The Issue The issue is whether to deny Respondent's application to renew its child care facility license and impose an administrative fine for the reasons stated in the Department's letter dated September 16, 2016.
Findings Of Fact Ms. Garcia operated a child care facility at 5600 Old Cheney Highway, Orlando, for almost two years. A probationary license expired on September 21, 2016. This proceeding concerns Ms. Garcia's application for renewal of her license. The Department has regulatory authority over the licensing of child care facilities. To ensure compliance with regulations, the Department conducts periodic inspections of licensed facilities. Unless violations are observed during an inspection, the Department's Orlando office annually conducts two routine and one license renewal inspection of each of the 395 licensed facilities in Orange and Seminole Counties. If a license is placed on probation because of violations, inspections are made at least once a month during the probationary period to ensure the deficiencies are corrected. Violations by a licensee of Department rules or a statute are treated as Class 1, 2, or 3 violations. A Class 1 violation is the most serious, as it "pose[s] an imminent threat to a child including abuse or neglect and which could or does result in death or serious harm to the health, safety or well- being of a child." Fla. Admin. Code R. 65C-22.010(1)(d). For example, it is a Class 1 violation for a facility operator to allow unsupervised individuals who have no current background screening to be with children. This is because all child care personnel must have a current Level 2 background screening performed before they begin work in the facility. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 65C-22.006(4)(d)1. In 2015, Respondent's facility was inspected on at least four occasions: January 13, March 20, May 18, and August 11. On each occasion, violations of Department rules and relevant statutes were observed. Because the first three inspections were performed by a non-Spanish speaking counselor, Ms. Garcia requested that her facility be inspected by a counselor who spoke Spanish. In June 2015, the Department assigned Roy Garcia (no relation to Ms. Garcia) to perform future inspections, as he is bi-lingual. Later, Ms. Garcia expressed her dissatisfaction with Roy Garcia as well. On January 15, 2016, Roy Garcia conducted an inspection of Respondent's facility. Based on violations observed during the inspection, on February 19, 2016, the Department issued an Administrative Complaint seeking to impose a $270.00 fine. See Dep't Ex. 2. The Administrative Complaint cited the following violations observed during the inspection: Two violations of sections 402.302(3) and (15) and 402.305(2) and Florida Administrative Code Rule 62C-22.006(4)(d) by failing to perform required background screening for two employees. Two violations of rule 65C-22.006(d) and (e) by failing to have background screening documents in the staff files. Three violations of the staff/ratio rule, as required by section 402.305(3) and (4) and rule 65C-22.001(4). Two violations of section 402.302(3) and rule 65C-22.001(5) by allowing a volunteer to supervise children without a qualified employee being present. Four violations of rule 65C-22.006(2) by failing to have student health examinations on file. Four violations of rule 65C-22.006(2) by failing to have required student immunization records on file. At hearing, Ms. Garcia took the position that the charges were not warranted. However, in April 2016, she paid the $270.00 fine. Even though the Department informed her that she could request a hearing, a request was not filed. Therefore, the agency action became final. On April 29, 2016, Roy Garcia conducted another inspection of the facility. Based on violations observed during the inspection, on June 30, 2016, the Department issued an Administrative Complaint seeking to impose a $125.00 fine and to convert her annual license to probationary status, given the number of recurring violations during the preceding year. See Dep't Ex. 3. The Administrative Complaint cited the following violations observed during the inspection: Three violations of section 402.305(3) and (4) and rule 65C-22.001(4) by failing to maintain a ratio of two staff personnel for each five infants under one year of age. One violation of rules 65C-22.006 and 65C-22.010 for failing to have background screening documents and employment history checks in the facility files. At hearing, Ms. Garcia disagreed with the merits of these charges. However, in August 2016, she paid a $125.00 fine. Even though the Department informed her she could request a hearing to contest the charges, a request was not filed. Therefore, the agency action became final. A probation-status license was issued on July 31, 2016, with an expiration date of September 21, 2016, which coincided with the date on which her original annual license expired. See Dep't Ex. 4. A probation-status license is issued for a short period of time during which the licensee must come back into compliance. See § 402.310(1)(a)2., Fla. Stat. On August 4, 2016, Ms. Garcia filed an application for renewal of her license. Because the license was on probation, follow-up inspections of the facility were conducted by Roy Garcia on August 26, 29, 30, and 31, 2016. Multiple inspections were conducted because he believed the safety of the children was at risk. Although Ms. Garcia contends these inspections constituted an "abuse of authority," the Department routinely performs follow-up inspections if a facility's license is on