The Issue The issue presented is whether Petitioner's license to operate a child care facility should be revoked.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Geraldine Lee was the owner and operator of a child care facility, licensed by the State of Florida and known as The Children's Palace II. On November 14, 2004, there were eighteen children in the care of The Children's Palace II. Each child was signed in by the child's parent when the child arrived each morning, and one of Lee's employees then signed that the child was actually there. The child was then signed out when the child was picked up that day. The facility was open until 10:00 p.m. However, the facility closed earlier if all the children had been picked up before that time. On November 14 when Taunya Patterson brought her six- month-old son Kenneth Geddes to the facility, she neglected to sign in her son, and no employee counter-signed. Thus, there was no written record that he was there. At that time, Geddes had been receiving child care at The Children's Palace II for two months. When Patterson returned to the facility at 9:00 p.m. to pick up her son, she found the facility closed, locked, and dark. She summoned the police, who, in turn, summoned Geraldine Lee, who came to the facility. She unlocked the facility and Patterson's son was in the crib where he normally slept, lying on his stomach and crying. The infant was unharmed. Geraldine Lee had left the facility that day at approximately 7:30 p.m. Before leaving the facility, she walked through but did not see any children still there. She left her employee Theresa Leverett in charge of the facility. At approximately 8:30 p.m. Lee returned to the facility to pick up her granddaughter. Leverett was leaving the facility when Lee was picking up her granddaughter. On December 3, 2004, the Department notified Lee that it was revoking her license to operate a child care facility effective immediately. On August 18, 2004, Lee had been issued a provisional license for The Children's Palace II, effective August 20, 2004, to February 19, 2005. Once before, The Children's Palace II had been issued a provisional license but had been issued a regular license thereafter. Prior to November 14, 2004, no child had been left alone in the facility. The only prior similar incident occurred when an employee walked out of a room where a child was present, thereby leaving the child unsupervised.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that the Department failed to meet its burden of proof and dismissing its notice of intent to revoke the license of The Children's Palace II. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of December, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINDA M. RIGOT Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of December, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Robin Whipple-Hunter, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services Post Office Box 2417 Jacksonville, Florida 32231-0083 Thomas A. Delegal, III, Esquire Delegal Law Offices, P.A. 424 East Monroe Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Gregory Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204B 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Slye, Acting 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 the Griffin Family Day Care Home violated provisions of chapter 402, Florida Statutes (2012),1/ and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 65C-20,2/ and, if so, what penalty should be imposed; and whether the Griffin Family Day Care Home's renewal application for a license to operate a regular family day care center should be approved or denied.
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 Griffin Day Care. 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 or investigations are conducted. Wanda Griffin owns and operates the Griffin Day Care, a family day care facility licensed by the Department. The facility is located at 1408 Unitah Avenue, Lakeland, Florida, and was in continuous operation at all times material to the issues herein. The facility has not been the subject of any prior disciplinary actions. Lydia Murphy is a child care licensing specialist for the Department. Ms. Murphy is trained to inspect family day care centers for initial applications, renewal applications, and routine inspections. Ms. Murphy is familiar with the facility, having inspected it between 15 to 18 times over the past five to six years. As a result of a complaint being made, DCF conducted an investigation of the facility. On Friday morning, March 23, 2012, a four-year-old child, S.B., was brought to the facility. Following some outside play time, S.B. and the other children came into the facility and were seated at a table for lunch. While Ms. Griffin was retrieving the pizza from the garage, S.B. got up from the table and left the facility via the front door. Ms. Griffin's granddaughter4/ told Ms. Griffin that S.B. was gone. Ms. Griffin immediately began a search for the child. Ms. Griffin contacted 911 and the child's mother. S.B. was located approximately one-half mile from the facility and was returned. There was no testimony about whether or not S.B. was ever in jeopardy while she was unsupervised. Although S.B.'s mother later told Ms. Griffin that S.B. was known to wander off, Ms. Griffin advised S.B.'s mother that she (Ms. Griffin) would no longer take care of S.B. Ms. Griffin admitted this incident occurred. On Tuesday, March 27, 2012, Ms. Murphy (and another DCF employee) interviewed Ms. Griffin about the Friday incident. During that interview, Ms. Griffin told Ms. Murphy that the lock on the front door was not engaged, as she (Ms. Griffin) had disengaged it to allow her daughter to enter the facility following medical treatment. At hearing, Ms. Griffin testified that the front door lock had been engaged when S.B. left the facility. When confronted that the incident occurred on a Friday and that she had told Ms. Murphy just four days after the incident (on Tuesday) that the door lock was disengaged for her daughter, Ms. Griffin claimed that her daughter did not go for the medical treatment on that Friday. Ms. Griffin's testimony is not credible. Leviticus Griffin is Ms. Griffin's husband. They lived together in Plant City for a time and, in 2001, moved to Lakeland. Ms. Griffin testified that, when she applied for (the child care) licensure, they were not living together, as she was living "on housing," and Mr. Griffin was living elsewhere. On four or five inspection visits when Ms. Murphy saw a white truck in the drive-way, there was a man present on the facility property. Ms. Murphy did not see him inside the facility. Ms. Murphy was told he was the yardman. Ms. Griffin maintained that Mr. Griffin was not the yardman. Ms. Griffin testified that the yardman was "one of my grandbaby's uncles" and that she had forgotten his name. Ms. Griffin maintained that this yardman had been her yardman "since she had moved in." Ms. Griffin's testimony is not credible. At the hearing, Ms. Griffin claimed that, when Ms. Murphy saw Mr. Griffin at the facility, he was there to talk about health issues. On the 2012 renewal application, submitted on May 8, Ms. Griffin did not report that Mr. Griffin was residing in the facility. As she was reviewing the 2012 renewal