The Issue The issue for determination in this proceeding is whether Respondent failed to maintain direct supervision of four minor children and, if so, what, if any, penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for regulating child day care facilities in Florida. Respondent is licensed as a child care facility within the meaning of Section 402.302(4), Florida Statutes. 1/ Respondent is licensed to care for 36 children, ages 0-12, pursuant to license number 994-39. Ms. Augustina Peash is the owner of Augustina Academay within the meaning of Section 402.302(7). Ms. Peash operates Augustina Academy at 1307 Pinehills Road, Orlando, Florida, 32808. On April 7, 1995, Petitioner conducted a quarterly inspection of Respondent. Four children were alone with no direct supervision. Two children were sweeping the kitchen. Another child was alone in a classroom. An infant was alone in a crib in a room adjacent to the director's office. Ms. Augustina Peash was in the director's office. The potential harm to the children was not severe within the meaning of Section 402.310(1)(b)1. All of the children were on the premises of Augustina Academy and within close proximity of supervising personnel. The period in which Respondent failed to maintain direct supervision of the children was not substantial. Respondent's employees corrected the failure immediately. Respondent's failure to maintain direct supervision of the children did not result in any actual harm to the children. Respondent has a history of prior discipline within the meaning of Section 402.310(1)(b)3. On November 7, 1994, Petitioner cited Respondent for a similar violation. Petitioner informed Respondent in writing of the violation
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of the charges in the Administrative Complaint and imposing an administrative fine of $100. RECOMMENDED this 5th day of January, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL S. MANRY, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of January, 1996.
The Issue The issue is whether the Beatrice Guardian Angel Daycare violated provisions of chapters 402 and 435, Florida Statutes (2012), and/or Florida Administrative Code Chapter 65C-22, such that its license should not be renewed.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for inspecting, licensing, and monitoring child care facilities such as the one operated by the Daycare. It is 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 inspects each licensed day care center three times a year: two unannounced routine inspections (to ensure compliance with the applicable laws and rules), and one renewal application inspection. In the event of a complaint, additional inspections and/or investigations are conducted. Ms. Giles owned, operated and directed the Daycare. The Daycare located on West Lancaster Road opened in November 2011, and was in continuous operation at all times material.6/ Ms. Giles opened the Daycare at this particular location after operating it at a different location. Luz Torres is a family service counselor for the Department. Ms. Torres is trained to inspect day care centers for initial applications, renewal applications and routine inspections. Ms. Torres is familiar with the Daycare, having inspected it several times while it was operational. Inspections of the Daycare revealed operational deficiencies during four inspections, dated February 15; June 20,; July 2,; and November 7, 2012. The specific deficiencies were set forth on inspection reports provided to Ms. Giles at the time of each inspection. Ms. Torres conducted a routine inspection of the Daycare on February 15, 2012 (inspection one). A number of areas of noncompliance areas included physical environmental issues, such as insufficient lighting, gaps in fencing, ground cover for outdoor equipment, and training. Other areas included: a lack of documentation of employee educational courses showing literacy and developmental course training, a 40-hour child care course, and 10 hours of in-service training; items in the first aid kit were missing; deficiencies in food and nutrition, such as unlabeled bottles and sippy cups; and deficiencies in children's health and immunization records, personnel records, and background screening. The Department issued an "Administrative Warning Notification" (notification) to Petitioner based upon the following violations: "[T]he facility's fencing, walls or gate area had gaps that could allow children to exit the outdoor play area. The gate was observed broke [sic] with gaps on both sides." This notification advised Petitioner that the "next violation of a licensing standard outlined in this notice, [would] result in an administrative fine." On June 20, 2012, Ms. Torres conducted a routine inspection (inspection two) of the Daycare. The noncompliant areas included: missing documentation for some children's immunization records; missing documentation of ten hours of in-service training for the Daycare's director; and missing documentation of background screening documents, including an affidavit of good moral character for employees. A second notification7/ (dated June 20, 2012) was issued to the Daycare following inspection two. This notification involved issues regarding a child's health and immunization records, and missing documentation for employees. One child's immunization records had expired. Four staff members were deficient regarding in-service training logs, and an additional staff member had not received the level two screening clearance. In response to a complaint (complaint one), Ms. Torres conducted an investigation