probation. Multiple violations were observed during these inspections. See Dep't Ex. 1. They included the following: Four Class I violations of section 402.305(2)(a) by allowing unscreened individuals to be left alone to supervise children in the facility's care. These violations call for a fine of $400.00, or $100.00 per violation. Three Class 2 violations of rule 65C- 22.002(3)(a) by failing to maintain 20 or 35 square feet per child in areas occupied by children. These violations call for a fine of $180.00, or $60.00 per violation. Three Class 2 violations of section 402.305(4) and rule 65C-22.001(4)(a) and (b) by failing to maintain a sufficient staff to children ratio. These violations call for a fine of $300.00, or $100.00 per violation. Two Class 2 violations of rule 65C- 22.006(4)(d)1. by failing to have Level 2 background screening documentation on file. These violations call for a fine of $150.00, or $75.00 per violation. Two Class 2 violations of rule 65C- 22.006(4)(d) by failing to have employee CF- FSP Form 5131 on file. These violations call for a fine of $150.00, or $75.00 per violation. Two Class 2 violations of rule 65C- 22.006(4)(d)2. by failing to have employment history checks on file. These violations call for a fine of $150.00, or $75.00 per violation. One Class 2 violation of rule 65C- 22.003(2)(a) for a facility employee having not completed the 40-clock-hour Introductory Child Care Training. This violation calls for a fine of $75.00. One Class 3 violation of rule 65C- 22.006(2)(a) and (d) by failing to have on file student health examinations for all children enrolled in the facility for at least 30 days. This violation calls for a fine of $40.00. One Class 3 violation of rule 65C- 22.006(2)(c) and (d) by failing to have on file immunization records for all children enrolled in the facility for at least 30 days. This violation calls for a fine of $40.00. The Department's letter of September 16, 2016, proposes to impose an administrative fine in the amount of $1,565.00. See § 402.310(1)(a)1., Fla. Stat. Ms. Garcia did not challenge the amount or manner in which the fine was calculated. Rather, she contends the charges were not justified and therefore no fine should be imposed. However, by clear and convincing evidence, the Department has proven the allegations described in its letter. After each inspection, Roy Garcia explained the nature of each violation and how it must be corrected in order to comply with Department rules. Despite his efforts to help Ms. Garcia, repeat violations were observed. Unscreened individuals were supervising the children on two of the four days. Therefore, it was necessary for Roy Garcia to call the parents and ask that they come to the facility and pick up their children. After observing staff ratio violations on August 29, Roy Garcia returned the next day and observed the same violation. He also observed unsupervised volunteers alone with children three times (August 29, 30, and 31) during the same week.2/ When Roy Garcia asked Ms. Garcia why she was not following his instructions, she would argue with him, deny that any violation occurred, and contend he was out to shut her down and discriminate against her because she was an "entrepreneurial woman." While conceding that she made "mistakes," Ms. Garcia contended Roy Garcia was harassing her and simply trying to find violations when he inspected the facility. She also contends the violations were not serious, were technical in nature, and did not threaten the safety or welfare of the children. However, Class 1 violations were repeatedly observed. Ms. Garcia stressed the fact that her family is dependent on the income she derives from operating the facility, and she will not be able to support her family if the license is not renewed. She added that she is now in limbo on whether to prepay the rent on the building where her current facility is located. Had the facility been operated in compliance with Department rules, these concerns would not be present. Ms. Garcia also contended that Roy Garcia would not allow her husband, Elmer, to substitute for a missing teacher. However, Elmer works in the kitchen, drives a facility vehicle, and at that time did not have the minimum training necessary to qualify as a facility employee who supervises children. Ms. Garcia further contended she was never given appropriate training on how to determine if a prospective employee has current background screening, especially since she has very few computer skills. This assertion is contrary to the accepted evidence, as she could have simply called the Department's Orlando office to verify the eligibility of prospective employees or volunteers before they were hired. Notably, even after a series of administrative complaints were issued concerning unscreened employees/volunteers, as of January 5, 2017, four persons who had worked or volunteered at the facility still had no Level 2 background screening. Ms. Garcia presented the testimony of four mothers whose children used the facility when the license was active. All were pleased with the care of their children. They especially appreciate the fact that the facility is open until midnight, is located in an area convenient to where they live or work, and charges less than other child care facilities in the area.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Families enter a final order denying the application to renew Respondent's license and imposing an administrative fine of $1,565.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of February, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of February, 2017.
