The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner, Sabra Portwood, is entitled to register her home as a family day care home under the provisions of Chapters 402 and 435, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact On August 10, 2000, Petitioner was married to Randy Shoaff. She had two children, twins, by him and is currently pregnant with another of his children. Although estranged at present, they remain married. Petitioner is in the preliminary stages of dissolving the marriage and intends to complete the dissolution process. Petitioner and Mr. Shoaff have had a rocky relationship. On October 4, 2000, less than two months into their marriage, Mr. Shoaff struck Petitioner several times in the head from behind. She was pregnant at the time of the attack. The incident was reported to law enforcement. On March 12, 2001, Petitioner swore out a Petition for Injunction for Protection Against Domestic Violence, naming her husband as Respondent. The essential facts to which she swore and testified to at hearing were as follows: On February 23, 2001, at 705 W. Wilcox the Respondent Randolph Shoaff told me that the only reason I was still alive was because I was pregnant and that I have 3 other children. He said that he wanted to shoot me & then kill himself. Because of his actions before I have been afraid of him on 3 or 4 different occasions, and I would just be quiet & not say anything & wait for him to go to work. On Oct. 4th (there should be a police report) there was a dispute between us & he started hitting me in the head repeatedly when I was 3 months pregnant & had only been home for 3 hrs from the doctor because I was bleeding during pregnancy. I am afraid because I asked his coworker if his (Randy's) gun was under the counter & he said it wasn't there. As a direct result of Petitioner's request for a domestic violence injunction, the Third Circuit Court issued a Temporary Injunction. Subsequently, the injunction was conditionally dissolved. However, Mr. Shoaff was ordered to have no personal contact with Sabra Portwood at her home. A third Order was subsequently entered in order to facilitate visitation with his children, allowing non-hostile contact between the parties. Mr. Shoaff does not live with Petitioner. However, Petitioner and Mr. Shoaf are presently married. Therefore, Mr. Shoaf is currently a member of Petitioner's family and is required to undergo background screening for Petitioner's registration. Mr. Shoaff did not pass the background screening because of the injunction based on domestic violence entered against him. No exemption from disqualification was sought. Because of the failed background screening, Petitioner, who was the victim of domestic violence and took steps to protect herself from that violence, was denied registration based on the actions of her estranged husband.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Children and Family Services denying Petitioner's request to register her home as a family day care home. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of May, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of May, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: John R. Perry, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 2639 North Monroe Street Building A, Suite 104 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2949 Sabra Portwood 140 Regina Road Perry, Florida 32348 John Flounlacker, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204B Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Josie Tomayo, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue in the case is whether the Petitioner's application for licensure of a family day care home should be granted.
Findings Of Fact In June 2003, the Petitioner applied to the Respondent for a license to operate a family day care home. Tim Graddy, an employee of the Respondent, inspected the Petitioner's home located at 1031 Herschell Street, Lakeland, Florida 33815 on June 19, 2003. The purpose of the inspection was to determine whether the Petitioner's home met applicable requirements for licensure as a family day care home. The Petitioner was present at all times during the inspection. Upon completion of the inspection, the Petitioner received a copy of the inspection report and was instructed to contact Mr. Graddy to arrange for a re-inspection after the deficiencies identified in the report were corrected. The inspection report indicates that the Petitioner's background screening information had not been provided to the Respondent by the date of the inspection. According to the inspection report, the Petitioner was to provide such information to the Respondent by no later than August 18, 2003. The inspection revealed that the Petitioner's First Aid and CPR training certifications had expired. According to the inspection report, the Petitioner was to provide renewed certifications to the Respondent by July 19, 2003. Mr. Graddy noted that there were unsecured wooden logs stacked in a play area outside of the house. Additionally, the play area abutted a trafficked road, and the chain-link fence was sagging and did not properly surround the play area. According to the inspection report, the logs were to be moved and the fence repaired by July 19, 2003. Inside the house, Mr. Graddy observed that two floor mats used for napping had tears in the impermeable surface covering and that a high chair seat was torn. Also, the First Aid kit did not contain rolled gauze and required emergency telephone numbers (the abuse hotline and the poison control center) were not posted by the telephone. According to the inspection report, the cited deficiencies were to be remedied by July 19, 2003. Mr. Graddy had no further contact with the Petitioner until sometime in October of 2003, when he received a telephone message indicating that the Petitioner had called. Mr. Graddy returned the call, but was unable to contact the Petitioner. He left a telephone message, but did not hear back from the Petitioner. On or about November 18, 2003, the Respondent issued a Notice of Denial of the Petitioner's license application. The Notice of Denial sets forth the reasons cited by the Respondent for denial of the application as follows: Your background screening results reveal a criminal history that causes the Department to believe you cannot provide a safe and nurturing environment for children because of the nature of the charges, and the frequency of the disqualifying offenses. On June 19, 2003 an inspection of your proposed family day care home revealed the following violations of the Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Your CPR and First Aid certification had expired; Rule 65C-20.009(2)(a), F.A.C. The outdoor play area had wooden logs that posed a safety hazard; Rule 65C- 20.010(1)(e), F.A.C. A section of the chain link fence was broken; Rule 65C-20.010(1)(f), F.A.C. Napping mats with tears in them; Rule 65C-20.010(1)(h), F.A.C. High chair with broken seat cover; Rule 65C-20.010(1)(o), F.A.C. Your first Aid Kit was incomplete; Rule 65C-20.010(3)(a), F.A.C. Emergency telephone numbers not posted, Rule 65C-20.010(3)(b)(1), F.A.C. At the hearing, counsel for the Respondent stated that Respondent was solely relying on the June 19, 2003, inspection report as grounds for denial of the Petitioner's application and withdrew the paragraph related to the Petitioner's alleged criminal history. The Petitioner testified at the hearing. During the testimony, the Petitioner stated that all the deficiencies cited in the inspection report had been addressed by the time of the hearing. The evidence establishes that some, but not all, of the deficiencies were corrected prior to issuance of the Notice of Denial. The background screening information was apparently provided prior to issuance of the Notice of Denial. The First Aid and CPR training certification was not renewed until February 21, 2004. Although the Petitioner testified that the logs were moved and the fence repaired, the evidence fails to establish whether the work was completed prior to the issuance of the Notice of Denial. The floor mats were discarded on the day of the inspection. The Petitioner testified that the high chair was discarded, that the rolled gauze has been replaced in the First Aid kit, and that the required telephone numbers have been posted. Because the Petitioner did not notify the Respondent until the date of the hearing that the deficiencies set forth in the inspection report have been remedied, there has been no inspection of the property to confirm that the repairs were appropriately made. There has been no inspection of the home since June 19, 2003.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent enter a Final Order denying the Petitioner's application for operation of a family day care home. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of March, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of March, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Gwendolyn Brison 1031 Herschell Street Lakeland, Florida 33815 Jack Emory Farley, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 4720 Old Highway 37 Lakeland, Florida 33813-2030 Paul Flounlacker, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204B 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Josie Tomayo, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Was Petitioner properly disqualified from working in a position of special trust pursuant to Section 435.04, Florida Statutes, on the basis of a July 21, 1996, incident? If Petitioner was properly disqualified as a result of the July 21, 1996, incident, has she been sufficiently rehabilitated so as to be eligible for an exemption to work in a position of special trust, pursuant to Section 435.07(3), Florida Statutes?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was licensed through Leon County as a family home day care provider in 1995. Since 1996, she has been operating her family day care home pursuant to an exemption from disqualification by a 1973 disqualifying felony (manslaughter). Petitioner is a high school graduate. She was schooled and certified in New York as a nurse technician. She is certified as a home health aide in Florida. When she sought to renew her license in 2000, Petitioner was required to sign an Affidavit of Good Moral Character. The 2000 Affidavit of Good Moral Character read: By signing this form, I am swearing that I have not been found guilty or entered a plea of guilty of nolo contendere (no contest), regardless of the adjudication, to any of the following charges under the provisions of the Florida Statutes or under any similar statute of another jurisdiction. I also attest that I do not have a delinquency record that is similar to any of these offenses. I understand I must acknowledge the existence of criminal records relating to the following list regardless of whether or not those records have been sealed or expunged. I understand that I am also obligated to notify my employer of any possible disqualifying offenses that may occur while employed in a position subject to background screening under Chapter 435, Florida Statutes. The 2000 Affidavit then listed a number of offenses and the corresponding statute numbers. Among the offenses listed were: Sections 741.30 domestic violence and injunction for protection. 