of the Daycare on July 2, 2012. The Daycare was found to be out-of-ratio regarding the number of children to staff, and background screening documentation for level two screening for staff members was missing. In a mixed group of children ages one and two years old, the ratio of one staff for six children is required. At the time of the complaint one investigation, there was one staff per eight children. Although this ratio issue was rectified during the complaint one investigation, it was and is considered a violation. The documentation for the level two screening violation for the staff was not corrected during this investigation. A third notification was issued to the Daycare following the complaint one investigation. This notification involved the staff-to-child ratio, and the lack of background screening documentation. The Daycare was notified that the appropriate staff-to-child ratio must be maintained at all times, and the missing Level two screening documentation had to be resolved. This notification advised the Daycare that the "next violation of a licensing standard outlined in this notice, [would] result in an administrative fine." 8/ On August 1, 2012, the Daycare was notified that its license would expire on November 29, 2012. The Daycare's renewal application was due 45 days before the expiration date, or before October 15, 2012. The denial letter set forth that the Daycare's renewal application was filed on October 30, 2012.9/ In June 2012, Ms. Giles became aware that her daughter, Alexis Anderson, had a drug addiction problem when Ms. Anderson's baby was born addicted to drugs. Ms. Anderson and her two children were required to live with Ms. Giles while Ms. Anderson addressed her addiction problem. Ms. Anderson's two children attended the Daycare. Ms. Anderson would visit the Daycare to see her children. On November 7, 2012, as a result of another complaint (complaint two) being filed, DCF conducted an investigation of the Daycare. Ms. Giles reported that on two different occasions, two small bags were found at the Daycare. One small empty bag was found in the Daycare's common hallway. A second bag was found on a desk in the Daycare's office and contained a white residue. After the second bag was found and Ms. Giles was told by an employee what the bags might be used for ("people transport drugs in"), she suspected that Ms. Anderson might have left the bags at the Daycare. Also, after finding the second bag, Ms. Giles banned Ms. Anderson from the Daycare. There was speculation that the two bags contained an illegal substance; however, the two bags were discarded before any scientific testing could be done or any photographs could be taken. There is simply no proof as to what was in either bag.10/ There was no clear and convincing evidence that Ms. Anderson supervised or tended to children other than her own while she was at the Daycare. There was clear and convincing evidence that Ms. Anderson was at the Daycare on multiple occasions and had access to every room and child/children there. Ms. Anderson did not have the appropriate level two screening. In addition to investigating complaint two, child care regulations counselor Christina Bryant also observed inadequate ratios between staff and children, and a lack of qualified or unscreened individuals supervising children. Ms. Bryant observed one staff for five children in the zero to twelve month age group (ratio should be one to four), and she observed one staff to nine children, in the one-year-old classroom (ratio should be one staff to six children). Upon completing a review of the Daycare's record keeping, Ms. Bryant also found that background screening documents were missing for staff members. On November 14, 2012, Child Protective Investigator (CPI), Beauford White was directed to go to the Daycare and remove Ms. Anderson's two children from the Daycare.11/ When CPI White advised Ms. Giles he was removing the children from the Daycare, Ms. Giles became very emotional, and initially told CPI White he could not take the children. CPI White contacted his supervisor who directed CPI White to contact the Orange County Sheriff's Office (OCSO) for assistance in removing the children. Between the time the OCSO was called and when the deputy arrived, approximately 45 to 60 minutes, CPI White had obtained compliance, and Ms. Giles released the two children to his custody.12/ On Thursday afternoon, November 29, 2012, Ms. Giles was asked to attend a meeting on Friday, November 30, 2012, in the Department's legal office regarding the Daycare's license. Because of the short notice, Ms. Giles was unable to obtain an attorney to accompany her to the meeting on November 30, 2012. Ms. Giles attended the meeting by herself with a number of Department staff. Ms. Giles was given the following option: execute a relinquishment of the Daycare's license, or the Department would seek to revoke the license. Ms. Giles did not know the law. Ms. Giles executed the relinquishment13/ of the Daycare's license because she was thinking that "revoke sound[ed] horrible to" her. She did not want to relinquish her license, nor close her business, but she did not feel she had any choice in the matter. The totality of the circumstances under which Ms. Giles found herself renders the "relinquishment" less than voluntary. After this meeting, Ms. Giles returned to the Daycare and was present when Ms. Torres removed the Daycare's license from the wall. Mytenniza Boston, a Daycare employee, was also present when Ms. Torres removed the license. Ms. Giles did not tell Ms. Boston or any of the other Daycare employees that