The Issue Whether Respondent, a day-care center, committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and if so, the penalties Petitioner should impose against Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the regulatory authority responsible for licensure and enforcement of day-care centers in Florida. Respondent is a day-care center in Miami, Florida, and currently holds child care license C11MD0340. Respondent has operated as a day-care center since April 19, 1990. At the time of the formal hearing, Kevin Lennon was the owner and operator of Respondent. S.B. and L.B. are young sisters who stayed at Respondent’s day-care center in July 2014. On July 9, 2014, one of Respondent’s employees gave S.B. and L.B. a small cup of Cheez-Its as a snack. Mr. Lennon was present when the two girls were sharing the cup of Cheez-Its. After S.B., who is the older and bigger child, finished her share of the Cheez-Its, S.B. began to hit her sister to take her sister’s share of the Cheez-Its. Mr. Lennon separated the two girls and permitted L.B. to eat her share of the Cheez-Its. Mr. Lennon testified, credibly, that he did not take the Cheez-Its from S.B. to punish S.B. Petitioner offered no competent, credible evidence to refute Mr. Lennon’s testimony. On March 25, 2014, Petitioner received from Respondent an “Application for a License to Operate a Child Care Facility” (the application). Mr. Lennon completed the application on behalf of Respondent. The application contained an attestation section that required Mr. Lennon’s signature to be notarized. On March 25, 2014, Petitioner received an attestation section (first attestation section) signed by Kevin Lennon on February 28, 2014. The first attestation section contains Ivanne Albarran’s notary seal and a signature dated February 28, 2014. Mr. Lennon testified, credibly, that he signed the first attestation section as Kevin Lennon. Mr. Albarran testified, credibly, that he signed the first attestation section as the notary public. Petitioner offered insufficient evidence to refute that testimony. The application package contains a second attestation section that was received by Petitioner on March 28, 2014. The second attestation section contains Mr. Lennon’s signature and a date of March 26, 2014. The second attestation section contains Mr. Albarran’s notary seal and a signature dated March 28, 2014. Mr. Lennon testified, credibly, that he signed the second attestation section as “Kevin Lennon.” Mr. Albarran testified, credibly, that he signed the second attestation section as the notary public. Petitioner offered no competent, credible evidence to refute that testimony.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Families enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of January, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 9th day of January, 2015. COPIES FURNISHED: Howard J. Hochman, Esquire Law Offices of Howard J. Hochman 7695 Southwest 104th Street, Suite 210 Miami, Florida 33156 (eServed) Karen A. Milia, Esquire Department of Children and Families 401 Northwest Second Avenue, Suite N-1014 Miami, Florida 33128 (eServed) Paul Sexton, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Families Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Rebecca Kapusta, Interim General Counsel Department of Children and Families Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 (eServed) Mike Carroll, Secretary Department of Children and Families Building 1, Room 202 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 (eServed)
The Issue The issues in this case, which arises from Petitioner's application for an award of attorney's fees and costs pursuant to section 57.111, Florida Statutes, are whether Petitioner was a prevailing small business party in a disciplinary proceeding that Respondent initiated, and, if so, whether Respondent's decision to prosecute Petitioner was substantially justified or whether special circumstances exist that would make an award unjust.
