florida Statutes (2007). On June 27, 2007, the Department sent a certified letter to Respondent noting that on the previous day, the Department had received a report that Respondent was caring for between 30 and 40 children. The letter cautioned Respondent that he must immediately reduce enrollment and submit a written plan to the Department by July 10, 2007, identifying the names and birth dates of the children for whom Respondent would continue to provide care, as well as the names and birth dates of the children whom Respondent eliminated from his roster. Respondent never provided the required documentation to the Department. The Early Learning Coalition of Orange County is a public/private partnership established to ensure that children enter school ready to learn. In coordination with the Department, the Early Learning Coalition provides health and safety inspections for anyone receiving school readiness funding. Because Respondent received such funding, Eric Allen, an inspector for the Early Learning Coalition, made regular visits to the family day care home. On July 6, 2007, Mr. Allen made a routine visit to Respondent's home and found several violations, including a ratio violation, the presence of unscreened volunteers caring for children, chemicals under kitchen and bathroom sinks without door locks on the cabinets, and uncapped electrical outlets. On July 9, 2007, the Early Learning Coalition sent a letter to Respondent outlining the violations and requiring their correction pending a re-inspection of the family day care home. On July 20, 2007, Mr. Allen conducted a routine visit to Respondent's home and again found the home to be out of ratio. On July 26, 2007, the Early Learning Coalition sent a letter, signed by Donna J. Williams, director of quality services, to Respondent that stated the following, in relevant part: This letter will clear up any confusion as to the number of children you are legally allowed to care for. As a family home provider, six (6) is the maximum number of children under the age of five you are allowed to have in care at one time. If an infant is present, the maximum number of children allowable at one time is five (5). I am enclosing the state ratio chart so you may be clear on the number and age of children you are legally allowed to have in your care at one time. Since this falls under our Non-compliance Policy, you are hereby on notice that if there is any other incident where you are found in non-compliance with any Level I violation, the parents of school readiness funded children will be contacted and given the opportunity to transfer as you will be ineligible to receive school readiness funds for a period of one year. On September 7, 2007, at approximately 3:45 p.m., Mr. Allen again visited Respondent's registered family day care home. Mr. Allen found a note on the front door stating, "We are on a field trip," with contact information for parents at the bottom. Mr. Allen noted that the contact numbers on the note did not match the contact information on file at the Early Learning Coalition. He also noted that all of the windows of the house were covered with blinds or cardboard. Mr. Allen testified that he had made several prior attempts to visit the home in recent days, but that on each occasion was met with a note claiming the children were out on a "field trip." He was about to walk away from the house when he heard a baby crying inside. He rang the doorbell and knocked on the door but received no response. He called out to whomever was inside the house, "This is Eric from the Early Learning Coalition. I can hear a baby crying. You need to open the door or you are violating your provider agreement and you are in danger of being de-funded." There was still no response from inside the house. Mr. Allen walked around to the back door. He knocked on the window of the rear childcare area and repeated his warning. After several minutes, a car pulled up to the home. A woman got out of the car and approached the front door. Mr. Allen asked if she was there to pick up a child, and she answered affirmatively. She rang the doorbell but no one answered. Mr. Allen offered to call the contact number, but the woman just turned and drove away. Mr. Allen called the Early Learning Coalition's office and asked the administrative assistant to verify and call the contact number for Respondent's home. When the assistant called the number, a woman who identified herself as Respondent's sister answered and stated that the children were out on a field trip. Mr. Allen then called the contact number and asked Respondent's sister where the children were. She stated they were on a field trip to Pizza Hut. Mr. Allen told her he could hear a baby crying inside and that if the door was not opened he would call the police. Respondent's sister hung up the phone. Just as Mr. Allen's phone conversation concluded, approximately 25 minutes after he first arrived at the house, the woman in the car returned. As the woman walked up to the front door, the door was opened by Toshiba Lindsey, another of Respondent's sisters, who was holding a baby she said was her son. Mr. Allen showed Ms. Lindsey his identification and asked her why he had been left outside trying to get someone to open the door for nearly a half hour. Ms. Lindsey claimed to have been sleeping and not to have heard the knocking. Mr. Allen entered the home and started down the hallway, but Ms. Lindsey forbade him from entering one of the rooms. Mr. Allen could hear a child crying inside the room. He demanded to know whose child was behind the door. Ms. Lindsey denied there was anyone in the room. For several minutes, Mr. Allen attempted to convince Ms. Lindsey to open the door, but she continued to say that she could not open it. Mr. Allen told her to call Respondent, who was not in the house. Mr. Allen spoke to Respondent and told him that he would call the police if Ms. Lindsey did not open the door. Respondent hung up on him. Mr. Allen called 911 and requested an officer to come to the house and open the door. A moment later, the door to the room opened and another woman, Sheneka Henderson, emerged with 13 children. Neither Ms. Lindsey nor Ms. Henderson had been background screened or trained to act as caregivers. Mr. Allen recorded the names and ages of the children, then left the home. Respondent never showed up at the house while Mr. Allen was there. On September 10, 2007, the Early Learning Coalition sent Respondent a letter notifying him that he would be ineligible to receive school readiness funds for a period of one year, based on Respondent's repeated violations of mandatory state ratio requirements.