the Daycare's license had been relinquished, nor did she start notifying parents of the Daycare's closing. On Monday, December 3, 2012, around noon, Department investigators arrived at the Daycare and found children in the opened facility. Ms. Giles was at the Daycare making telephone calls to parents asking them to come pick up their child or children. The Daycare was open for business despite the fact that Ms. Giles had relinquished her license on Friday, November 30, 2012. On occasion Pervis Giles, Ms. Giles' then husband would walk to the Daycare to talk with Ms. Giles. Mr. Giles would also cut the Daycare's grass, unlock the Daycare's door for daily operations, and participate with Ms. Giles in making business decisions about the Daycare. Ms. Giles did not consider these activities to be working for the Daycare; however, common sense dictates otherwise. Ms. Giles has several children. At various times during the Daycare's operation, Ms. Giles' children were at the Daycare volunteering, cleaning up or helping with the Daycare children in some fashion. Ms. Giles' children did not have the required level two background screening as Ms. Giles did not know that her children needed to be screened. Ms. Giles' lack of understanding regarding who is required to be screened is troublesome. Ms. Giles has been in the daycare business for many years, yet she failed to comply with basic safety measures.
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 renewal application. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of July, 2013, 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 22nd day of July, 2013.
The Issue The issues are as follows: (1) whether Respondent violated Section 402.305(2), Florida Statutes (2005), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C-22.003(2) by failing to show that two staff members had enrolled in the introductory child care course within 90 days of employment; and if so, (2) what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the agency charged with the responsibility of enforcing Sections 402.301 through 402.319, Florida Statutes. At all times relevant here, Respondent has been licensed to operate a child care facility located at 10550 Deerwood Park Boulevard, Jacksonville, Florida (the facility.) Respondent's current license to operate the facility is effective May 6, 2005, through May 5, 2006. On April 22, 2003, Petitioner performed a renewal-of- licensure inspection at the facility. The inspection revealed that Respondent was not in compliance with the requirement that all staff members enroll in the introductory course in child care within 90 days of employment. The citation for non- compliance involved three of Respondent's staff members, including R.A., M.P., and G.S. On August 20, 2003, Petitioner performed a routine inspection at Respondent's facility. The inspection revealed that Respondent was in compliance with the requirement that all staff members enroll in the introductory course in child care within 90 days of employment. During the hearing, Respondent presented undocumented testimony that it was in compliance with staff training requirements during an inspection on January 6, 2004. On April 20, 2004, Petitioner performed a renewal-of- licensure inspection at the facility. Once again the inspection revealed that Respondent failed to have documentation to show enrollment in the introductory course in child care for all staff employed for at least 90 days. On May 4, 2004, Petitioner performed a re-inspection of the facility. The inspection revealed that Respondent continued to be out of compliance with the requirement for staff members to enroll in the introductory child care course within 90 days of employment. The relevant portion of the May 4, 2004, re- inspection checklist contains the following comment by Petitioner's inspector: CA [corrective action] states the cited employees have not completed the required 40-hour training nor have they enrolled. The facility is working toward getting them enrolled. Staff worker G.S. was previously cited 04/22/03 for not enrolling in the required Observation and Screening module. CA received in this office on June 09, 2003, states G.S. registered 04/07/2003. On May 4, 2004, Petitioner issued a Notice of Intent to Impose Administrative Action against Respondent. The notice states that Petitioner intended to take such action if Respondent did not take corrective action within a certain time frame to ensure that all staff members enrolled in required training classes in a timely manner or if the same deficiencies continued. During the hearing, Respondent presented undocumented testimony that it was in compliance with staff training requirements during an inspection on August 18, 2004. On March 28, 2005, Petitioner performed a renewal-of- licensure inspection at the facility. During the inspection, Petitioner determined that Respondent did not have documentation to show enrollment in the introductory course in child care for two staff members, who had been employed for at least 90 days. Respondent hired I.N. on October 18, 2004. At the time of the March 28, 2005, inspection, I.N. had been working at the facility for approximately five months without enrolling in the appropriate training classes. Respondent hired Y.W. on November 29, 2004. At the time of the March 28, 2005, inspection, Y.W. had been working at the facility for approximately four months without enrolling in the appropriate training classes. Following the March 28, 2005, inspection, Petitioner required Respondent to provide documentation showing that I.N. and Y.W. were enrolled