784.03 battery, if the victim was a minor. The 2000 Affidavit is DCF's attempt to paraphrase Section 435.04, Florida Statutes, listing disqualifying offenses. It is flawed and could be misleading because domestic violence can occur without an injunction for protection. Petitioner signed the 2000 Affidavit on January 25, 2000, in the portion declaring herself free of any disqualifying statutory violations and also signed the Affidavit in the portion stating, "To the best of my knowledge and belief, my record may contain one or more of the foregoing disqualifying acts or offenses." Petitioner testified in the instant case that she did not divulge the July 21, 1996, incident on her 2000 Affidavit because she did not think it constituted domestic violence, but why she signed contradictory statements was not explained. Petitioner's day care license was renewed, despite Petitioner's contradictory declarations on her 2000 Affidavit. She was notified of her disqualification when the five-year background screening turned-up an offense that had occurred on July 21, 1996. The Year 2000 background screening results which DCF received from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement indicated that Petitioner had been found guilty of "battery," on the basis of the July 21, 1996, incident. The Department's Background Screening Coordinator then obtained additional documentation from the file of the Leon County Court. Based on the information in the court file, the Department's District II Office concluded that Petitioner was disqualified because of a "domestic battery" offense. Petitioner exhausted informal procedures and timely requested an evidentiary hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (2000). The instant case followed. The instant case is the second occasion Petitioner has appeared before the Division of Administrative Hearings requesting an exemption from disqualification to work in a position of special trust. The first occasion Petitioner appeared before the Division occurred in September 1996, when she sought an exemption because she had been disqualified due to her 1973 felony manslaughter conviction in New York. Petitioner had failed to disclose the 1973 felony conviction on her 1995 affidavit when she first applied to be a child care worker.1 That disqualifying offense showed-up in the initial screening procedures applicable to such applicants. Petitioner was granted an exemption for the 1973 manslaughter conviction in Harris v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, DOAH Case No. 96-2010 (Recommended Order entered September 10, 1996; Final Order entered October 30, 1996), as more fully described below in Findings of Fact 34-36. She has been a licensed day care provider ever since. In 1996, Petitioner and Frank Fields had a romantic involvement bounded by Mr. Fields' keeping most of his belongings at his sister's apartment and merely sleeping over at Petitioner's home two to three nights per week, on a sporadic basis.2 On these occasions, he brought with him, and occasionally left in Petitioner's home, only his underwear and some music CDs. At all times material, Frank Fields was an adult male. Although younger than Petitioner, he was not a minor. On July 21, 1996, Petitioner, who was then 47 years old, was two months' pregnant with Frank Fields' child. She testified that at that time she was very upset and confused because of her pregnancy; because Mr. Fields was not helping with household expenses; and because she had heard that Mr. Fields was moving from his sister's apartment to an apartment of his own. On July 21, 1996, Petitioner was driving her car on Blountstown Highway. She noticed Mr. Fields' van and also noticed that there was a female in the passenger's seat of the van. Apparently, Petitioner believed that Mr. Fields was romantically involved with his female passenger. Petitioner had one adult daughter; the adult daughter's three children, all under the age of nine years, and her own eight-year-old daughter with her in her car. According to Petitioner's testimony, none of the four children in her car were young enough to require a car seat and none of her day care children were in her car. According to the police officer who later arrested Petitioner, there were six "children" in the back seat of Petitioner's car, not six people in the whole car. Regardless of this discrepancy in testimony, it is undisputed that there were no car seats and insufficient car safety belts for the number of passengers in Petitioner's car on July 21, 1996. Without approving either Petitioner's motivation or her reasoning, I find credible her testimony that she would not have taken her next actions had there been any day care children in her car because if day care parents found out about it, Petitioner could be "put in jeopardy"; she "could be in a lot of trouble"; and she would not have had day care children with her over a weekend. July 21, 1996 was, in fact, a Sunday. In making the immediately foregoing Finding of Fact, I have not overlooked Ms. Brantley's testimony that on occasion Petitioner has kept Ms. Brantley's children in Petitioner's home on nights and weekends while Ms. Brantley traveled. However, even assuming arguendo, but not ruling, that six rather than four children were in Petitioner's car on July 21, 1996, there is no direct evidence that any of them were also day care clients. Petitioner drove her car, filled with passengers, following Mr. Fields' van. Mr. Fields turned onto Nekoma Lane and pulled over to the side of the road. Petitioner pulled over and intentionally bumped her car into the back of Mr. Fields' van. Petitioner and Mr. Fields exited their respective vehicles, and Petitioner demanded to know who Mr. Fields' female passenger was, even though Petitioner knew the passenger was named "Melissa." Some screaming ensued, and Petitioner and Mr. Fields "tussled," hitting and scratching each other. Petitioner and her adult daughter testified that they did not know who struck the first blow. The non-hearsay evidence is insufficient to establish that on this occasion Petitioner left a bite mark on Mr. Fields' arm. When Mr. Fields began to wield a stick he had picked up from the side of the road, Petitioner's adult daughter got between him and her mother. Petitioner then drove her car, still containing its passengers, so as to follow Melissa, who had walked around the corner. Petitioner then "had a conversation" with Melissa. There is no evidence that the children were anywhere except inside Petitioner's car during either her confrontation with Mr. Fields or with Melissa. When the police arrived on the scene, Petitioner was arrested for battery and for driving with a suspended driver's license. The suspended license charge arose because, when questioned by the police, Petitioner gave her name as "Veronica L. Wynn." Petitioner's legal name was, in fact, "Veronica Harris." Petitioner also told the officer that her date of birth was September 19, 1959, and that she lived at 2106 Monday Street. Petitioner's true date of birth is September 19, 1949, and her true address was 1229 Elberta Street. When the officer could not find a driver's license record for "Veronica L. Wynn," Petitioner told him that the name on her license might be "Veronica Lee Harris Wynn." After she gave him the name "Veronica Lee Harris Wynn," the officer found Petitioner's driver's license record and learned that her driver's license had been suspended. Petitioner had recently been divorced and had "gone back" to her maiden name, but she testified herein that on July 21, 1996, she deliberately gave incorrect information to the police because she knew her driver's license was suspended and the police were going to check on it. Mr. Fields was provided with a pamphlet explaining his right to request domestic abuse protection and prosecution. Apparently, he did nothing about it. Petitioner was charged, in an Information which recited the statutory language of both Subsections 784.03(1) (a) and (b), Florida Statutes (1995), with "battery (M1)," meaning "first degree misdemeanor battery." The Information cited only "Section 784.03, Florida Statutes," for that offense. The Information also charged Petitioner with "driving while license suspended or revoked (M2)" also a misdemeanor, under Section 322.34(1), Florida Statutes (1995). On August 28, 2000, Petitioner entered a "no contest" plea to both charges. Petitioner was adjudicated guilty of misdemeanor battery and was ordered to serve 12 months of probation with the following conditions: (1) no contact with Frank Fields; (2) $155.00 court costs; and (3) $100.00 fine. She was also required to pay a monthly supervision fee while on probation and a fee for the services of the public defender. There was no charge, plea, or sentence stating "domestic violence" or citing a domestic violence statute. Petitioner was not required to attend a batterers' intervention program, pursuant to Section 741.281, Florida Statutes. No evidence was presented to show that the sentencing court had made written, factual findings that attendance at a batterers' intervention program would be an inappropriate condition for her probation. Petitioner's probation was terminated in December 1997. Petitioner miscarried her child conceived of Frank Fields before a live birth. Petitioner's emotional connection with Mr. Fields seems to have terminated with the July 21, 1996, incident. At the September 9, 1996, formal exemption hearing in Harris v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, DOAH Case No. 96-2010 (see Finding of Fact No. 12) Petitioner and her witnesses did not divulge that six weeks earlier, on July 21, 1996, Petitioner had been arrested for her altercation with Frank Fields or that less than two weeks earlier, on August 28, 1996, Petitioner had pled "no contest" to battery of Frank Fields. Petitioner testified in the instant case that she did not divulge the July 21, 1996, incident during the 1996 formal exemption proceeding before the Division because "it was not part of my day care home and had nothing to do with day care children."3 The Recommended Order