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 revoking the registration of Thorpe Lindsey to operate a family day care home. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of April, 2008, 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 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of April, 2008.
The Issue The parties stipulated that a concise statement of the nature of the controversy is: "Petitioner revoked Respondent's license to operate as a child-placing agency under 409.175, Fla. Stat." The issues in the case are delineated with specificity in the Administrative Complaint dated February 20, 2006. Petitioner alleges that Respondent's license is revoked for the following reasons: Failure to properly close the agency as required by F.A.C. 65C-15.035. Repeated failure to provide the Department with the agency's 2004 financial audit as required by F.A.C. 65C-15.010 and failure to provide the Department with the agency's 2005 financial audit; Multiple code violations documented on February 10, 2005 in the Child Placing Agency Inspection Sheet attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference; Multiple code violations documented on September 14, 2005 in the Child Placing Agency Inspection sheet attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference; Multiple code violations documented on October 18, 2005 in the Child Placing Agency Inspection Sheet attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference; Multiple code violations documented on January 19, 2006 in the Child Placing Agency Inspection Sheet attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference; Multiple code violations documented on February 17, 2006 in the Child Placing Agency Inspection Sheet attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference; Entering into contracts with a prospective adoptive parent for the placement and adoption of a child, taking the prospective adoptive parent's money and not placing a child in their home for adoption, and, thereafter failing to return money paid for fees, costs and expenses advanced by the prospective adoptive parent which were refundable. In short, the agency charged the prospective adoptive parent for fees, costs and expenses, and, when the agency failed to deliver on the contract it did not return the advanced money required to be refunded. This is in violation of sections 63.097 and/or 409.175, Florida Statutes, and F.A.C. 65C-15.010; Entering into contracts with a prospective adoptive parent for the placement and adoption of a child, taking the prospective adoptive parent's money, placing a child in their home for adoption, and, thereafter failing to return money advanced to pay for fees, costs and expenses associated with the adoption which were not expended. In short, the agency charged the prospective adoptive parent for fees, costs and expenses, and, when the funds were not actually needed to cover the allowable fees, costs or expenses the agency failed return the advanced money. This is in violation of sections 63.097 and/or 409.175, Florida Statutes, and F.A.C. 65C-15.010. In its response to the Administrative Complaint, Respondent, Homecoming Adoptions, Inc., has denied each of the nine listed reasons for Petitioner's decision to revoke its license.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is a Florida non-profit corporation, doing business in Orlando, Florida. It is co-owned by Kurt Alexander and Kendall Rigdon; both are officers of the corporation and are attorneys licensed to practice law in the State of Florida. On March 2, 2005, Petitioner issued a Certificate of License to Respondent to operate a child-placing agency. The license was to continue in force for one year from the date of issue unless renewed, withdrawn or revoked for cause. On February 15, 2006, Kurt Alexander advised Petitioner on behalf of Respondent that "we are withdrawing our application for licensure renewal at this time." During relevant times, to wit, March 2, 2005, to February 15, 2006, Respondent entered into contracts (titled "adoptive agency agreement") with individuals seeking to adopt children wherein Respondent undertook to "assist the Adoptive Parent in commencing and completing the adoption." The contracts contemplate the Adoptive Parent traveling "to the foreign country to complete the adoption process and accept physical custody of the child." Evidence was offered that Respondent assisted with adoptions which took place in Russia, China, Guatemala, El Salvador, and other countries. In each instance, the formality of the adoption was effected by individuals or agencies located in the foreign country. Although a licensed child-placing agency, Respondent had never placed a child for adoption within or without the State of Florida. Respondent became a licensed child-placing agency in an abundance of caution in the event it had to undertake a Florida adoption. Respondent never had physical custody of any child on either a temporary or permanent basis. On February 17, 2006, Kurt Alexander again advised Petitioner that Respondent "does not wish to renew or retain its license as a child-placing agency in Florida." He further advised that [I]n an abundance of caution and in compliance with 65C-15.035, Homecoming will do the following Transfer all children to the Dept. or another licensed child placement agency. There are none. Transfer responsibility for all children in temporary placement, etc. There are none. Transfer services to all other clients. Will do. On or about February 17, 2006, all active and closed files of Respondent, the licensed child-placing agency, were transferred to the