in the appropriate training classes. Respondent had until April 7, 2005, to provide Petitioner with such verification. On or about April 7, 2005, Respondent provided Petitioner with a Corrective Action Statement. Respondent also enclosed verification of I.N. and Y.W.'s compliance with training requirements. Petitioner's April 8, 2005, re-inspection of the facility confirmed that the two staff members were enrolled to begin the introductory child care training course. Accordingly, Respondent was in compliance with staff training requirements. On August 15, 2005, Petitioner performed a routine inspection of the facility. Respondent was in compliance with staff training requirements at that time. As of August 31, 2005, I.N. had completed the 40-hour introductory child care course. At all times material here, Respondent was aware that I.N. and Y.W. were not enrolled in the appropriate training classes. On more than one occasion, Respondent's administrative staff counseled with I.N. and Y.W. regarding the need for I.N. and Y.W. to enroll in the introductory child care course within 90 days of employment. At some point during the first 90 days of employment, Respondent sent I.N. and Y.W. a letter reminding them of the need to enroll in the introductory child care course. The letter advised I.N. and Y.W. that they might be subject to suspension from work if they did not meet the training requirements. However, Respondent never suspended I.N. or Y.W. because Respondent's administrators believed that the staff members were having difficulty registering for the course at Florida Community College Jacksonville (FCCJ) due to the unavailability of classes. There is no evidence to show the specific efforts that I.N. and Y.W. made to register for class. Respondent routinely advises its new staff members that they can register over the Internet for the introductory child care course with FCCJ. Respondent occasionally gives new staff members an opportunity to leave work during school hours so that they can go to FCCJ to register in person. In either event, efforts by new staff members to enroll in required training classes are sometimes unsuccessful due to the unavailability of classes. If timely enrollment in required classes is not possible in Jacksonville/Duval County, Florida, Respondent advises its new staff members of the opportunity to register for classes in adjacent counties. Neither Petitioner nor Respondent requires new teachers to verify their unsuccessful efforts to register for classes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a Final Order imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $50 on Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of September, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of September, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Robin Whipple-Hunter, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services Post Office Box 2417 Jacksonville, Florida 32231-0083 Thomas Blitch Owner/Operator Magellan Educational Services, Inc. Post Office Box 55109 Jacksonville, Florida 32255-1509 Gregory Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204B 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Josie Tamayo, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, a licensed child care facility, committed a Class I Violation by allowing two children to leave the facility premises, unattended, as Petitioner alleges; and, if so, whether the licensee should be assessed a fine of $100.00.
Findings Of Fact Respondent L.O.T. Early Learning Center, LLC, d/b/a Little Innovators ("LOT"), holds a license, numbered C11MD1611, which authorizes the company to operate a child care facility in Miami Gardens, Florida. As the operator of a licensed child care facility, LOT falls under the regulatory jurisdiction of Petitioner Department of Children and Families ("DCF"). On the morning of September 20, 2018, a group of children in the care of LOT were on the playground, which is located outdoors, on the east side of the school building. Two teachers supervised this playtime. Somehow, two children, both about two years old, slipped away from the group, unnoticed. The little explorers walked around the back of the building (its south side), turned right at the southwest corner, and headed towards the front of the daycare center, traveling north along a sidewalk on the west side of the facility. A fence should have stopped the children from actually reaching the front of the building, but they managed to squeeze through the gate. Once through the gate, the children could have continued to walk, unimpeded, off the facility premises and into potentially dangerous places, such as the road. Fortunately, however, they never got that far. Indeed, the two children probably never even made it off the sidewalk adjacent to the school. Their excursion was cut short by a Good Samaritan who came along at the right time and escorted the unattended wanderers back inside. There is no clear and convincing evidence that the children ever left the facility premises. Ultimate Factual Determination LOT is not guilty of violating Standard #4-3, Child Left Premises——Staff Unaware, because the evidence failed to establish that the children left the school property, which is an essential element of the disciplinable offense.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Families enter a final order finding LOT not in violation of licensing standard 4.3, Child Left Premises——Staff Unaware. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of June, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 7th day of June, 2019.