in DOAH Case No. 96-2010 observed that "Petitioner, now a grandmother, testified tearfully to her errant behavior at the age of 21, over 24 years ago in New York. Petitioner has never been charged with any legal violation since that time, with the exception of traffic tickets . . .since the [1973] incident, . . . Petitioner has lived an exemplary life . . . ." That Order recommended granting an exemption. The outcome of the Final Order, entered October 26, 1996, was that Petitioner was exempted from the 1973 felony disqualification.4 Petitioner contends that she never committed "domestic violence" and even if she did, she has been "rehabilitated" since July 21, 1996. She feels that she should be granted an exemption because she is sorry for what she did; because if she had been thinking, she would not have done it; and because she loves her day care children. Since 1996, Petitioner has operated her family day care home and has pursued her goal of becoming a Master Provider of day care. In order to become a Master Provider, one must have taken the Second Helping Course (a refresher course for experienced day care providers); have either a Child Development Associate Certificate or national accreditation; and have five years' experience. Currently, there are only two Master Providers in Leon County. In 1998, Petitioner received a $500.00 Caring for Kids Mini-Grant which she used to purchase day care toys. In March 2000, Petitioner received a scholarship from the T.E.A.C.H. Early Childhood Project, which she had planned to use to take classes at Tallahassee Community Hospital towards her Child Development Associate certification. Petitioner has put this project on "hold" during the pendancy of the instant case. In May 2000, Petitioner completed the Second Helping Course. In Leon County, only approximately 20 family home day care providers have taken this course. In 2000, Petitioner received a $275.00 Caring for Kids Mini-Grant which she used to help pay for her Second Helping Course. Petitioner was selected to receive a Kids Incorporated Infant/Toddler Initiative Grant of $3,000, which she intended to use to purchase toys and equipment for her day care home. Petitioner was hand-picked by Kids Incorporated because of her genuine love and concern for the children and because Kids Incorporated felt that Petitioner only needed additional toys and equipment in order to improve her day care home. However, because of the instant case, Kids Incorporated has not yet disbursed this money to Petitioner. Kids Incorporated wants to be assured the money will go to someone who will be a day care provider for the long-term. Petitioner has volunteered for the school readiness program sponsored by Kids Incorporated, which has resulted in additional visits and evaluations of her day care home. Her day care children have all scored "above average" in the program. Katherine Schmidt, a Family Child Care Specialist with Kids Incorporated, testified that she has evaluated and assessed Petitioner's day care home in her capacity with Kids Incorporated and during the period she was helping Petitioner obtain the grants mentioned above. Ms. Schmidt believes Petitioner is an excellent day care provider and would not be a danger to the children in her care. Ms. Schmidt also believes Petitioner would be a benefit to the children and their families. The Leon County Home Day Care Providers Association and Support Group meets monthly, and Petitioner regularly attends. Two day care providers wrote letters in support of Petitioner. Cicely Brantley is a professional music education teacher in Leon County's public school system. Ms. Brantley's two children attend Petitioner's family day care home. She has seen Petitioner briefly at least five days per week for the last two years. Ms. Brantley's older child is two and one-half years old and has been in Petitioner's day care home since he was nine months' old. Her younger child is 15 months old and has been in Petitioner's day care home since she was eight weeks old. Ms. Brantley testified that she trusts Petitioner with her children and that she trusts and values Petitioner's judgment when it comes to the children. Ms. Brantley often asks Petitioner's advice about parenting, discipline, and health issues involving her children. Ms. Brantley testified that other than her husband, Petitioner is the person she trusts the most with her children and that Petitioner goes above and beyond what most day care providers would do, both in education and care. Ms. Brantley was aware of the battery incident that occurred between Petitioner and Mr. Fields, but it did not change her opinion of Petitioner. She does not believe that Petitioner would ever be a danger to her children. Ms. Brantley really does not want to have to find other child care if Petitioner is unsuccessful in getting an exemption, and it is apparent that this concern has influenced her testimony. Versee Hoffman is a Pioneer with the Jehovah's Witnesses. This means that she has committed to serving 70 hours per month with her ministry. Ms. Hoffman met Petitioner approximately five years ago through church. Ms. Hoffman and Petitioner studied the Bible together periodically. At that time, Ms. Hoffman felt that Petitioner was not really committed to the church or its moral standards, and their studies ended. Thereafter, Ms. Hoffman did not see Petitioner for approximately two years. In early 1999, Petitioner approached Ms. Hoffman and told Ms. Hoffman that she wanted to renew their Bible studies. Ms. Hoffman agreed, and they have been studying the Bible together weekly ever since. Ms. Hoffman testified that the Jehovah's Witnesses expect their members to attend five weekly meetings and that Petitioner consistently attends those meetings. Ms. Hoffman testified that Petitioner has grown spiritually and personally since Ms. Hoffman first met her five years ago. Ms. Hoffman believes that Petitioner is truly committed to leading a spiritual life and to meeting the Jehovah's Witnesses' moral standards against violence. Ms. Hoffman believes that Petitioner will continue to meet these standards.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Children and Family Services enter a final order determining that Petitioner is not disqualified from working in a position of special trust solely on the basis of her 1996 battery conviction. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of November, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 13th day of November, 2000.
The Issue At issue in this case is whether Petitioner's application to register as a family day care home should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing, and the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: This case involves Petitioner's application to operate a registered family child care home. Petitioner had been registered as a family child care home from April 1989 to June 1992 and again from February 1995 to August 1998. The Department received Petitioner's most recent application on September 6, 2000. The Department regulates three types of day care facilities. In descending order of regulatory oversight, they are a licensed child care facility, a licensed family child care home, and a registered family child care home. Sections 402.305 and 402.313, Florida Statutes. While the first two categories of facilities require annual on-site Department inspections, background screening for all personnel, training, and more extensive paperwork, a registered family day care center involves no Department inspections and only requires that the operator complete a training course and provide to the Department certain paperwork and that the operator and other household members undergo background screening. The operator of a registered family day care home may care for no more than five preschool children from more than one unrelated family. Subsection 402.302(7), Florida Statutes. The application requires disclosure of "other family/household members." Petitioner's application identified David Barcelona as a household member and stated that his family relationship was "friend (roommate)." During her previous periods of registration, Petitioner had been the subject of numerous complaints to the Department. In May 1989, the Department notified Petitioner that she had been found to be caring for more than five preschool children. Petitioner acknowledged that she was operating above capacity, but assured the Department that the situation would be rectified by June 1, 1989. Nonetheless, complaints regarding the number of children at Petitioner's home persisted through at least June 1991. The Department also received several complaints concerning drug use in Petitioner's home. In September 1995, a complaint alleged that Petitioner and several other adults were seen smoking marijuana in the home. A complaint filed by a parent in February 1996 stated that the parent could smell marijuana on his children when he picked them up from Petitioner's home. A complaint from November 1996 stated that Petitioner was seen smoking marijuana in the presence of the children in her care. In each instance, the Department wrote a letter to Petitioner. The Department's letter of February 26, 1996, is representative and is quoted in relevant part: As a registered family day care home, you are not statutorily required to meet all the child care standards established in [then] Rule 10M-12 or 10M-10 of the Florida Administrative Code. In addition, Chapter 402.302-313 of the Florida Statutes does not provide the department with any statutory authority to regulate complaints of this nature within registered family day care homes. However, in the interest of safety and proper child care, we wanted to bring the complaint to your attention so that you might correct the issues as appropriate. Providing care for any child is very important. It is our hope that you are not engaging in any illegal or inappropriate activities which [sic] operating your child care business. During the Department's investigations of these complaints, Petitioner consistently denied that she used any illegal drugs. On August 10, 1998, the Department received a complaint that an unsupervised child was seen outside in the rain at Petitioner's house. On the same date, the Department received another complaint regarding Petitioner's live-in boyfriend, David Barcellona, and whether his presence rendered her home an unsafe environment for children. The complaint stated that Mr. Barcellona had not undergone background screening and had admitted to hitting one of Petitioner's own children. The complaint also stated that children reported witnessing Petitioner's use of marijuana and crack cocaine in the home. These complaints