law firm of Rigdon, Alexander & Rigdon, LLP. Thereafter, Kurt Alexander, in his capacity as an attorney with that firm, requested that Petitioner refrain from examining the files that had previously been the property of Respondent, as they were now law firm property and "confidential." On September 14, 2005; October 18, 2005; January 19, 2006; and February 17, 2006, Petitioner conducted annual and complaint inspections of Respondent's files. Employee personnel files lacked applications, references, local/FDLE/FBI criminal background checks, degree verifications, and other required information. Some adoption files lacked completed home studies, character references, background studies, criminal background checks, and abuse registry checks. In addition, a required financial audit was not available. Respondent's executive director was terminated in August 2005; Petitioner was not notified of his termination. No evidence was offered by Petitioner regarding the allegations of paragraphs 8 and 9 of the Administrative Complaint.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order revoking the license of Respondent, Homecoming Adoptions, Inc., effective February 20, 2006. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of September, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JEFF B. CLARK 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 6th day of September, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: James E. Taylor, Esquire 126 East Jefferson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 T. Shane DeBoard, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 400 West Robinson Street, Suite S-1114 Orlando, Florida 32801 Gregory Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204B 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Copeland, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Luci D. Hadi, Secretary Department of Children and Family Services Building 1, Room 202 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent committed the violations as alleged in the Administrative Complaint (AC), and, if so, the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact DCF is the state agency responsible for licensing child care facilities and enforcing regulations to maintain the health, safety, and sanitary conditions at those facilities operating in the State of Florida. See §§ 402.305-.311, Fla. Stat.; and Fla. Admin. Code R. 65C-22.010. In order to fulfill its regulatory duty, DCF conducts complaint and routine inspections. The factual allegations, as stated in the AC, provide the following: a. On December 20, 2018, the Department received an allegation that the owner/ director of the facility hit a child on the face with a ruler and slapped him. The teacher also hit another child on the chest with a ruler and that a child had slight bruising and a round scratch under his left eye. The Department conducted an investigation into these allegations starting on December 28, 2018. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Department determined the facility committed Class I violations of child care facility standards for child abuse and unscreened individuals. Licensing Counselor, Tiffani Brown, along with a Child Protective Investigator (CPI) Barbara Smith commenced their investigation on December 28, 2018, after the facility reopened from the holidays. They met with the owners [sic] daughter, Danita Gaines and spoke to the owner via the phone. While at the facility, Counselor Brown questioned Anthony Council, who stated he does help take care of children. Mr. Council was located in a room with children present. Mr. Council is not background screened and was ordered to leave. The owner, Cloe Gaines was on vacation and would not return until 1/2/19. Counselor Brown and CPI Smith returned to the facility on 1/2/19 to speak to the owner. Ms. Cloe Gaines was interviewed, and she stated she is a foster parent. Due to the allegations, Ms. Cloe Gaines was handed a restriction letter, which she signed and left the facility. Counselor Brown and CPI Smith interviewed Ms. Cloe Gaines [sic] foster children. The first foster child, G.M. said for punishment Ms. Cloe Gaines makes him go to sleep. The second foster child, M.M. continued to nod her head indicating yes when asked if he gets spanked for punishment. Counselor Brown and CPI Smith interviewed four other children at the facility. The first child, A.J. stated that Mrs. Cloe whips them with a belt or ruler on the arms and hands. The second child, A.J. stated that Mrs. Cloe hits people if they be bad. The third child, O.E. said that Mrs. Cloe hits them if they are bad with a blue ruler that she keeps in her desk. The last child, T.J. stated that they get hit with a pink and purple ruler that is kept in the classroom. The children were taken to be interviewed by the Child Protection Team for forensic interviews, which were again verified. Based upon the factual allegations in paragraph 3 above, the AC asserts that those allegations constitute the following Class I violations: a. On January 4, 2019, Anthony Council, is an unscreened individual who was left alone to care for children, in violation of Section 435.06(2)(a), Florida Statutes. This constitutes a Class I violation of Child Care Licensing Standard, CF-FSP Form 5316, 4-18, October 2017, incorporated by reference, 65C-22.010(1)(e)l, F.A.C. b. The owner, operator, employee or substitute, while caring for children, committed an act or omission that meets the definition of child abuse or neglect as provided in Chapter 39, Florida Statutes in that four children disclosed child abuse at the hands of the owner Cloe