application, Ms. Murphy saw a copy of Mr. Griffin's driver's license and identified him as the yardman she had seen at the facility. In performing the required renewal application investigation in May 2012, Ms. Murphy "put two and two together" and decided that Mr. Griffin was living in the facility. Ms. Murphy investigated Mr. Griffin. Ms. Murphy determined Mr. Griffin had two disqualifying offenses that would preclude his living at the facility unless or until he received an exemption from those disqualifying offenses. Ms. Murphy called and told Ms. Griffin that she was adding Mr. Griffin's name to the 2012 renewal application as a person living in the facility. Ms. Griffin did not object to Mr. Griffin's name being added to this application and indicated she "was going to add him to the license." Although Ms. Murphy testified she spoke with the landlord, Fred Leslie, about who was living in the facility, that testimony is hearsay and was uncorroborated through other competent evidence or testimony. At some undetermined time, a copy of Ms. Griffin's 2008 rental application5/ (Exhibit 2) was provided to DCF. That rental application, which Ms. Griffin executed on June 2, 2008, does not contain an address on the "Rental Property Address" line, nor is it a rental agreement. The name, "Leviticus Griffin," is on the rental application as an additional occupant of the property; however, there is no evidence that this application was for the facility property. Ms. Griffin maintained that Mr. Griffin was not living at the facility at that time, but that he lived elsewhere. DCF presented a certified copy (Exhibit 5) of the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, Intranet Records Information System (IRIS). IRIS documented multiple vehicle transactions and driver license transactions involving Mr. Griffin. IRIS reflects that Mr. Griffin's address, as of the "Issue Date" for this record, March 4, 2008, was that of the facility. Mr. Griffin did not testify in this proceeding. Five of the six DCF applications or renewal applications (Exhibit 3)6/ for licensure submitted by the facility identify no one other than Ms. Griffin as living in the facility. The sixth application, the 2012 renewal application form, reflects Ms. Griffin's name on one line and Mr. Griffin's name on the second line where Ms. Murphy inserted and dated the addition. It is noted that the 2007 DCF "renewal" application is for an address different than the address at issue. Beatriz Blanco is a DCF exemption screening specialist with over six years of experience. Mr. Griffin first came to Ms. Blanco's attention in May 2012. Mr. Griffin submitted a request for an exemption. Ms. Blanco wrote Mr. Griffin asking him to provide information about two disqualifying offenses. In July 2012, Ms. Blanco received a partially-completed application from Mr. Griffin. In late July 2012, a letter seeking additional information was sent to Mr. Griffin at his address of record, 1408 Unitah Avenue, the same as the facility. As of February 6, 2013, Mr. Griffin had not submitted any additional information for further consideration of his exemption request.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Families enter a final order finding the Griffin Family Day Care Home committed the Class I violations, imposing an administrative fine of $1,000.00, and denying its renewal application. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of February, 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 28th day of February, 2013.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent should renew Petitioner's license to operate a large family child care home.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner has owned and operated Jeannie's Child Care in her home as a licensed 24-hour facility since 1988. Petitioner's license allows her to keep up to 12 children at a time. She also owns another offsite daycare center that is not at issue here. Petitioner's license to operate a large family child care home expired on December 2, 2001. Prior to the expiration of the license, Respondent designated Petitioner's facility as a Gold Seal Quality Care Program. There is no credible evidence that Petitioner is responsible for any child being spanked with a paddle or a belt. She normally puts children in the corner for time out when they misbehave. However, competent evidence indicates that Petitioner sometimes threatens to spank children that are difficult to control. On at least one occasion, Petitioner spanked third and fourth grade sisters with a rolled up newspaper, telling them that if they behaved like dogs, she would treat them like dogs. On other occasions, Petitioner spanked C.F. and F.D. by hand. Because C.F. was particularly hard to manage, his mother and her boyfriend gave Petitioner permission to spank C.F. The children in Petitioner's care sometimes bite other children. Usually these children are toddlers. To discourage biting, Petitioner told her staff to put a drop of hot sauce on a finger then put the finger in the child's mouth and on the gum. Petitioner used hot sauce in the manner described on F.D. and at least one other toddler. Petitioner's adult son drove the facility's vans. He also played with the children in the yard. At times, he would let the children exercise with him by doing push ups or sit ups and running laps. Occasionally, Petitioner's son or teachers at the facility would encourage C.F. or other school-aged children to exercise and run laps. The purpose of the exercise was to burn excess energy. To the extent that exercise was used to control the behavior of the children, there is no persuasive evidence that it was excessive. It is acceptable to discipline children by placing them in time-out. It is not acceptable to require the children to hold their hands up in the air or to hold books in their hands during a time-out period. There is no persuasive evidence that Petitioner was responsible for children having to hold their hands in the air or to hold books in their hands while they were in time-out. Petitioner's method of disciplining children varied depending on how difficult it was to control them. In some cases, the parents of the children approved Petitioner's unorthodox discipline. However, there is no evidence that any child in Petitioner's home facility were bruised or physically injured as a result of punishment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent enter a final order renewing Petitioner's license to operate a large family day care home subject to appropriate terms and conditions. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of July, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of July, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Ralph J. McMurphy, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 1601 West Gulf Atlantic Highway Wildwood, Florida 34785 Edward L. Scott, Esquire Edward L. Scott, P.A. 409 Southeast Fort King Street Ocala, Florida 34471 Paul F. Flounlacker, Jr., Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204B Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Josie Tomayo, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Whether Respondent proved by clear and convincing evidence the allegations contained in its August 27, 2004, letter denying Petitioner's licensure renewal application.