were resolved when Petitioner ceased providing child care. She sold her house and voluntarily relinquished her registration. A child protective services investigation was also commenced on August 10, 1998, by investigator Daniel McLean. His investigation confirmed that Mr. Barcellona had hit Petitioner's ten-year-old son "upside the head with an open hand" because the boy had called him a "faggot." Petitioner had given Mr. Barcellona permission to physically discipline her children. The children expressed a fear of living in the home with Mr. Barcellona. No observable injuries were found on either Petitioner's son or her eight-year-old daughter. Mr. McLean testified that Petitioner told him at least twice that she had smoked marijuana for 15 years. Mr. McLean attempted several times to obtain a drug screen from Petitioner without success. At length, Mr. McLean informed Petitioner that the Department would begin legal proceedings if Petitioner did not voluntarily surrender custody of her children to their natural father. On August 13, 1998, Petitioner signed the papers giving custody of the children to their natural father. She testified that "I picked the drugs over my children at that time." The evidence admitted at hearing established that, despite her denials, Petitioner had been a long-time user of marijuana. By her own admission, Petitioner was addicted to crack cocaine for a period of at least three months in 1998. Petitioner's sister, Lisa Lucius, estimated Petitioner's crack usage lasted for six months. Mr. McLean testified that Petitioner told him she had been using crack for seven months. At some point in 1999, Petitioner shoplifted a pair of tennis shoes, was arrested, and placed on one year's probation for petit theft. Her probation was conditioned upon her entering a 28-day live-in drug rehabilitation and counseling program at the Ruth Cooper Center in Fort Myers. Petitioner successfully completed this program. Another condition of her probation was her attendance twice weekly at Alcoholics Anonymous meetings. She complied with this condition. Finally, Petitioner's probation was conditioned upon providing random urinalysis drug tests. She complied with this condition, and her tests were all drug free. Petitioner testified that she has been drug free since completing the program at the Ruth Cooper Center. Since the conclusion of her probation in 2000, she has discontinued attendance at Alcoholics Anonymous or Narcotics Anonymous meetings. She testified that she no longer has a drug problem. In the registration application at issue in this proceeding, Petitioner listed David Barcellona as a family/household member. Both Petitioner and Mr. Barcellona were required to undergo Level 2 background screening as set forth in Subsection 435.04(1), Florida Statutes. Petitioner successfully passed the background screening and was so notified by a letter from the Department dated October 24, 2000. The letter informed Petitioner that she had passed the screening, but expressly cautioned: "Receipt of this letter does not automatically qualify you for the employment, specific position or license you may be seeking. That determination will be made [by] either an employer or licensing department." The background screening disclosed potentially disqualifying offenses for David Barcellona. As of November 6, 2000, the Department had sent Mr. Barcellona a letter offering him the opportunity to provide documentation as to the disposition of those offenses, but Mr. Barcellona had not responded. On October 31, 2000, Petitioner phoned Sarah Jarabek of the Department to inquire as to the status of her application. Ms. Jarabek told Petitioner that the Department had concerns about her history of substance abuse and about the presence of Mr. Barcellona in the home. They made an appointment to meet in Ms. Jarabek's office on November 6, 2000. On November 6, 2000, Petitioner and Ms. Lucius met with Ms. Jarabek, Nancy Starr, and Patricia Richardson of the Department. Petitioner provided evidence of the drug abuse treatment she had received while on probation. She also produced documentation that she had completed the required 30- hour Family Child Care Training Course, documentation of her church attendance and completion of a single parenting program at her church, and documentation that she had taken a technical training course for legal secretaries. Ms. Jarabek testified that she accepted all of Petitioner's representations at the meeting regarding her treatment and other matters, but that concerns remained because of Petitioner's history of denying her drug use and because the lonely, pressure-filled business of family day care might prove a poor rehabilitative environment. Ms. Starr testified that she believed more time should pass for Petitioner to demonstrate that she was not subject to a relapse. Petitioner had only been off probation since March 2000, and had yet to demonstrate her stability when her activities were not being constantly monitored. Ms. Starr was also concerned because Petitioner was not currently involved in any organized program to maintain her recovery and because Petitioner had denied using drugs when the complaints were filed in 1996 through 1998. At the November 6 meeting, the Department's representatives also raised the question of Mr. Barcellona's continued presence in the house. Petitioner told them that she had broken up with Mr. Barcellona and ejected him from her house, because she thought he was smoking crack cocaine. She told them that Mr. Barcellona had continued to harass her. He would bang on her door late at night, screaming, "I love you." He would spray his cologne outside her house, to "leave his scent." Petitioner and her children were "terrified" of him, and Petitioner was in the process of obtaining a restraining order against him. Ms. Jarabek believed Petitioner's statement that Mr. Barcellona was no longer living in the house, but remained concerned for the safety of children who would be staying at Petitioner's home, given Mr. Barcellona's erratic behavior. By letter dated November 14, 2000, David Barcellona was notified that he was ineligible for a position subject to background screening. Mr. Barcellona had not responded to the prior agency letter offering him the opportunity to provide documentation regarding the disposition of the disqualifying offenses. As the applicant for registration, Petitioner received a copy of the letter to Mr. Barcellona. By letter dated December 1, 2000, the Department notified Petitioner that her application to operate a registered family child care home had been denied. The letter cited the following as grounds for the denial: the history of at least 13 complaints regarding the operation of the home during Petitioner's previous registration periods, including six complaints related to Petitioner's use of marijuana and/or cocaine in the presence of her own or other people's children; the unreported presence of Mr. Barcellona in the home during Petitioner's previous registration periods; and the lack of sufficient time and evidence to demonstrate that Petitioner was capable of providing a safe and healthy environment for children in her care. Petitioner contended that the Department waived its ability to hold her prior complaints against her now because it repeatedly allowed her to re-register during the relevant years despite those complaints. Ms. Jarabek testified that this apparent anomaly was due to a change in Department policy since Petitioner was last registered. The Department previously took the position that it was required to ignore drug usage in a registered family day care home, because Section 402.313, Florida Statutes, did not expressly provide authority to deny or revoke a registration on that ground. Ms. Jarabek testified that the Department's current interpretation of its statutory authority to supervise the provision of child care permits it to consider drug usage in the home. The December 1 letter took note of the "positive changes" in Petitioner's life, but also noted that these changes were too recent to overcome the concerns about Petitioner's past behavior and future stability.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Family Services deny Petitioner's application for registration of her family day care home. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of May, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ 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 18th day of May, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard D. Lakeman, Esquire Law Office of Richard D. Lakeman, P.A. Post Office Box 101580 Cape Coral, Florida 33910 Eugenie G. Rehak, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services Post Office Box 60085 Fort Myers, Florida 33906 Virginia A. Daire, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204B 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Josie Tomayo, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent's license to operate a family day care home should be revoked.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony and evidence received at the hearing, the following findings are made: Parties The Department is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating child care facilities, including family day care homes. The Department routinely conducts inspections of licensed family day care homes to determine whether the home is in compliance with the applicable statutes and rules. Any problems found during the inspection are noted on a report which is provided to the home's operator immediately following the inspection. When appropriate, the inspection report provides a time frame within which the problems must be corrected. Regular inspections are conducted approximately twice a year. More frequent inspections -- monthly or every six weeks - - are conducted on family day care homes which have a provisional license rather than a standard license. The Department also conducts inspections in response to complaints it receives, and it has the authority to inspect family day care homes at any time with or without notice. Respondent is the owner and operator of a licensed family day care home located at 1218 Jordan Avenue in Orlando, Florida (hereafter "Respondent's facility" or "the facility"). Respondent and her husband reside at that address as well. Respondent has operated day care homes in Florida since 1992, and she has been involved in child care for approximately 21 years. As a result, she is or should be familiar with the rules regulating family day care homes. Respondent keeps children in the back portion of her home. The children also play in Respondent's backyard, which is enclosed by an approximately six-foot high wooden