The Issue Whether Respondent, a licensed childcare facility, committed a Class I violation related to inadequate supervision of a child as alleged in the Petitioner's Amended Complaint; and, if so, what is the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence presented and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: The parties stipulated to the following facts in their Joint Pre-Hearing Stipulation (paragraphs 1 through 10 below): DCF is an administrative agency of the state of Florida, charged with the duty to enforce and administer the provisions of chapter 402, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rules 65C-22.010 and 65C-20.012. Global Learning operates a licensed childcare facility known as Global Learning of Port Saint Lucie, Inc., located at 4333 Southwest Darwin Boulevard, Port Saint Lucie, Florida 34953. The facility operates under license/ID No. C19SL0139 issued by DCF with a licensed capacity of 132. At all relevant times, Global Learning was regulated by DCF according to, inter alia, the following documents: (i) DCF Child Care Facility Handbook, incorporated by reference in rule 65C-22.001; (ii) CF-FSP Form 5316, Child Care Standards Classification Summary, October 2017, rule 65C22.010(1)(e)1.; (iii) Florida Department of Children and Families Desk Reference Guide, updated July 2018; (iv) section 402.281; (v) section 402.305; (vi) section 402.310; (vii) section 402.310; (viii) rules 65C-22.001 through 65C- 22.010. As referenced in the Complaint, DCF cited Respondent with a violation of standard 4.2, which states "Class 1 violation; [o]ne or more children were not adequately supervised in that a child was unsupervised, which posed an imminent threat to a child, and could or did result in death or serious harm to the health, safety or well-being of a child." As referenced in the Amended Complaint, DCF cited Respondent with a violation of standard 4.3, "Class I violation; [a] child was not adequately supervised and left the facility premises without child care personnel supervision." As referenced in the Complaints, DCF imposed a fine upon Global Learning in the amount of $500.00. As referenced in the Complaints, DCF seeks to revoke Global Learning's Gold Seal Quality Care designation. At all relevant times, Global Learning held a valid child care license to provide child care services. At all relevant times, Global Learning possessed a Gold Seal Quality Care designation. At no time prior to the violation referenced in this matter did Global Learning ever receive a Class I violation. Case History and Investigation The case began when DCF conducted an investigation into an alleged violation of the Child Care Licensing Standards, which occurred on April 26, 2019, at Global Learning Center in Port Saint Lucie, Florida. The investigation was prompted after DCF received a complaint that a young child had left his classroom at the Global Learning day care facility, wandered in the neighborhood without supervision for some period of time, and was eventually found by a passing motorist walking on a sidewalk alongside the road. The assigned DCF investigator visited and inspected the facility, reviewed documentation, and conducted interviews of staff members and other witnesses. Discovery by a Good Samaritan The evidence disclosed that a local resident, Jeanette Plesnick, was driving down Kester Street in Port Saint Lucie, Florida, on the afternoon of April 26, 2019. While driving she spotted a five-year-old child, B.K., walking alone on the sidewalk with his blanket. The sidewalk ran alongside a public road.2/ Out of concern, Plesnick stopped her car and questioned the child. He was unharmed and in good shape. Nonetheless, she secured the child and immediately reported the matter to local law enforcement. Plesnick waited with the boy for law enforcement to respond. A police officer arrived roughly 30 minutes later. Plesnick was familiar with the location of the Global Learning facility. She estimated that it was a block to a block-and-a-half away from the location where she found the young boy. Plesnick also estimated that it would take her about ten minutes to walk to the day care facility directly from the location where she found B.K. The boy's father, Kent Kummerfeldt, was notified by law enforcement that his son had left the day care facility. Kummerfeldt immediately left his job in Palm Beach County and drove to the day care facility in Port Saint Lucie. His son was safely back at the day care when he arrived. Naturally, Kummerfeldt had expected his son to be educated in a safe environment at Global Learning, and was surprised that his son was allowed to leave the facility unsupervised. Classroom Incident on April 26, 2019 The essential facts surrounding how, when, and why the boy departed from his classroom at Global Learning were largely undisputed. B.K. told his father that he left the classroom alone through an exit door, went outside to the children's playground, and then climbed over the playground fence. DCF's investigator, Deanna Trainor, interviewed several of Respondent's employees, including the classroom teacher, LaJane James ("James"). As the facts developed, it was revealed that James was the only adult teacher in the classroom when the boy left. It was clear that for some period of time, James was solely responsible for the supervision of B.K. and the other 21 children who were napping in the classroom. More specifically, another teacher assisting James in the supervision of the classroom had left to eat lunch. This left James alone to watch the napping students. There was also evidence, which the undersigned credited, that the number of children in the classroom