Findings Of Fact Based upon observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying; exhibits admitted into evidence; stipulations and arguments of the parties; evidentiary rulings made pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes (2004); and the record complied herein, the following relevant and material facts are determined: The Parties Respondent is the state agency responsible for licensing, inspecting, and regulating child care facilities, including family day care homes. Respondent is authorized to inspect a family day care home at any time. Regular and routine inspections, as well as inspections resulting from complaints received, are conducted of licensed family day care homes to ascertain whether the home is in compliance with applicable statutes and promulgated rules. Violations (or "non-compliances") of statutes and rules and/or other problematic situations found during inspections are noted on a hand-written inspection report. The inspector takes those noted non-compliance items back to the office and transfers them to Respondent's "Family Child Care Home Inspection Checklist" (Inspection Checklist).1 Inspectors may or may not discuss each non-compliance item with the home operator at the time of the inspection. On those occasions non- compliance items are discussed with the home operator, those items capable of instant correction are corrected before the inspector departs the premises. When appropriate, the Inspection Checklist provides a time frame within which the operator must correct the cited non-compliance item(s) indicated on the Inspection Checklist. The Family Day Care Home Facility Ms. Lanier is the provider and licensed owner of Lanier Family Day Care Home ("the care facility") located at 1039 Madison Avenue, Lakeland, Florida. Ms. Lanier is a tenant at this location, and Angela Lisbon and/or her relatives are the landlord. The Inspections and Cited Violations Tim Graddy conducted a re-licensure inspection of the care facility on August 7, 2003. Re-licensure inspections are conducted when the family child care owner's current license is about to expire, and the owner's application for re-licensure has been filed. The non-compliance items recorded on the Inspection Checklist were: operator's training in first aid not current, operator's CPR training not current, litter (foam cups) in the children play area, access to a road and a four-foot fence was "not provided"--the gate needed repair, floor mats not covered with impermeable surface, evidence of rodents/vermin in the home, one broken window needs replacement, no operative landline telephone available-only cellular telephone available, and supplies missing from first aid kit. At the time of Mr. Graddy's re-inspection on August 18, 2003, all non-compliance items recorded on the Inspection Checklist dated August 7, 2003, had been addressed and corrected by Ms. Lanier, but for the vermin infestation. However, Ms. Lanier's request of her landlord to exterminate the property to address the reoccurring problem of vermin infestation had occurred. On March 31, 2004, Nianza Green, another inspector, completed a routine child care licensing inspection of the child care facility. The non-compliance items noted by Ms. Green on the Inspection Checklist were: unsafe storage of materials dangerous to children was observed in that cleaning supplies were in an unlocked cabinet and in the bathroom; water hose, dirty towels, and some mops on playground--play areas in home not clean; and evidence of rodents/vermin in home--"most [sic] have professional pest control before next visit. Copy of inspection to be faxed or mailed to licensing office"; all parts of the home and premises including furnishings and equipment were not kept clean and sanitary; all parts of the home and premises including equipment, furnishings and plumbing were not kept in orderly condition; meals and snacks supplied by the operator were not of a quantity and/or quality to meet the daily nutritional needs of the children; soiled items were not disposed of in a plastic lined, securely covered container; potty chairs were not cleaned and sanitized after each use; diaper changing surface was not cleaned with a sanitizing solution after each use--used as a storage, cords and other harmful items on shelves of changing table; first aid kit missing some supplies; monthly fire drills not conducted; written record of fire drills not completed; operator did not have record of drills for the past six months; and neither DH Form 680, Certification of Immunization, nor DH Form 681, Religious Exemption from Immunization, was on file for child(ren). On April 29, 2004, Mr. Graddy conducted a routine inspection of the care facility. Mr. Graddy listed the following non-compliance items on the Inspection Checklist: unsafe storage of materials dangerous to children was observed in that disinfectant was left on lower shelf of changing table, children in the outdoor play space had access to a trafficked road/street, and fencing a minimum of four feet in height was not provided--top rail of fence broken in front corner of fence, and evidence of rodents/vermin--live bugs observed in kitchen. On August 11, 2004, Mr. Graddy conducted a re-licensure inspection of the care facility and listed the following non- compliance items on the Inspection Checklist: front gate is not in good repair and does not close properly, live bugs seen in kitchen, loose pieces of ceramic title in kitchen, no operable smoke detector, up-to-date and age-appropriate immunization record missing, and DH Form 3040 not available. On May 6, 2004, by certified mail, Respondent issued an "Intent to Impose Administrative Action" letter, citing that repeated violations were revealed during four inspections conducted on August 7, 2003; August 18, 2003; March 31, 2004; and April 29, 2004. For those repeated violations, Respondent levied a $330 fine.2 Respondent's Cross-Examination re: Inspection Checklist Regarding his August 7, 2003, inspection, Mr. Graddy acknowledged that the inspection report indicated no children were present during the inspection, and, thus, no children were in any immediate danger