fence. A wooden gate in the fence connects Respondent's backyard to the backyard of the house immediately behind Respondent's home. That house has been rented by Annette Rodgers since November 2002. Respondent does not have a pool in her yard. Ms. Rodgers' yard does have a pool, which at the time of the Department's February 27, 2003 inspection (discussed below), was only partially filled with water. Ms. Rodgers' pool is not visible from Respondent's back yard because of the wooden fence and gate. The photographs and videotape received into evidence show that Ms. Rodgers' pool is now completely enclosed by a series of fences.4 The evidence does not clearly and convincingly establish that the fences were not in place on February 27, 2003. Indeed, the weeds and high grass which can be seen along the base of and around the posts of the chain-link fence and the discoloration on some of the fence posts indicate that at least that fence has been in place for quite some time.5 Previous Inspections of Respondent's Facility and Actions Taken by the Department Respondent's facility was inspected on May 28, June 14, and September 30, 2002. Several areas of noncompliance were identified during each of those inspections, including inadequate supervision of children, unsafe storage of chemicals, evidence of roaches in the home, and incomplete enrollment and health records for the children at the home. On each occasion, Respondent was given a period of time within which to correct the areas of noncompliance. The inadequate supervision for which Respondent was cited in June 14, 2002, involved several children playing unsupervised in Respondent's carport area, which has access to the street; several children playing in the backyard under the "supervision" of Respondent's mother, who was not an authorized caregiver; and several children playing unsupervised on the porch area in the vicinity of tools and small screws. The Department issued Respondent a provisional license on October 28, 2002, presumably as part of the license renewal process. The provisional license was based upon Respondent's history of noncompliance with the Department's minimum standards, and it was valid through April 2, 2003, unless Respondent applied for an received a change in license status (which she apparently did not) or "if the license is suspended or revoked by the Department." A provisional license is issued where the Department has continued concerns regarding the day care home's compliance with the applicable statutes and rules. A provisional license is issued in lieu of denying a license renewal or suspending or revoking the home's license. A provisional license gives the licensee an opportunity to correct the areas of noncompliance, and because such homes are inspected more frequently, the Department has an opportunity to monitor the licensee's progress. On October 29, 2002, Respondent was assessed an administrative fine of $100.00 based upon deficiencies identified during the May 28 and June 14, 2002, inspections. The fine was based primarily upon the incident described above involving inadequate supervision of the children at the home. Respondent apparently did not contest the administrative fine or the issuance of the provisional license rather than a standard license. Despite the provisional license and the administrative fine, the Department's inspections continued to identify areas of noncompliance at Respondent's facility. For example, the November 14, 2002, inspection identified "evidence of rodents/vermin in the home" as well as incomplete enrollment and immunization records for the children in the home. The December 18, 2002, inspection identified these same deficiencies, including "live roaches in the children's area and the kitchen," as well as the storage of plastic shopping bags and chemicals which can pose dangers to children in an unlocked cabinet accessible to the children. These violations were the same as or similar to those for which Respondent had been previously cited and which led to the imposition of the administrative fine and issuance of the provisional license. The Department did not take immediate action to suspend or revoke Respondent's license based upon the results of the November 14 and December 18, 2002, inspections. Instead, the Department continued to give Respondent an opportunity to bring her home into compliance with the minimum standards in the Department's licensing rules and statutes. Inspection of Respondent's Facility on February 27, 2003 The Department next inspected Respondent's facility on February 27, 2003. That inspection was conducted by Department employee Brandi Blanchard. Ms. Blanchard had been responsible for inspecting Respondent's facility since at least September 2002, so she was familiar with the layout of the facility and its history of noncompliance. Respondent testified that Ms. Blanchard, unlike the prior inspector, had been "very good to her." Ms. Blanchard arrived at Respondent's facility by car between 8:30 a.m. and 8:45 a.m. As she arrived, Respondent was pulling her car into the driveway/carport at the facility. Ms. Blanchard parked her car directly behind Respondent's car. Ms. Blanchard got out of her car as Respondent was getting out of hers, and she said, "Hello, Ms. Alli," to Respondent. Upon seeing Ms. Blanchard, Respondent quickly went into the house through the carport door. Ms. Blanchard followed Respondent into the facility. Ms. Blanchard lost sight of Respondent as she went down a hallway towards the back of the house where the children were located. The backdoor of the house was open, and by the time that Ms. Blanchard caught up with Respondent, Respondent was directing the children through the facility's backyard towards the back gate connecting Respondent's yard to Ms. Rodgers' yard. Several of the children, led by Ms. Rodgers' 14-year-old son carrying an infant in a car seat and Ms. Rodgers' 13-year-old son carrying a toddler had already reached Ms. Rodgers' yard. Ms. Blanchard told Respondent to stop and return to the facility with the children, which she did. Ms. Blanchard went through the open gate onto Ms. Rodgers' property and directed Ms. Rodgers' sons to return to Respondent's facility with the children, which they did. While on Ms. Rodgers' property, Ms. Blanchard saw a partially-filled swimming pool and other ongoing construction. Ms. Blanchard did not notice any fencing around the pool and saw one of the children, which she estimated to be three or four years old, walking in the construction area close to the edge of the pool. After the children had been returned, Ms. Blanchard assessed the situation and commenced her inspection of the remainder of Respondent's facility. Ms. Blanchard found roach droppings in the bathtub and in other locations in the facility. Respondent acknowledged a roach problem, but claimed that she had an exterminator working on the problem and that he was due to come out and treat the facility. Respondent did not present any documentation to Ms. Blanchard to corroborate her claims regarding the exterminator, nor did she introduce such documentation at the hearing. Ms. Blanchard found plastic bags in an unlocked cabinet accessible to the children. Respondent acknowledged at the hearing that the bags were in the cabinet and further acknowledged the suffocation danger that they posed to young children. Ms. Blanchard's review of the facility's records identified missing enrollment and immunization records for the children in the home. However, Ms. Blanchard did not document the children whose records were missing and she did not determine whether, as Respondent claimed at the time and in her testimony at the hearing, any of the missing records were for students who had enrolled in Respondent's facility within the prior two weeks. Ms. Blanchard documented the results of her inspection, including the events surrounding the movement of the children to Ms. Rodgers' yard on her inspection report. The inspection report identified each of the violations that she observed, including inadequate supervision based upon Respondent's absence from the facility, unsafe storage of materials dangerous to children (i.e., plastic bags) in a location accessible to the children, evidence of roaches, incomplete enrollment and immunization records, and more than the allowed number of children in the home. Ms. Blanchard also cited Respondent's facility for the dangers posed by Ms. Rodgers' pool since the children were being taken onto Ms. Rodgers' property. With respect to the citation for having too many children, Ms. Blanchard's inspection report did not include any detailed information about the children such as their names (or initials), ages, or descriptions. The report simply stated that Ms. Blanchard counted seven children at the facility -- i.e., "3 infants, 3 preschool and 1 school age child." Ms. Blanchard's testimony at the hearing referred to only two infants, which was consistent with Respondent's testimony on that issue. As a result, the evidence is not clear and convincing that there were seven children in Respondent's care at the facility rather than the authorized six children. During the course of her inspection, Ms. Blanchard did not see any adults (other than Respondent, who arrived as Ms. Blanchard was arriving) at the facility. It is undisputed that Respondent's husband, who is the designated substitute caregiver, was not at the facility that morning. There is no credible evidence that Respondent's 22- year-old son, Abdel, was at the facility that morning. He did not testify at the hearing, and, if as Respondent claims, Abdel was at the facility that morning, Ms. Blanchard would have seen him at some point during the commotion surrounding Respondent's rushing the children out the back door or during her subsequent inspection of the facility. In any event, Abdel was not the substitute caregiver designated by Respondent. He was not even authorized to watch the children because, although he had been background screened by the Department, he had not taken the Department's mandatory child care training program and was not certified in cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). It is more likely than not that Ms. Rodgers' teenage sons were actually left to supervise the children at Respondent's facility during the time that Respondent was gone on the morning of February 27, 2003. Indeed, that is the most likely explanation of their presence at the facility and their involvement in the movement of the children to Ms. Rodgers' yard. However, the evidence on this issue is not clear and convincing. Respondent's explanation of her actions on the morning of the inspection -- i.e., that she hurried into the house upon her arrival