Findings Of Fact On August 15, 2014, Respondent Department of Children and Families ("DCF") issued an Administrative Complaint against Petitioner Children's Hour Day School (the "School"), a licensed child care facility, charging the School with two disciplinable offenses, namely denial of food as form of punishment (Violation 1) and misrepresentation (Violation 2). The allegations of material fact in support of Violation 1 were as follows: During a complaint inspection on 8/6/14, the child care facility was cited for a Class I violation of Standard #12, Child Discipline, [because] a child, to wit, S.B., was denied a snack as a form of punishment when the child allegedly hit her sister, L.B. who is also enrolled at the child care facility. The allegations of material fact in support of Violation 2 were as follows: During a complaint inspection on 8/6/14, the child care facility was cited for a Class I violation of Standard #63, Misrepresentation, when it came to the Family Safety Counselor's attention that child care personnel, K.L. misrepresented and forged information, related to the child care facility when he utilized a notary stamp belonging to a former employee, namely Albarran and submitted the 2014 application for licensure to the Department with the forged notarization. The School, which requested a hearing, was found not guilty of the charges. See Dep't of Child. & Fams. v. Child.'s Hour Day Sch., Case No. 14-4539, 2015 Fla. Div. Adm. Hear. LEXIS 8 (Fla. DOAH Jan. 9, 2015; Fla. DCF Feb. 18, 2015). The Administrative Law Judge made the following findings of material fact with respect to Violation 1: S.B. and L.B. are young sisters who stayed at Respondent's day-care center in July 2014. On July 9, 2014, one of Respondent's employees gave S.B. and L.B. a small cup of Cheez-Its as a snack. [Kevin] Lennon was present when the two girls were sharing the cup of Cheez-Its. After S.B., who is the older and bigger child, finished her share of the Cheez-Its, S.B. began to hit her sister to take her sister's share of the Cheez-Its. Mr. Lennon separated the two girls and permitted L.B. to eat her share of the Cheez-Its. Mr. Lennon testified, credibly, that he did not take the Cheez-Its from S.B. to punish S.B. Id. at 3-4 (paragraph number omitted). The Administrative Law Judge made the following findings of material fact with respect to Violation 2: On March 25, 2014, Petitioner received from Respondent an "Application for a License to Operate a Child Care Facility" (the application). Mr. Lennon completed the application on behalf of Respondent. The application contained an attestation section that required Mr. Lennon's signature to be notarized. On March 25, 2014, Petitioner received an attestation section (first attestation section) signed by Kevin Lennon on February 28, 2014. The first attestation section contains Ivanne Albarran's notary seal and a signature dated February 28, 2014. Mr. Lennon testified, credibly, that he signed the first attestation section as Kevin Lennon. Mr. Albarran testified, credibly, that he signed the first attestation section as the notary public. The application package contains a second attestation section that was received by Petitioner on March 28, 2014. The second attestation section contains Mr. Lennon's signature and a date of March 26, 2014. The second attestation section contains Mr. Albarran's notary seal and a signature dated March 28, 2014. Mr. Lennon testified, credibly, that he signed the second attestation section as "Kevin Lennon." Mr. Albarran testified, credibly, that he signed the second attestation section as the notary public. Id. at 4-5 (paragraph numbers omitted). The School's owner is a corporation, Hamilton-Smith, Inc. ("HSI"), whose principal office is located in the state of Florida.1/ Kevin Lennon, who was referred to as "K.L." in the Administrative Complaint and is mentioned in the findings of fact quoted above, is HSI's sole shareholder. HSI employed fewer than 25 persons at the time DCF initiated the underlying disciplinary proceeding, and at all relevant times thereafter. Thus, HSI is a "small business party" as that term is defined in section 57.111(3)(d)1.b., Florida Statutes.2/ DCF agrees that HSI is a "prevailing" party as that term is defined in section 57.111(3)(c)1., inasmuch as a final order dismissing the charges against the School was entered in DOAH Case No. 14-4539. It is determined, as a matter of ultimate fact, that HSI is a "prevailing small business party" entitled to recover its reasonable attorney's fees and costs from DCF "unless the actions of the agency were substantially justified or special circumstances exist which would make the award unjust." § 57.111(4)(a), Fla. Stat. In defending against the administrative charges, HSI incurred attorney's fees in the amount of $4,515.00 and costs totaling $434.50, for which it now seeks to be reimbursed. DCF does not contest the amount or reasonableness of either sum. DCF contends, however, that an award of attorney's fees and costs is unwarranted because its actions were substantially justified. It is therefore necessary to examine the grounds upon which DCF made its decision to charge the School with the offenses alleged in the Administrative Complaint. The disciplinary action had its genesis in an anonymous complaint that, on August 6, 2014, was