as a result of the cited non- compliances. The cited non-compliance, fence was "not provided," was, in fact, the gate itself closed but the latch did not close properly. Therefore, no children were in immediate danger. Mr. Graddy acknowledged that the August 18, 2003, re- inspection Inspection Checklist listed a non-compliance item contained in the August 7, 2003, Inspection Checklist, and that the August 7, 2003, non-compliance items had been corrected, but for the vermin infestation. Mr. Graddy was informed by Ms. Lanier that the exterminator (landlord) had been contacted and that he/she would exterminate the care facility. No children were present at the care facility during the August 18, 2003, inspection and, therefore, were not subjected to any harm or immediate danger. Ms. Green acknowledged that her March 31, 2004, inspection did not accurately reflect the conditions of the daycare. Specifically, she described the non-compliance item as the property was "cluttered up"; yet, she failed to describe in the inspection report what she meant by that term. Ms. Green's report indicated that the potty chair was not cleaned after each use; however, upon cross-examination, Ms. Green admitted that she never saw the potty chair being used by the one child in the care facility at the time of her inspection. Likewise, she reported that the diaper changing table surface was not cleaned after each use although she never saw the diaper changing table being used and had no idea whether the allegation had a basis in fact. Ms. Green's Inspection Checklist noted, "[t]he center was not stocked with adequate supplies of food," but she never checked the food cabinets and other storage areas. Ms. Green testified that a bucket was present outside the facility and presented a hazard to children, but she did not note this particular non-compliance on her Inspection Checklist. Ms. Green was unable to confirm that Ms. Lanier was even aware of the "bucket" non-compliance. Ms. Green's Inspection Checklist noted fire drills "had not" been conducted, when, in fact, she was fully aware that fire drills had been conducted on a monthly basis. Ms. Green knew the approved capacity of the care facility was ten children, but only one child was present during her inspection. She could not articulate whether the "missing" immunization records were missing for a particular child or children, if any. After her walk-through, Ms. Green spent little time in the care facility and chose instead to "work" (list her non- compliance items) in her car because she "was concerned about bugs" she believed to have been in the facility might adversely affect her computer. When asked if she advised or discussed with Ms. Lanier her problems and concerns, Ms. Green stated that her job was to "inform the supervisor of the inspecting." At the time of this inspection, Ms. Green had worked as an inspector for only three months. Regarding the April 29, 2004, inspection, Mr. Graddy noted one child present and that child "did not have access to disinfectant near the changing table." His notation, the "top rail of the fence broken in the far corner," was not a repeated violation of an existing problem previously noted. Mr. Graddy also testified that any gaps that existed in the fence were not in sections of the fence less than the required four feet height; therefore, no children were placed at risk or were endangered in any manner by the alleged condition of the fence. Regarding "vermin in the facility," Mr. Graddy acknowledged that he only saw "more than two," acknowledging more than two was not "infestation." Regarding the August 11, 2004, inspection, Mr. Graddy testified that his notation, "the fence [gate] would not lock," on the Inspection Checklist was made without him actually attempting to lock the gate, and, thus, he acknowledged his notation was speculation. He added that this particular problem was different from prior fence problems and did not constitute a repeat violation. The "broken tile" problem noted on this Inspection Checklist had not previously existed; likewise, this non-compliance was not a repeat violation. Mr. Gaddy's non-compliance notation, "smoke detector missing," was that in reality the smoke detector was "present," but the battery may have run down. Mr. Graddy gave Ms. Lanier until the next day to correct this problem, but he never checked back for compliance. Likewise, Ms. Lanier contacted the telephone company and had the landline telephone that was present in the care facility activated which corrected the "no landline telephone" non-compliance item. Regarding the medical records for children non- compliance items noted by Mr. Graddy, he did not check whether the missing medical records on file were for the four children present on the day he noted this item or other children who were not present. Thus, he was unable to identify any specific medical records that were missing. According to Mr. Graddy, "he always goes over the inspection report with the provider, gives them a date after which the noted infractions need be corrected." His above self- imposed inspection standard was later qualified by his admission that he did not provide Ms. Lanier an opportunity to correct/comply with non-compliances contained on his Inspection Checklist before declining renewal of her current license number F14PO0266. Immediately after the August 11, 2004, inspection, the Department determined to deny Ms. Lanier's license renewal application request. The $330 fine issued against Ms. Lanier by the Department on May 6, 2004, was based upon five facility inspections that had occurred on August 7, 2003; August 18, 2003; March 31, 2004; April 29, 2004; and August 11, 2004. Ms. Lanier paid the $330 fine on August 26, 2004. The Department accepted and deposited Ms. Lanier's $330 fine despite the obvious fact that the Department had decided to deny Ms. Lanier's pending license renewal application at the time it levied the fine and accepted her $330 payment of the fine. Ms. Lanier's testimony that she paid the $330 fine on August 26, 2004, with the understanding that her license renewal application would be granted, went unchallenged by the