and directed all of the children to Ms. Rodgers' yard so she could convey an important message to Ms. Rodgers -- is not credible. Her explanation of the roach droppings that Ms. Blanchard found in the bathtub -- i.e., that it was actually dirt from washing one of the children's feet -- is also not credible. By contrast, Respondent's explanation of the incomplete records -- i.e., that the missing records were for those children who had enrolled in the facility within the prior two weeks -- is reasonable. Because Ms. Blanchard's inspection report did not identify the children whose records were missing and did not document the date of their enrollment, the evidence is insufficient to prove this violation. Respondent admitted at the hearing that she "was taking a chance" by leaving the children at the facility without her husband, the designated substitute caregiver, being present. Respondent testified that she was gone only 15 minutes to drop one of her children off at school, and that she follows that same routine every day although her husband is usually at the facility while she is gone. After Ms. Blanchard completed her inspection, she discussed the results with Respondent and provided Respondent a copy of the inspection report. Ms. Blanchard then went back to her office and discussed the results of the inspection with her supervisor, Patricia Richardson. Based upon the results of the February 27, 2003, inspection and the history of noncompliance at Respondent's facility (both before and after the provisional license), Ms. Richardson determined that Respondent's license should be revoked. Thereafter, on February 28, 2003, Ms. Richardson sent a letter to Respondent informing her that her license was being revoked and advising Respondent of her right to "appeal" that decision through the administrative process.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Family Services issue a final order revoking Respondent's license to operate a family day care home. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of June, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of June, 2003.
The Issue The issues in these cases are: whether the Davis Family Day Care Home violated provisions of chapter 402, Florida Statutes,1/ and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 65C-20,2/ and, if so, what penalty should be imposed; whether the Davis Family Day Care Home's renewal application for a license to operate a regular family day care center should be approved or denied; and whether the Davis Family Day Care Home's initial application for a license to operate as a large family child care home should be approved or denied.
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Department is responsible for inspecting, licensing and monitoring child care facilities such as the one operated by the Davis Day Care. It is also the Department's responsibility to ensure that all such facilities are safe and secure for the protection of the children utilizing those facilities. The Department routinely conducts inspections of licensed family day care homes to determine whether the home is in compliance with the applicable statutes and rules. Following such inspections, a report is provided to the operator which provides a time frame to correct any outstanding deficiencies. The Department also conducts inspections or investigations of child care facilities in response to complaints it receives. LaShandra Davis (Ms. Davis) owns and operates the Davis Day Care, a family day care facility licensed by the Department. The Davis Day Care was initially licensed in April 2007 and was in continuous operation at all times material to these issues. No testimony was offered that the facility had prior disciplinary actions against it. Ms. Davis is a nurse, has an associate of science (A.S.) degree in nursing from Polk Community College, and is attending college to obtain an A.S. degree in early childhood education. Additionally, Ms. Davis has five sons and one daughter. Their names include (from youngest to oldest): Layla Davis, Steven Davis, Devondrae Davis, Deshawn Williams, Daniel Williams, and Rafael Davis. No testimony was received regarding Ms. Davis using any other name or names from August 3, 2010, through December 2, 2010.5/ On February 23, 2011, Ms. Davis submitted an application to obtain a license to operate a large family day care home at her current location. On March 15, 2011, Ms. Davis submitted her renewal application to retain her license to operate a family day care home at her current location. October 29, 2010, AC 1 (August 3, 2010, Inspection) On August 3, 2010, the Davis Day Care was subjected to an inspection based on a complaint that it was "over-ratio." This over-ratio issue involves the number of children in the care of a family day care operation to the number of adults providing that care. The Department received a complaint that the facility was seeking meal reimbursements for more children than were allowed for the type of child care license it held. Vicki Richmond (Ms. Richmond) testified that she conducted the inspection on August 3, 2010, and cited the facility for being over the licensed capacity ratio by more than two children. Because the facility was over ratio by more than two children, it was a Class I violation. At that August inspection, Ms. Davis explained to Ms. Richmond that she (Ms. Davis) had a license to provide child care for ten children, and she had ten children in her care. Ms. Richmond explained the ratio requirement to Ms. Davis. Based on the age of the children, Ms. Davis was authorized to have a maximum of ten children provided no more than five were preschool age, and, of those five, no more than two were under 12 months of age. At this August inspection, Ms. Davis was over-ratio by two children. Ms. Davis executed and received a copy of the complaint report prepared on August 3, 2010, that discussed the over-ratio limitations. Three other technical violations were brought to Ms. Davis's attention during that inspection, and two of those violations were corrected immediately. Ms. Davis was given a two-week extension to correct the third violation involving an expired fire extinguisher.6/ Additionally, Ms. Richmond testified that Ms. Davis's mother ("Ms. Jones")7/ was visiting the facility while Ms. Richmond was conducting this August inspection. According to Ms. Richmond, Ms. Jones had been previously screened, but did not meet the Department's standards to be in a child care facility. Ms. Jones should not have been present either for a visit or to be preparing lunches as the testimony revealed. Ms. Richmond recommended to Ms. Davis that it was important to check into getting an exemption for Ms. Jones to be at the facility. Ms. Davis later testified that Ms. Jones had cleared up the screening issue, and both had been told Ms. Jones was allowed to be present at the facility. At hearing, Ms. Davis admitted that she was over-ratio on August 3, 2010. Further, she stated that she "just flat out misunderstood" the adult-child ratio requirement issue until Ms. Richmond explained it to her in August 2010. Ms. Brooks and Mr. Giordano testified that they had each individually explained the ratio requirement to Ms. Davis during prior inspections or discussions at the facility. Although there is some discrepancy between Ms. Davis's recollection and the two witnesses on this point, Ms. Davis admitted this violation and was quite candid about her lack of knowledge with respect to it. Credible testimony from both Ms. Richmond and Shelia Nobles (Ms. Nobles) established that having two or more children over-ratio was a Class I violation, which would subject any child care facility to discipline by the Department. When Ms. Davis received the Department's three-page October 29, 2010, AC 1 advising her of the Class I violation (over-ratio by two or more children) and assessing a $500 fine, she was "shocked." Ms. Davis testified that, at the time of the inspection (August 3, 2010), Ms. Richmond had stated the fine might be $50 or maybe more, leading Ms. Davis to believe the fine would not be that high. AC 1 advised Ms. Davis that the over-ratio issue was a Class I violation of section 402.302(7). AC 1 provided one Department address for two reasons, to pay the $500 fine or to request an administrative hearing. There is no language within AC 1 that advised Ms. Davis of an optional payment plan. Ms. Davis testified she was unaware of a payment plan option, and her only option was to appeal the decision, which she did. Ms. Richmond confirmed that the Department would accept payments as long as the total fine amount was paid in full prior to the next renewal. However, that information was not shared with Ms. Davis until the hearing. Department's March 23, 2011, Proposed Denial Application to Operate a Family Day Care Home (AC 2) and Department's April 11, 2011, Proposed Denial Application to Operate a Large Family Day Care Home (AC 3). Both AC 2 and AC 3 set forth five allegations in support of the Department's denial of the renewal application and the large family child care home application. Two alleged abuse allegations from 2007 and 2008 were included in these administrative complaints; however, as previously stated, no testimony or evidence was offered, presented or substantiated at hearing. Thus, any attempt to reference either the 2007 or 2008 allegations as fact is disregarded as unfounded and not supported by credible testimony or evidence. AC 2 and AC 3 rest on three allegations: the alleged abuse of child E.B., the alleged lying during the investigation of the alleged child (E.B.) abuse, and the inspection conducted on August 3, 2010, regarding the facility being over ratio.8/ Natalie Barton (Ms. Barton), E.B.'s mother, testified that she saw marks on E.B.'s bottom at the end of November 2010 (November 30, 2010) that "could only have occurred at the day care." Ms. Barton testified she picked E.B. up from the facility prior to 5:30 p.m. and discovered the marks on E.B.'s bottom during bath time that evening. Both Ms. Barton and Ms. Davis testified that E.B.'s mother sent a picture of the injury to Ms. Davis via her cell phone the evening the injury was first seen. At that point, Ms. Davis told E.B.'s mother that she (Ms. Davis) didn't know what or how the injury occurred and recommended taking the child to E.B.'s doctor. Ms. Davis had no hesitation in making this recommendation to Ms. Barton. Ms. Barton took E.B. to her (E.B.'s) pediatrician the morning after she discovered the injury (December 1, 2010). However, E.B.'s physician indicated he wanted to see the child in two days, as he could not make a determination what, if anything, had caused the injury as there was no