Gaines. A.J., A.J., O.E., and TJ. [sic] disclosed that they are victims of child abuse by Ms. Gaines when she hits them with belts and rulers as a form of discipline in violation of CCF Handbook, Section 8.2, A. This constitutes four (4) Class I Violations of Child Care Licensing Standard, CF-FSP Form 5316, 47-02 and ll-06, October 2017, incorporated by reference, 65C- 22.010(1)(e)1, FAC. Respondent was licensed by DCF to operate a child care facility located at 1550 King Street, Cocoa, Florida. During the hearing, it was disclosed that the Academy had been closed for at least a month. Cloe Gaines (Ms. Gaines) is the owner/director of the Academy. Danita Gaines, Ms. Gaines’ daughter, has worked at the Academy since 2015 as a teacher in the two-year-old classroom. Anthony Council is Ms. Gaines’ grandson and performed maintenance several times at the Academy when asked to do so by Ms. Gaines. Additionally, Mr. Council has a son who attended the Academy. On December 20, 2018, DCF received allegations that Ms. Gaines had hit a child on the face with a ruler. On December 21, 2018, DCF attempted to investigate the alleged child abuse complaint. However, the Academy was closed for winter break, and scheduled to reopen on December 28, 2018. Child Protective Investigator (CPI) Smith, a 13-year DCF employee, located two of the alleged victims of the Academy at their respective homes on December 21, 2018. CPI Smith interviewed B.T., a four-year-old male, who stated that he and his cousin, T.J., were arguing at the Academy. Ms. Gaines called on them and she struck B.T. on the face with a ruler, which caused B.T.’s face to bleed. B.T. stated that T.J. raised his arm in front of his chest and T.J. was struck on his arm. Based on B.T.’s comments, CPI Smith requested that B.T. be taken to the Children’s Advocacy Center of Brevard (CACB) for a video-recorded interview. During the video-recorded interview, B.T. was forthcoming about the injuries he sustained at the Academy. B.T. again stated that he and T.J. were arguing and playing, and Ms. Gaines hit him (B.T.) on the face with a ruler, which caused his face to bleed. B.T. said Ms. Gaines gave him a band-aid for his face. Pictures taken of B.T. on December 21, 2018, show the injuries B.T. sustained. CPI Smith substantiated or verified the abuse of B.T. by Ms. Gaines. B.T. also told CPI Smith where Ms. Gaines kept the ruler she used to hit him. When CPI Smith returned to the Academy, she located the blue ruler in Ms. Gaines’ desk drawer. Another alleged victim, T.J., was also interviewed at his residence on December 21, 2018. T.J. recounted that he and B.T. were playing and fighting when Ms. Gaines called them. T.J. provided that Ms. Gaines hit B.T. on the face, and that he, T.J., was hit on the arm with a ruler. CPI Smith was unable to substantiate abuse of T.J. because there were no physical indicators on T.J. at the time of the interview. CPI Smith and Tiffani Brown, a DCF child care regulation counselor and licensing counselor, returned to the Academy when it reopened on December 28, 2018, to investigate the child abuse allegations. Ms. Gaines was not present, but the DCF employees spoke with Danita Gaines, who said Ms. Gaines was on vacation and would return on January 2, 2019. The two DCF employees returned to the Academy in January 2019. When CPI Smith returned to the Academy, she interviewed two other alleged victims, twins A.J. and AK.J. AK.J., the male twin, provided that Ms. Gaines was mean, whips students on the arms and hands, and will make them stand by the wall with their hands raised over their heads. As a result of his interview at the Academy, AK.J. was asked to go to the CACB for a video- recorded interview. A.J., the female twin, stated that Ms. Gaines hit her (A.J.) on her hands and arms with the ruler, and makes them (the children) stand beside the wall, “if they be bad.” CPI Smith asked that A.J. be taken to CACB for a video-recorded interview also. In AK.J.’s video-recorded interview, he provided the name of his favorite Academy teacher, but stated that he did not like Ms. Cloe (Ms. Gaines) because she was mean and “pops” people with a ruler. AK.J. said he was scared of Ms. Gaines; the ruler was hard; and it hurt when he was struck. During A.J.’s video-recorded interview, she recounted that Ms. Gaines and her daughter, “Ms. Danita,” were mean. A.J. also stated Ms. Gaines “whooped” her (A.J.) with a ruler and at times Ms. Gaines made all the children stand at the wall with their hands raised over their heads. On January 2, 2019, Counselor Brown, a DCF employee of nine years, observed Mr. Council walking outside the Academy with several students following him. Mr. Council does not have the required background screening approval to care for children in a daycare setting, and a background screened teacher was not present when Counselor Brown first observed Mr. Council. The background screened teacher appeared a minute or so later. During the hearing, Mr. Council provided that he was at the Academy daily, either dropping off or picking up his son. Mr. Council further testified that he performed various maintenance tasks that Ms. Gaines asked him to perform, such as changing filters for the air-conditioning vents and policing the playground, all while children were present. Mr. Council admitted that Ms. Gaines had told him (Mr. Council) to get the required background screening completed, but he had not done so.
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 license of CG Academy. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of June, 2019, 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 4th day of June, 2019.