phoned in to the local DCF licensing office in the School's vicinity. DCF counselor Michaelyn Radcliff went out that same day to investigate, and she met Tajah Brown at the School. Ms. Brown, an employee of the School, revealed to Ms. Radcliff that she had made the complaint, which involved the ratio of staff to children. Mr. Lennon, who was Ms. Brown's boss, happened to be out of town at the time and hence was not present for Ms. Radcliff's inspection. For the next six hours or so, Ms. Brown described for Ms. Radcliff every regulatory violation or offense she could think of, which she believed the School might have committed. One such offense was the alleged withholding of S.B.'s snack. Ms. Brown had not witnessed this incident, but she knew the child's mother, E.B., and offered to ask the mother to give a statement about it, which Ms. Radcliff agreed was a good idea. E.B. met Ms. Radcliff at the School, accompanied by her daughter S.B., who was then two years old. E.B. did not have personal knowledge of the alleged denial-of-snack incident, but she had been told about the event by her sister (S.B.'s aunt) who had picked S.B. and L.B. up from day care the evening of its alleged occurrence. The aunt did not have personal knowledge of the matter either, having arrived afterward. Rather, according to E.B., the aunt had told E.B. that Mr. Lennon had told her (the aunt) that S.B. had hit L.B. and thrown a tantrum. Ms. Radcliff did not speak to the aunt, however, whose testimony about what Mr. Lennon told her actually might have been admissible at hearing under an exception to the hearsay rule3/; instead, she accepted E.B.'s statement about the incident, which was based on hearsay (Mr. Lennon's declaration) within hearsay (the aunt's declaration) and had no evidential value on its own. Ms. Radcliff did question one eyewitness: two-year- old S.B., who denied hitting her sister, complained that Mr. Lennon would not give her a snack, and accused Mr. Lennon of hitting her. S.B.'s statement, such as it was, was the only independently admissible evidence Ms. Radcliff had. She never spoke with Mr. Lennon, who was the only adult eyewitness to the alleged denial-of-snack incident.4/ As for the alleged misrepresentation, Ms. Brown informed Ms. Radcliff that she (Ms. Brown) had observed Mr. Lennon using a notary stamp belonging to Ivanne Albarran, a former employee of the School, to "notarize" signatures in Mr. Albarran's name when he was not around. Ms. Brown did not, however, identify any specific documents that she claimed to have seen Mr. Lennon fraudulently notarize in this fashion.5/ Nor, apparently, was she asked whether she was familiar with either Mr. Albarran's or Mr. Lennon's signature or if she could identify anyone's signature on any document. Ms. Radcliff herself compared the signatures on documents purportedly signed by Mr. Albarran during the time when Mr. Albarran was an employee of the School with some of his purported signatures on documents executed after his employment had ended. She concluded that the signatures looked different. Ms. Radcliff is not a forensic document examiner, however, and she has no discernable expertise in handwriting analysis. Based on her layperson's opinion about the signatures, Ms. Radcliff determined that Mr. Albarran had not executed some notarized documents that the School had submitted with its recent application for renewal licensure, even though his stamp, seal, and purported signatures appeared on them. Based on Ms. Brown's claim to have seen Mr. Lennon use Mr. Albarran's notary stamp, Ms. Radcliff concluded that Mr. Lennon had forged these signatures. Ms. Radcliff never asked Mr. Albarran whether he had signed the documents in question, nor did she speak with Mr. Lennon about the matter.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this hearing is whether Petitioner should be granted an exemption from disqualification from certain employment.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Respondent, Department of Children and Family Services, was the state agency responsible for screening the employment of individuals employed in certain occupations within this state. Petitioner, Jose Ramon Arazo, is married to Stephanie Arazo, who at the time and for a number of years prior to the marriage, operated a child day care center in Largo, Florida. Under the provisions of Chapter 435, Florida Statutes, various positions of trust require screening of federal and state law enforcement records to see if the applicants for such positions have a record of charge or disposition. Various positions have differing requirements for screening. Those positions classified as Level II require a finger print and agency check with the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. Those positions classified as Level I do not. If the agency check discloses the applicant has been charged with a criminal offense, the Department then determines the disposition of the allegation and obtains court records regarding the court action and verifying any probation imposed. The Department's District V Director has promulgated a policy to be followed in that District that stipulates that an exemption from disqualification will not be granted to any individual who is on probation after conviction of a felony and for three years after release