bruising. Ms. Barton also testified that she took E.B. back to the Davis Day Care after she was seen by her pediatrician so she could see how E.B. reacted. While at the facility, E.B. was "in her routine," that she (E.B.) walked in and sat on the couch like she did every day. Ms. Barton did not return E.B. to her own pediatrician for further evaluation. Ms. Barton testified E.B. was seen by the child protective team the day after she was seen by the pediatrician (December 2, 2010). On December 2, 2010, after receiving information about the possible physical abuse of a child (E.B.) (documented as being received at 11:08 p.m. on December 1, 2010), Deanna McCain (Investigator McCain) contacted Ms. Barton to obtain additional information. Investigator McCain also spoke with E.B., who said she had been hit by "Ms. Shawna." After observing E.B.'s injuries and obtaining a photograph of E.B.'s buttocks, an appointment was made for E.B. to be seen by a member of the child protection team, i.e., the nurse practitioner. During the afternoon of December 2, 2010, Nurse Practitioner Connie Fleming (Nurse Fleming) performed a medical evaluation of E.B., a then two-year, nine-month old child. During E.B.'s evaluation, Nurse Fleming noticed bruising on E.B.'s buttocks. When Nurse Fleming asked E.B. what happened, E.B. responded "Ms. Shawn spanked me." Nurse Fleming stated the bruising appeared to be consistent with an outline of a hand. Pictures taken during the medical evaluation reflect red areas on E.B.'s buttocks. Based on her nine-plus years of training and experience as a nurse practitioner, Nurse Fleming determined that E.B. had suffered physical abuse; however, she never stated who caused the injury. Nurse Fleming contended that the injuries were indicative of a rapid-force compression injury, typical of a slap with a hand. Later on December 2, 2010, Investigator McCain went to the facility to investigate the alleged abuse report. Upon her arrival at the location, Investigator McCain had to wait for a local law enforcement officer (LEO) before she could enter the facility. While Investigator McCain waited for the LEO to arrive (between 3:30 p.m. and 4:45 p.m.), she spoke with parents who were picking up their children from the facility. Each parent she spoke with had supportive comments about the facility ("great day care provider," their child had "no injuries," had never seen "inappropriate behavior," "no concerns"). Whether all these comments came from one parent or multiple parents is unclear. Investigator McCain did not observe any injuries to any of the children leaving the facility. Ms. Richmond also went to the facility at approximately the same time as Investigator McCain; however, Ms. Richmond could enter the home without a LEO, and she did so. Ms. Richmond made contact with Ms. Davis and explained there was a complaint. Ms. Richmond's task at the time was to obtain information about the number of children Ms. Davis had in the facility. According to the sign in sheet, there were seven children present, plus Ms. Davis's four-year-old son. Ms. Richmond testified that Ms. Davis initially stated there were four children present, but later a sleeping child was found in a crib, and her (then) four-year-old son ran through the home.9/ Although Ms. Richmond asked for the attendance sheets for the previous month (November 2010), Ms. Davis was only able to provide the attendance sheets for December 1 and 2, 2010.10/ According to Ms. Richmond, those two attendance sheets documented that Ms. Davis's facility was again over-ratio for those two days. When Investigator McCain entered the facility with the LEO, she explained the reason for her presence to Ms. Davis. Investigator McCain testified Ms. Davis was asked how many children were present and together they conducted a "walk- through" of the facility. Investigator McCain testified that, at the time of the walk-through, she was told there were four children present, three toddlers and a small child in Ms. Davis's arms. Investigator McCain also testified that, during the walk-through, they found an additional child sleeping in a crib. She further testified that, at some later point, another young child ran through the facility, and Ms. Davis identified him as her son. On December 2, 2010, Investigator McCain questioned Ms. Davis about the alleged physical abuse of E.B. During the investigation discussion, Ms. Davis reported to Investigator McCain that "she [Ms. Davis] had no idea how they [E.B.'s injuries] occurred." Ms. Davis further reported E.B. was "fully potty trained." Ms. Davis reported that the child had a toileting accident the day before and had cleaned herself. Still, later in the investigation discussion, Ms. Davis told Investigator McCain that she (Ms. Davis) had helped clean E.B. after the toileting accident, but only from the front, and she had not observed E.B.'s buttocks. Ms. Davis also shared with the investigator that when Ms. Davis questioned E.B. about the injury, E.B. said her mother (Ms. Barton) did it (the abuse). At hearing, Investigator McCain testified that Ms. Davis was "very far along in" a pregnancy and that Ms. Davis was upset, shocked, and surprised by the presence of the investigators. Investigator McCain also confirmed that DCF's presence tends to raise anxiety levels and that people feel like they are being attacked. Further, Ms. Davis confirmed that she was two weeks from her delivery due date when this investigation started. Thus, under the circumstances, forgetfulness may be perceived by some as lying, when in reality it is simply being overwhelmed by the situation. As part of the investigation, it was Investigator McCain's responsibility to also check for any hazards in the facility and to ensure adequate supervision of the children. Although Ms. Davis initially reported there were no other adults to supervise the children, she later reported that her mother, Ms. Jones, came each day around 10:15 a.m. to make lunch for the children. Ms. Barton confirmed that Ms. Jones was sometimes present in the mornings when Ms. Barton brought E.B. to the facility. Several technical violations were noted during the December 2010 investigation; however, they are not the subject of this hearing. Ms. Davis testified she did not spank E.B. Ms. Davis testified that she did not know how the injury occurred, and the child's hearsay statement that her mother had spanked her is not supported by other testimony. However, the time lapses between when the injury was alleged to have occurred (the "end of November," or November 30, 2010, according to the mother), when the injury was "discovered" (the night of November 30, 2010, according to the mother), when the alleged abuse was reported (December 1, 2010, at 11:08 p.m.), when the pediatrician's examination occurred on December 1, 2010, and when the child protective team became involved (December 2, 2010), create confusion and doubt as to when the injury actually occurred and by whom. Even taking the thought process to try to find that the events happened a day later does not relieve the doubt or confusion, nor is that supported by the Department's documentation. Investigator McCain testified that this investigation was closed with a verified finding of physical injury to E.B. However, simply finding a "verified finding of physical injury to E.B." does not establish who perpetrated that physical injury. No testimony was provided that any other possible explanation for the injury was explained. Further, other than indicating that E.B. had red marks on her bottom, no testimony was provided that indicated the degree of harm to the child. That being said, this not to say that logic has left the building with respect to some harm being caused to the child. There were marks on E.B.'s buttocks. Several current and former parents of children who attend or attended the Davis Day Care testified on Ms. Davis's behalf. Each testified that they did not have any concerns with their child attending Ms. Davis's facility. On March 11, 2011, after receipt of the facility's application for the large family day care home license,11/ the Department conducted an inspection of the facility and found it to be in compliance with all the licensing standard requirements (including those previously cited during the December 2010 inspection that were corrected). Upon completion of its investigation, the Department determined to deny Ms. Davis's renewal application and to deny her application for a large family day care license, based on "numerous complaints to our office alleging physical abuse of children in your care and Class I violations of licensing standards." There was one verified complaint of abuse, not "numerous complaints" as alleged. There was a Class I violation regarding the over-ratio issue; however, that could have been resolved with better communication skills. The misrepresentation could have been avoided. Neither notification includes any indication that the March 11, 2011, inspection was taken into consideration prior to making the denial decision. The Department presented testimony indicating that there had been past complaints regarding Ms. Davis and/or the facility. However, no documented prior complaints or final orders were submitted with respect to any prior actions.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: With respect to the October 29, 2010, administrative complaint, that a final order be entered by the Department of Children and Families finding that the facility was over-ratio on August 3, 2010, and imposing an administrative fine of $500 with no less than ten months to pay the fine. It is further RECOMMENDED that Ms. Davis be ordered to attend remedial classes on the financial operations and management of a child care facility; With respect to the March 23, 2011, administrative complaint, that a final order be entered by the Department of Children and Families renewing the family day care home license on probation status for six months with periodic inspections to ensure the continued safe operation of the facility; and With respect to the April 11, 2011, administrative complaint, that a final order be entered by the Department of Children and Families finding that the large family child care home application be issued a provisional license for a minimum of six months with periodic inspections to ensure the continued safe operation of the facility, with the ability for an additional six-month provisional period. In the event the large family child care home provisional license is not activated within two months of the issuance of the final order in this matter, a new application shall be required, subject to all the applicable statutory requirements. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of October, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of October, 2011.