Department. On this particular point, the lack of challenge by the Department regarding this ambiguous statement, whether Ms. Lanier's understanding was induced by suggestion or silence or was assumed in the absence of explanation to the contrary by accepting the $330 fine, is resolved in favor of Ms. Lanier. Patricia Hamilton, child care licensing supervisor, did not personally perform inspections of this facility. She compiled the five inspection reports submitted by the inspectors, charted those inspections, and assumed each non- compliance item on each subsequent inspection was a repeated non-compliance item; when, in fact, they were not. Ms. Lanier testified that upon notice of vermin, she contacted her landlord who sprayed for bugs on regular monthly intervals. Ms. Lisbon, landlord's representative, confirmed that Ms. Lanier made more than one request for additional extermination of the property. Ms. Lanier testified that she addressed/corrected non- compliance items identified by the Department's inspector(s) during their several inspections of her facility. Many small items were corrected by the close of business on the day noticed. Items such as floor mats were replaced, foam cups and other debris in play area were removed, food supplies were available in storage in the house (during spring break the kitchen itself was not stocked as it would be during a normal school week), broken window was repaired, smoke detector battery was replaced, and first aid supplies were replenished. The continuous efforts demonstrated by Ms. Lanier evidenced a sincere intent and cooperative desire to comply with the Department's rules and regulations, noted and interpreted by the several inspectors at the time they inspected the facility, to provide a safe and necessary family day care home for working parents in her immediate community. The Department proved that the facility had a reoccurring bug problem. Without more, a "reoccurring bug problem," common in many areas, does not, ipso facto, equate to infestation.3 When noticed, Ms. Lanier did not fail or refuse to address this issue, she secured extermination and, from the property owner, requested monthly treatments thereafter. The Department did not allege nor introduce evidence of any probability that death, serious harm to the health or safety of any person would, could, or had resulted, nor evidence of the severity, the actual or potential harm, and the extent to which Sections 402.301 through 402.319, Florida Statutes (2004), had been violated. There is no evidence of record whatsoever that any child was harmed or evidence that a particular or a combination of specific non-compliance items, not timely corrected, presented a hazard to the children observed in the facility. The Department's post-hearing argument in vague terms such as "understandably concerned" and "were justified in expecting," "did not rehabilitate her or correct her propensity to violate," and "Department justifiably had enough" are statements open to more than one interpretation and does not constitute direct evidence of an objective standard by which to evaluate appropriate conduct or lack thereof.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order issuing to Petitioner a provisional license until the following conditions are met to the satisfaction of Respondent: Petitioner provides documentation that a licensed extermination service has serviced the facility for vermin. Petitioner provides documentation of a quarterly, semi- annually, or monthly service agreement between Petitioner and a licensed extermination service. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of April, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FRED L. BUCKINE 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 April, 2005.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner's application for a license to operate a family day care center should be granted.
Findings Of Fact DCF is the state agency responsible for, inter alia, the approval and monitoring of family day care homes. Petitioner Karen G. Flanders ("Flanders") has been working in the child care field for several years. On or about April 21, 2006, Flanders submitted a Family Day Care Home Registration form, which is an application seeking approval to operate a small day care home. As part of the application process, Flanders agreed to allow DCF to conduct a Central Abuse Hotline Record search to determine the existence of any complaints or actions against her. The consent form Flanders signed allowing the search included a provision that the department would see any investigation resulting in "verified indicators." During its processing of the application, DCF determined the existence of an investigative report concerning Flanders. The incident in the report allegedly occurred on September 1, 2005. Flanders was alleged to have grabbed, slapped, and punched a child, C.S., while working as a day care worker for Kids Together day care facility. Flanders was immediately terminated from employment by her employer. The Central Abuse Hotline was contacted immediately. By her own admission, Flanders was the caller. Pursuant to its duty, DCF conducted an investigation the day after the alleged incident. The investigation found there were "some indicators" of excessive corporal punishment. The term "some indicators" advises DCF that some adverse incident has happened, but it could have been a one-time issue that may never happen again. In this case, the primary concern of DCF was that the alleged incident occurred in a child care facility. Flanders had an excessive history of prior reported incidents, which was taken into consideration by the investigators. Based on those findings, the safety of the child victim became a concern. DCF found, however, that Flanders' termination from employment was sufficient to alleviate further concern for the child. Flanders has been involved in child care for many years and considers it her occupation. Her pending application to operate a small child care facility is consistent with her work history. However, she has had an adverse incident resulting in some indicators of abusive behavior.