from probation. If probation is not imposed by the court, the same policy provides that an exemption will not be granted within three years of a felony conviction, as is provided for in the statute governing exemptions. Petitioner has been charged with several felonies in the past. On July 18, 1983, he was arraigned on a charge of grand theft, to which he pleaded not guilty. However, on August 29, 1983, he changed his plea to guilty and was placed on probation for three years. Thereafter, in December 1985, a warrant was issued for his arrest alleging various violations of the conditions of his probation, including such offenses as being delinquent in the payment of the cost of his supervision; moving from his residence without the prior consent of his probation supervisor; failing to work diligently at a lawful occupation; and failing to make required restitution. In July 1986, he was again the subject of an arrest warrant for ten further probation violations of a similar nature. No evidence was presented as to what action was taken for those violations, but on April 4, 1986, he pleaded guilty in Circuit Court in Pinellas County to grand theft and was again placed in a community control program for two years. There is also evidence in the record to indicate that in September 1986, he was sentenced to confinement for 18 months as a result of the grand theft in Pinellas County. In May 1989, Petitioner was arrested in Hillsborough County and charged with possession of cocaine, a second degree felony, and with obstructing an officer without violence, a first degree misdemeanor. He entered a plea of guilty to the offenses and on May 2, 1989, was sentenced to three-and-a-half years in Florida State Prison. In an indictment dated December 3, 1991, Petitioner was charged with one count of grand theft in Hillsborough County. He entered a plea of nolo contendere and on October 14, 1994, was sentenced to five years imprisonment. When Petitioner was released from prison in 1998, he was placed on probation for a period of two years and is currently on probation status. He indicates he has successfully participated in this period of probation and was told the probation authorities plan to recommend his release from probation in the near future. No independent evidence to support this contention was offered, though Petitioner presented a statement from correctional officials who supervised him while he was incarcerated at the Tampa Community Correction Center and at the institutional level, that he has shown a significant reformation of character and a good ability to deal with everyday problems in a professional manner. From their joint unsworn statement, it would appear these individuals consider Petitioner a likely candidate to be a productive member of society in the future. Petitioner's wife has been put out of business because Petitioner lives with her in their home which was her place of business. Because of his presence, even though he works outside the home most of the time the children are there, she cannot care for children in the home because of regulations prohibiting it. She has been in business for a number of years and apparently her center has a good reputation in the community. One client, Mrs. Perry, by unsworn written statement commends Mrs. Arazo's performance and indicates that even though she saw Petitioner only a few times, he was one of her daughter's favorite people. He also had a positive influence on her son, preaching the virtue of hard work. Mrs. Perry does not consider Petitioner a threat, and she has no fear of his being near her children. In fact, she is of the opinion it a good thing for the children to see the loving and supportive interplay between Petitioner and his wife. Another client, Mrs. Mineo, has been a foster parent to a number of children over the years, many of whom she has placed in Mrs. Arazo's care, agrees. During the time she has known Petitioner, she has never seen him to be other than very professional. She describes him as a hard worker, well-mannered, and deserving of a chance. She believes him to be trying hard. Mrs. Arazo asserts that Petitioner is no threat to the well-being of any of the children who attend her center. He has, to her knowledge, never hurt a child, and she would have nothing to do with anyone who would. His relationship with the children in her care is very positive, and the children love him when he is there, which is not often. He is not an employee of the center and, in fact, has nothing to do with it. He has made mistakes in the past, has paid for them, and has worked hard to overcome them. In her opinion, he deserves a chance. Petitioner admits he has done wrong in the past on multiple occasions, and he is not proud of the things he has done wrong. He does not believe in rehabilitation except in the physical sense, but he believes in the power of an individual to recognize his wrong ways and reform himself. He believes he has done this. He took the opportunity to learn better life-skills while he was in jail and has reformed his way of thinking and his attitudes. During the total six years he spent in prison, he was given only one disciplinary referral. He learned a trade and has a full-time job. He is doing the best he can and wants a chance to prove himself, so as not to hurt his wife's business.