The Issue The issues in this case are: (a) Whether Petitioner's license as a family day care should be renewed; (b) Whether Petitioner was required to list Halvert Swanson as a household member on her annual application for a family day care license; and (c) Whether Halvert Swanson, a convicted sex offender, was a member of Petitioner's household at any time between 1997 and 2000.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: At all times relevant to this matter, Petitioner, Gennell Hardnett, d/b/a Nell's Day Care, was licensed by Respondent to operate a family day care out of her home located at 513 West 14th Street, Apopka, Florida. Petitioner had been licensed by Respondent in 1995 as a family day care facility, and her license has been renewed on an annual basis therefor. Petitioner's license permitted her to operate 24 hours a day, Monday through Saturday. However, Petitioner actually operated her day care from 6:30 a.m. until midnight, Monday through Friday. She was never open during the weekends. Petitioner's application for renewal of her license for the year 2000-2001 was denied. As part of her licensing requirements, Petitioner knew she was to list on her Application for Licensing all of her household members for possible background screening. This is to ensure that all members of her household were properly screened for disqualifying offenses. For each of the five years since 1995, Petitioner listed herself and her sons, Quantas Hardnett and Demetric Hardnett, as household members on her licensing application. She did not list another son, Halvert Swanson, as a household member. On her renewal application for the year 2000-2001, Petitioner listed as household members, herself and her son Quantas Swanson because Demetric, at the time, was residing with an aunt. Halvert Swanson was, again, not listed. Halvert Swanson, also the son of Petitioner, had been convicted of the felony of attempted lewd acts upon a child under the age of sixteen in approximately 1990. Swanson was in the custody of the Department of Corrections from approximately February 3, 1990 to June 1, 1993. He was released from custody in 1993. Following his release from prison, Swanson listed the address of his mother, Petitioner, as his residence address with the State of Florida, Department of Corrections. Petitioner was aware that her son Halvert had been convicted of this crime. She also knew that her son Halvert Swanson was not permitted to be a holdhold member, and was not to be permitted unsupervised contact with children under Petitioner's care. Petitioner has never listed on her applications, nor notified Respondent, that her son, Halvert Swanson, resided at her family day care facilities, located at 513 West 14th Street, Apopka, Florida On September 23, 1997, Barbara Osborne, a Department of Corrections probation specialist, visited with Halvert Swanson in the residence located at 513 West 14th Street, Apopka, Florida. The purpose of Osborne's visit with Swanson was to monitor his compliance with conditions of his release from prison. This visit with Swanson was unannounced. During the visit with Swanson, Osborne confirmed that Swanson resided at the address on 513 West 14th Street. During her visit with Swanson, Osborne also observed several children at the home. She was not aware if Petitioner was present or not. Osborne informed Swanson that if he intended to continue to reside at the house at 513 West 14th Street, Petitioner would need to complete an affidavit addressing whether Swanson had unsupervised contact with children. Osborne returned to the house at 513 West 14th Street on November 18, 1997, because Swanson had not reported to Osborne as required. During her visit to the house, Osborne spoke with Petitioner who confirmed that Swanson was still residing at the home at 513 West 14th Street. Osborne reminded Petitioner of the conditions on Swanson's release regarding no unsupervised contact with children, and let her know that she would have to complete an affidavit if he continued to reside at Petitioner's home. Early in the year 2000, a local television reporter for WKMG, Channel Six, Tony Pipitone, while investigating a news story, visited Petitioner's home. While there, Pipitone asked if Halvert Swanson was there. Petitioner replied "No," and Pipitone left. He later returned to Petitioner's home, this time with a cameraman. Pipitone asked Petitioner if Halvert Swanson lived there, and this time Petitioner replied "Yes," and that he stayed there on weekends. The story aired on local television, and Respondent was made aware of the allegation that a felon with a conviction of attempted lewd acts on a child under the age of sixteen was living at a family day care. In April 2000, Respondent learned from a local television reporter that Petitioner stated to the reporter that Halvert Swanson stays at her house on weekends. Some of Respondent's staff reviewed a video-tape of Petitioner's statement to the local reporter. By letter dated April 21, 2000, Respondent denied Petitioner's application for re-licensure of her facility for the year covering May 2000-2001. Petitioner offered testimony of several witnesses who were unable to recall accurate details about Halvert Swanson's whereabouts from 1990 through 2000. However, it appears that, since his release from prison, Swanson had no permanent place of residence, but moved about, living with various relatives and girlfriends at his convenience. In addition, he was incarcerated for parts of this time period. During the relevant time period, Halvert Swanson, on occasion, visited the home of Petitioner and stayed overnight with his mother and his brothers on weekends. Swanson was also asked to stay at and look after Petitioner's home on several weekends while Petitioner and her other sons were out of town. Swanson continued to visit with his mother and brothers at 513 West 14th Street, Apopka, Florida, and continued to use her home as his permanent address. In the five years that Petitioner operated her licensed family day care center, the children under the care of Petitioner have not been injured or hurt.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Family Services deny Petitioner's application for re-licensure of her family day care home, for the year 2000-2001. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of October, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of October, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Paul V. Moyer, Esquire Moyer, Straus & Patel, P.A. 815 Orienta Avenue, Suite 6 Post office Box 151058 Altamonte Springs, Florida 32715-1058 Eric D. Dunlap, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 400 West Robinson Street, Suite S-1106 Orlando, Florida 32801 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
The Issue The issue in the case is whether the Petitioner's application for renewal of a family day care home license should be granted.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this case, the Petitioner owned and operated a licensed family day care home in Lakeland, Florida. On March 26, 2003, representatives of the Respondent arrived at the Petitioner's facility to assist in distributing materials that had been obtained by the facility. There were six children in the facility on March 26, 2003. The Petitioner was the only adult present and available to supervise the children. Upon arriving at the facility, one of the Respondent's representatives discovered an unsupervised "toddler" playing in the bathroom. The child's hands were in a toilet that was unclean and unflushed. One of the Respondent's representatives removed the child's hands from the toilet intending to wash the child's hands, but there was no soap or toweling available. It is unclear whether the Petitioner was aware that the child was in the bathroom, but in any event the child was unsupervised. Subsequently during the same visit, the Petitioner took the children outside into a play area and then returned inside to talk to the Respondent's representatives, leaving all of the children outside and unsupervised. The Respondent's representatives terminated their visit after advising the Petitioner to return outside and supervise the children. On March 27, 2003, a child protective investigator (CPI) employed by the Respondent arrived at the facility to investigate a report of inadequate supervision received on the previous day. Upon arriving, the CPI asked the Petitioner, who was the only adult present in the facility, as to the census and was advised that there were five children in the facility. The CPI observed the five children in a playroom. A few minutes later, the CPI responded to noise coming from the bathroom and discovered a sixth child, unsupervised and playing in the apparently-clean toilet water. The CPI removed the child's hands from the water. At one point, the Petitioner took another child into the bathroom and left him there. At another point, the Petitioner put infants into a room to nap, leaving the other children unsupervised while she did so, and then leaving the infants unsupervised while they napped. One child ran into an enclosed garage area without the Petitioner's knowledge. The Petitioner was unable to properly identify all of the children by name when requested to do so by the CPI. When asked to retrieve files on the children, the Petitioner left all the children unsupervised while she went to her automobile to get the files. The Petitioner asserted that the CPI had offered to watch the children while she went outside to get the files. The CPI denied having agreed to supervise the children. The greater weight of the evidence fails to support the Petitioner's assertion that the CPI offered to supervise the children during the visit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent enter a Final Order denying the Petitioner's application for renewal of licensure as a family day care home. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of September, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of September, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack Emory Farley, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 4720 Old Highway 37 Lakeland, Florida 33813-2030 Wanda Williams Williams Family Daycare Home 1630 Fruitwood Drive Lakeland, Florida 33805 Paul Flounlacker, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204B Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Josie Tomayo, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Jerry Regier, Secretary Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 1, Room 202 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