Recommendation Based on 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 the application by Karen Flanders to operate a day care facility. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of September, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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 22nd day of September, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Karen Flanders 14924 Lady Victoria Boulevard Orlando, Florida 32826 Stacy N. Robinson Pierce, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 400 West Robinson Street, Suite S-1114 Orlando, Florida 32801 Gregory Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204B 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Copelan, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Luci D. Hadi, Secretary Department of Children and Family Services Building 1, Room 202 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondents violated provisions of Chapter 402, Florida Statutes,1 and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 65C-20, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Traceann Handy owns and operates Traceann Handy Family Day Care Home, a child care facility licensed by the Department. On May 26, 2009, the facility had been inspected by the Department and found to be in compliance with the rules of operation. Due to some missing documentation (CPR and first aid certificates), the facility was issued a Provisional License. As of the date the final hearing in this matter was concluded, the documentation had been submitted, and the facility had a valid license to operate.3 The Department is responsible for inspecting, licensing, and monitoring child care facilities such as the one operated by Handy. It is the Department's responsibility to ensure that all such facilities are safe and secure for the protection of children utilizing the facility. On Friday, June 5, 2009, the Department received a complaint concerning Handy's facility. The complaint alleged that two older children were asked to supervise a younger child without adult supervision and that transportation of the children had been provided without prior authorization. Based upon these complaints and in accordance with its rules, the Department commenced an investigation of the facility. Investigator Anderson (who was on call for the weekend) went to the facility the next day, Saturday, June 6, 2009. She knocked on the front door (although the entrance to the child care facility portion of the home was located on the side of the house). No one answered her knock, but a young man later came out of the house and advised Anderson that the facility was closed and that Handy was not home.4 Anderson called the investigator assigned to the case (Dayna Prevost) to report her findings. While Anderson was making the telephone call, the same young man came out to her car, banged on the car window and loudly repeated that Handy was not home. Anderson smelled an odor which she believed was marijuana while talking with the young man. (The young man was later identified as Handy's adult son, Trauquece Handy.) Anderson then left the premises. The investigation was recommenced on Monday, June 8, 2009. On that date, Investigators Wolbach and Prevost went to the Handy home and knocked on the side door of the home. When there was no answer to the knock, the investigators went to the front door and knocked. Again there was no answer, but they could hear what sounded like children inside the house. The investigators called Handy (who was not at home) and were told by Handy that she would have someone inside the house open the door. Despite the phone call and promise from Handy, no one opened the door, so the investigators called the police for assistance. When the police arrived, a man opened the front door, but the investigators were granted only limited access to the house. An adult female was seen inside the house, along with two small children. The female was questioned and said that she was a housekeeper and that the children inside the home at that time were her children. Upon receiving that information, the investigators again left the premises. On the next day, Tuesday, June 9, 2009, a team of investigators went back to the facility. This time Handy was present, and the team was allowed into the house. Handy's husband was also present at that time. While the team was inspecting the facility, Handy's son came into the house and went directly upstairs. The team reviewed Handy's records concerning attendance at the facility by various children. Handy was interviewed, and due to the previous suspicion of marijuana usage at the home, asked to provide a urine specimen for the purpose of conducting a drug screening test. (There was considerable discussion at final hearing as to how the urine specimen was taken, but that is not an issue in the present proceeding and will not be discussed further.) At one point during the investigative review at the home, a team member approached the inside stairwell and pushed open the gate located at the bottom of the stairs. The gate had been placed there by Handy in response to prior concerns by the Department about children having access to the upstairs portion of the house. The gate was apparently unlatched, although there were no children present at that time near the stairwell. (There was one child present in the home, but that child was in another part of the house.) As the investigator started up the stairs, Handy's husband said that Handy would likely not appreciate them going into her private quarters. As the investigator continued up the stairs, Handy came into the room and voiced her opposition to anyone going upstairs. Handy had been previously advised by the Department that if a gate was in place to keep children from going upstairs, it would be unnecessary for the Department to inspect that area during every regular inspection. It is unclear from the testimony whether Handy misunderstood the Department or whether the Department was only talking about its annual licensure inspection. No matter, Handy told the investigator that she did not want the investigator to go upstairs. The investigator took that remark as a direct order that she not go upstairs, so she did not do so. Instead, the Department sought injunctive relief in Circuit Court to gain access to the upstairs portion of the house. A hearing on the Department's motion was held the next day, Wednesday, June 10, 2009. Handy received notice of the hearing less than an hour before the hearing was scheduled to commence. She called the Circuit Court Judge's assistant to seek a continuance, but was told that the hearing must proceed. The court gave Handy the option of appearing via telephone, if she so desired. Handy wanted to attend the hearing in person, so she went to the