exceeded the allowable one to 20 ratio of students-to-teacher, while James was alone in the classroom. James told the investigator that she started cleaning up the room after she laid the children down for naps. James admitted that it must have been during that period of time that B.K. got up off his sleeping cot and went out the door without her seeing him.3/ In the investigator's opinion, the class room had loud acoustics and the exit door B.K. used to go out to the playground was also very loud. From the evidence and pictures submitted, the classroom was large, open, and the view to the exit door was unobstructed. In fact, the pictures revealed that the teachers' desk area was immediately next to the exit door used by B.K. Based on Trainor's investigation and inspection of the exit door and surrounding area, she concluded that it would have been "hard to miss" if a child opened the classroom door and went outside. This conclusion by Trainor is credited and accepted. Janet Higgins, was the general manager of Global Learning on the day of the incident. She offered a good deal of testimony regarding the operations, accreditation, training, licensing, and credentials of Global Learning.4/ Higgins acknowledged that B.K. was supposed to be supervised in the classroom at all times. Higgins was not present in the classroom when the incident occurred, but related that at approximately 12:30 p.m., as was the normal practice, the children would have been laid on their mats or cots for daily naptime. Higgins acknowledged that the child made his way outside the facility she managed and was eventually found by a Good Samaritan down the street. After the incident, Global Learning took remedial action and made some physical changes to the exit doors, installing bells and higher doorknobs. Not surprisingly, James was terminated by Higgins shortly after the incident. After concluding its investigation, DCF ultimately determined that the allegations were verified. This determination was followed up by the issuance of an administrative complaint seeking sanctions against Global Learning.
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: (1) Finding that Global Learning violated Handbook Rule 2.4.1(B) and, by reference, standard 4.3.; (2) Imposing a fine in the amount of $500.00; and (3) Revoking Global Learning's Gold Seal Quality Care Designation, as required by law. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of January, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT L. KILBRIDE 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 13th day of January, 2020.
The Issue Whether Ruby’s Little Creations Childcare (Respondent) violated provisions of chapter 402, Florida Statutes (2016), and/or Florida Administrative Code Chapter 65C-22, such that its license should be disciplined.
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 REVOKING Respondent’s license.5/ DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of February, 2017, 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 8th day of February, 2017.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent should revoke Petitioner's license to operate a child care facility for failure to comply with the Director Credential requirements in Subsection 402.305(2)(f), Florida Statutes (2003), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C-22.003(7).
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the state agency responsible for registering family day care homes in Florida. Petitioner is licensed as a child care facility and has operated as a child care facility since October 4, 1990. It is undisputed that Petitioner has satisfied all of the Director Credential requirements, except one. Respondent alleges that Petitioner has not provided Respondent with written verification that Petitioner successfully completed 20 hours of courses required to be certified as a Child Development Associate (CDA). Petitioner completed the courses required to be a CDA in September 1988, but the record of completion is no longer available from the former state agency responsible for administering the program and maintaining those records. Respondent admits that routine licensing inspection reports by Respondent document that Petitioner completed the courses necessary for the CDA certificate in September 1988, and subsequent inspections never cited Petitioner for failure to comply with the CDA requirement. The testimony of Ms. Terry DeLong, Petitioner's director, was credible and persuasive. Petitioner has satisfied all of the Director Credential requirements. Respondent should not revoke Petitioner's license because another state agency failed to maintain its records. It would be unreasonable to require Ms. Delong to repeat the courses she has already completed in order to keep operating the child care facility. The statutory requirement for a CDA certificate is intended to ensure minimal standards of competence. The legislature did not intend to put competent child care facilities out of business because state agencies are unable to maintain records of completion.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order finding that Petitioner has satisfied the statutory Director Credential requirements. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of November, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of November, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Beryl Thompson-McClary, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 400 West Robinson Street, Suite S-1106 Orlando, Florida 32801 Terry DeLong Tuskawilla Montessori School 1625 Montessori Point Oviedo, Florida 32765 Paul F. 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