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether the Department of Children and Family Services should renew the daycare license of Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Tara Grizzell owned and operated Koala Kuties (the Center) which was located in Brooksville, Florida. At the time of the notice of denial, Petitioner's annual license was scheduled to expire on July 9, 2006. Glenda McDonald is a daycare licensing agent with the Department. She conducted an inspection of the Center on October 30, 2003. During the course of the inspection, Ms. McDonald completed a 63-item checklist of the facility. On this checklist, Ms. McDonald noted that the Center was not in compliance with applicable statutes and rules in some areas. The areas of non-compliance noted were that the Center was not in compliance in posting a log of monthly fire drills, medication was not locked or properly stored, and the required record keeping for the children's health and immunization records was disorganized. The checklist shows a required compliance date of the close of business on the date of inspection for the violations regarding records of fire drills and improperly stored medications. Regarding record keeping of health and immunization records, Ms. McDonald noted that there would be a re-check in four months. Approximately four months later, Ms. McDonald conducted another inspection of the Center on February 23, 2004. Again, Ms. McDonald noted on the inspection checklist that the Center was not in compliance with the requirements regarding record keeping of the children's health and immunization records. In addition, Ms. McDonald found that the Center was not in compliance regarding proper storage of toxic and hazardous materials because bleach, cleaner, and fingernail polish were accessible to children; the Center had failed to complete a required form regarding mandatory training for its employees; and required personnel and screening documents for the Center's employees were not complete. Ms. McDonald next inspected the Center on June 7, 2004. During that inspection, she again found that the monthly fire drill log had not been posted and employees' screening documents were still not completed. Ms. McDonald returned to the Center on October 28, 2004, to conduct another inspection. Ms. McDonald found the Center very disorganized with toys, dishes, and other items in places where people could trip over them. She noted on her inspection checklist that the Center was in violation for failure to keep the Center in clean and good repair. Additionally, Ms. McDonald again found the facility to be in non-compliance in the area of record keeping for the children's health and immunization records, personnel records, and personnel screening records. She also found the Center to be out of compliance regarding crib requirements because an infant was asleep on its tummy, and found the Center to be out of compliance for failure to maintain safe and adequate fencing because the playground fence was unlocked. On November 18, 2004, Ms. McDonald conducted a reinspection of the facility to determine whether Ms. Grizzell brought the facility into compliance. She again found it to be in non-compliance for failure to maintain the children's health and immunization records and failure to maintain the required employee screening documents. Ms. McDonald next made an inspection of the Center on February 7, 2005. She again found the Center to be in non- compliance in the areas of failure to post fire drill logs, failure to maintain required personnel documents, and the Center's lack of required documentation on two of the children. Additionally, Ms. McDonald found the Center to be cluttered and out of compliance with the requirement that the facility be clean and in good repair, and that substitutions to the planned menu were not recorded on the posted menu as required. Ms. McDonald made a reinspection of the facility on April 21, 2005, during which she again found the Center to be in non-compliance in the areas of the children's health and immunization records and required personnel and background screening records. On June 2, 2005, Ms. McDonald made another inspection of the Center and found everything to be in compliance except the children's immunization records, as they needed to be updated to reflect current immunizations. On October 6, 2005, Ms. McDonald made another inspection of the Center and again found it to be in non- compliance for failure to update the children's immunization and medical records, and failure to have complete personnel and background screening records on file. On January 24, 2006, Ms. McDonald inspected the Center and again found it to be in non-compliance, in that there was no report posted to show that a fire drill had been conducted in December 2005; there was evidence of smoking near the entrance of the facility and in the outdoor play area, and, therefore, not in compliance with requirements that all areas be free of toxic substances and hazardous materials; the immunization records of two of the children were not up-to-date; and the facility still did not have a complete record on file for all of the child care personnel nor required background screening documents. Additionally, Ms. McDonald found the Center to be in non-compliance for not posting their plan of scheduled activities as required and failing to store medicine properly. On May 25, 2006, Ms. McDonald again made an inspection of the facility and found it to be in non-compliance for incomplete files documenting required training of personnel, failure to have sufficient credentialed staff on the premises, failure to post a menu, and failure to maintain employee records and employee background screening requirements. Petitioner previously paid a civil penalty in the amount of $500 when a child wandered away from the Center and was found walking down a busy road in 2005.1/ Ms. Grizzell acknowledged at hearing that she had trouble with record keeping because there was a lot of turnover of employees. Further, she noted that on the January 24, 2006, inspection checklist, she was later found to be in compliance regarding the alleged violation of toxic and hazardous materials being present. Regarding the child who wandered away, Ms. Grizzell noted that the incident happened on the second day of care for the child.
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 denying Petitioner's application for relicensure. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of December, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ____ BARBARA J. STAROS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of December, 2006