courthouse. There was one child at the day care facility at that time. Handy could not find her approved substitute on such short notice, so she called the child's parent (who was Handy's cousin) and asked if it would be okay for Handy's husband to watch the child while Handy attended the hearing. The parent approved that arrangement. The Circuit Court entered an Order requiring Handy to allow the Department "a one[-]time inspection . . . of the private part of [the] home." Based upon that Order, the Department sent a team of investigators back to the facility on June 10, 2009, to complete its inspection. Upon completion of its investigation, the Department issued the Administrative Complaint relevant to this proceeding. The Administrative Complaint addresses two alleged violations by Handy: First, that Handy refused to allow the Department access to the entire home during the inspection. Second, that Handy allowed a person who was not currently screened to supervise a child in her care. An administrative fine of five hundred dollars ($500.00) was proposed for each of the two violations.5 Handy does not believe she instructed the investigator not to go upstairs during the June 9, 2009, inspection. She remembers only telling them she did not want them to go upstairs, that it was unnecessary, and that her understanding from prior discussions was that the upstairs would not be inspected. The investigator believes she was specifically and forcefully told not to go up the stairs. In either case, it is clear a court order was obtained to gain access. (At the hearing in Circuit Court, Handy had reiterated that she did not want the investigators to go upstairs.) The gate in question was put in place to prevent children from having access to the upstairs portion of the house. However, the gate was either broken or unlatched (the testimony on this issue is not clear) when there was a child present in the house. Handy's husband did not have a valid background screening in place on June 10, 2009, that would allow him to act as a provider of child care services in the facility. He had been previously screened, but had not had his background screening updated when it expired in June 2008. He had not been re-screened because he and Handy were separated, and he did not intend to be at her house to supervise children any longer. The two are still married, but he only visits the house to do maintenance and repairs as needed. It is clear that Handy's husband was watching the child only due to the exigent circumstances surrounding the court hearing and the unavailability of Handy's approved substitute. Further, the child's parent was made aware of the fact and had acquiesced to this arrangement. Nonetheless, Handy's husband was not technically qualified to watch children attending the child care center at that time.
Recommendation Based on 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 imposing an administrative fine of $200 against Respondent, Traceann Handy. It is further RECOMMENDED that Handy be ordered to attend remedial classes on the operation and management of a child care facility. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of January, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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, 2010.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondent's license to provide foster care should be revoked for any of the reasons set forth in the Department's revocation letter dated July 23, 1998.
Findings Of Fact At all times material, the Respondent was licensed by the Petitioner to operate a foster home. In conjunction with the placement of foster children in her home, the Respondent signed an Agreement to Provide substitute Care for Dependent Children. In that document, the Respondent agreed to the following conditions, among others: 2 - We are fully and directly responsible to the Department for the care of the child. * * * - We will not permit the removal of the child from our home, except by an authorized representative of the Department or by instruction of such representative. - We will not give the child into the care or physical custody of any other person(s), including the natural parent(s), without the consent of a representative of the Department. * * * 9 - We will accept dependent children into our home for care only from the Department and will make no plans for boarding other children or adults. * * * 11 - We will notify the Department immediately of any change in our address, employment, living arrangements, family composition, or law enforcement involvement. * * * 15 - We will comply with all requirements for a licensed substitute care home as prescribed by the Department. On May 1, 1997, a family services counselor visited the Respondent's home on a routine visit to check on the status of one of the foster children in the Respondent's home. During that visit the counselor observed various hazardous and unsanitary conditions in the home. Several upstairs windows were open. The windows had no screens or other barriers to prevent a child from falling out the window. There was a foul stench in the house. Contributing to the stench were numerous plates of decaying food randomly scattered throughout the home. There was a light fixture with a bare bulb and no light shade. On May 1, 1997, the child that the counselor was visiting was seven years-old. The counselor was concerned, for several reasons, about the quality of care the child was receiving. The child was very dirty, and did not appear to have been bathed recently. The child also had a large, obvious ringworm. The counselor asked the Respondent if the child had been taken to a doctor for treatment of the ringworm. The Respondent admitted that she had not taken the child to the doctor and then stated some illogical and frivolous reasons for her failure to seek medical attention for the foster child. During the May 1, 1997, visit, the seven year-old foster child told the counselor that the children in the neighborhood hated him. When asked for details, the foster child described an incident during which, while he was outside, a group of neighborhood children removed all of the foster child's clothing and then urinated on him. When questioned about this incident, the Respondent admitted that she had witnessed the incident. The Respondent's only excuse for allowing the incident to occur was that she had told the foster child not to go outside and he disobeyed her and went outside without permission. On various unspecified occasions during the latter part of 1997 and the first three months of 1998, the Respondent's minor grandson, who sometimes lived with the Respondent and sometimes lived with his mother, engaged in sexual intercourse with one of the female minor foster children in the Respondent's home. The Respondent was aware that her grandson had engaged in sexual intercourse with one of her foster children. The Respondent made ineffectual efforts to prevent her grandson from having sexual intercourse with the female foster child. At least three months after discovering this conduct, the Respondent advised personnel of the DCFS for the first time that her grandson had been having sexual intercourse with one of the foster children in the Respondent's home. Around mid-afternoon on January 9, 1998, a police office of the South Bay Police Department went to the Respondent's home at the request of a family services counselor of the DCFS, who was making a routine visit to check on the status of two of the foster children living at that home. On that afternoon, the only adults present were the counselor from DCFS and the police officer. Two of the Respondent's foster children were home without any adult supervision. Those two foster children were thirteen and fifteen years of age, respectively. On January 9, 1998, the Respondent was on a trip outside the State of Florida. She had been gone for at least two days and was not expected to return for several more days. She had one of her foster children with her on the out-of-state trip. The Respondent had not advised the DCFS that she was taking a foster child out of the State of Florida, nor did she have permission from anyone at DCFS to take the foster child out of the State of Florida. Similarly, the Respondent had not advised the DCFS that, while on her out-of-state trip, she was leaving two of her foster children in her home, supposedly under the car and supervision of her adult brother, Leroy Ball. Mr. Ball had not been approved by anyone at DCFS as a temporary substitute caregiver for any of the foster children living with the Respondent. On January 9, 1998, the Respondent's home presented a variety of hazardous and unsanitary conditions. These conditions are perhaps best described in the words of the police officer who was present that day:1 Upon arriving at the scene I found that the children were left abandon[ed] completely. There was no adult supervision whatsoever. I found the interior of the house was in disarray. There were numerous unsanitary conditions within the household, human defecation, rotting food, open garbage cans, knives on the floor, tools, equipment, alcoholic containers that were half empty, strewn all over the house. * * * The baby training potty was right at the entry to the kitchen in the living room and it had urine, mold growing on top of the water and looked like defecation inside the bowl itself. * * * There was an overabundance of garbage and clothes. It was just everywhere. It wasn't just one place. It wasn't a bag here, a bag there, piece here, piece there. It was strewn everywhere on every piece of furniture, on the floor. Within every two feet there was garbage of some sort on the floor as if someone had thrown bags of garbage. It was just thrown all over the house. * * * I did look in the kitchen and I took photographs which I submitted and I found food that was half-cooked and half raw sitting there decaying, which was moldy and just rotting in the kitchen. * * * [Referring to a photograph] That was the upstairs bathroom. There was defecation in the water in the toilet. I was unaware if water was actually working in the residence at that time. It didn't appear to me that it was. I would've assumed that somebody would've flushed the toilet if it hadn't (sic) been. It seemed like it had been that way for several days. The two foster children who were left in the Respondent's home while she went on an out-of-state trip did not have a key to the house. Accordingly, they were unable to lock the house. On January 9, 1998, the police officer and the family services counselor interviewed the two foster children. Information provided by the children indicated that the Respondent had been out-of-town for two days and that a man named Leroy Ball was supposed to be taking care of them, but that they had not had any adult supervision during the past two days. Efforts to locate Leroy Ball were unsuccessful. Due to the lack of adult supervision and due to the hazardous and unsanitary condition of the home, the police officer and the family services counselor removed the two foster children from the Respondent's home. The police officer took one of the foster children (for whom a warrant was outstanding) to the police station, where the child was fed and then transported to a juvenile detention facility. The family services counselor took the other foster child and delivered the child to another foster home. Later in the afternoon of January 9, 1998, a child protective investigator went to the Respondent's home. The only person present at that time was Leroy Ball, an adult man, who is the Respondent's brother. During an interview with the investigator, Leroy Ball explained that his sister, the Respondent, had to go out of town to a funeral and that during her absence he was supposed to care for the two foster children who had earlier that day been found in the home without any adult supervision. Mr. Ball also explained that he worked each day from approximately 5:00 a.m. until approximately 5:00 p.m. At the time of the interview, Mr. Ball did not know the whereabouts of the two foster children he was supposed to be caring for. Several days later, on January 13, 1998, the child protective investigator interviewed the Respondent. During that interview the Respondent admitted that she had made an out-of- state trip with one of her foster children, and also admitted that she had left two of the foster children at her home, with the understanding that her brother, Mr. Ball, would be supervising them. In subsequent interviews with Department personnel, the Respondent blamed the unsanitary conditions in her home on the two children she had left there and on her brother's failure to do what he was supposed to do. The DCFS never consented to Mr. Ball being placed in a temporary role supervising any of the foster children who lived with the Respondent. While licensed to operate a foster home, the Respondent was required to keep the DCFS informed as to who was living in the Respondent's home. While so licensed, there were several occasions on which the Respondent failed to report changes as to who was living in her home. On at least one occasion the Respondent provided the DCFS with false information about who was living in her home.
Recommendation Based on all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued in this case revoking the Respondent's foster home license. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of March, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 1st day of March, 1999.
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
