The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence allegations contained in its Proposed Revocation of Respondent's Family Day Care License No. 907 dated January 21, 2004.
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 (2003), and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant and material facts are determined: The Parties Petitioner is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating child care facilities, including family day care homes. Petitioner routinely conducts inspections of licensed family day care homes to determine whether the home is in compliance with the applicable statutes and rules. Any problems found during the inspections are noted on a report, which is provided to the home’s operator immediately following the inspection. When appropriate, the inspection report provides a time frame within which the problems must be corrected. Regular inspections are conducted approximately twice a year. More frequent inspections--monthly or every six weeks-- are conducted on family day care homes that have a provisional license rather than a standard license. Petitioner also conducts inspections in response to complaints it receives, and it has the authority to inspect family day care homes at any time without notice. Respondent is the provider and licensed owner of a licensed family day care home located at 965 Waldon Avenue in Bartow, Florida (hereinafter “Respondent’s facility” or “the facility”). Respondent’s facility consists of a family residence with a connecting door to the converted garage. The number of children Respondent may have in “care” each day depends upon: (1) the ages of the children in care and (2) the number of qualified caregivers available to supervise the children in various age groups. This restrictive requirement, referred to as the “child care ratio,” is mandated by statute, the violation of which creates a dangerous situation and a dangerous condition for the safety and well-being of the children in care. The Inspection and violations On March 12, 2003, Respondent’s facility was inspected by Gloria Mathews (Ms. Mathews) and Tricia Step (Ms. Step), and several areas of non-compliance were identified during this inspection. The following non-compliant items were noted on Petitioner’s Family Child Care Home Inspection Checklist: unsafe storage of materials dangerous to children was observed in the bathroom drawers, litter was observed in areas where children play, equipment or plumbing not in working order (item was a baby crib and toilet with tissue the children had not flushed), no operable smoke detector or fire extinguisher, the surface of the diaper changing area was not impermeable, no record of fire drills for the past six months, and an up-to-date and age-appropriate immunization record was missing for one child. Two other non-compliant items, Ipecac not labeled with poison control phone number and seven pre-school age children ages 12 months and older were in the facility. Respondent may provide care to only six children in this age group. The extra child was taken home, and this item was corrected at the time of inspection. On December 18, 2003, Respondent’s facility was inspected by Ms. Mathews and Ms. Step, and the following non- compliant items were noted on the Family Child Care Home Complaint: Respondent had 18 children in the facility three of which were infants. Respondent was not present at the time of inspection, and the substitute caregiver was in charge. Petitioner could not determine whether screening of the substitute caregiver, Elizabeth Ricks, had been completed. Ms. Mathews and Ms. Step remained at Respondent’s facility until the parents picked up their children. James Hayes (Mr. Hayes), Respondent’s husband, took one child home. On January 21, 2004, Petitioner informed Respondent by certified mail of the proposed revocation of her family day care license initially issued in March 2002. Petitioner alleged that the decision to revoke Respondent’s license to operate a family child care facility was based on her failure to ensure that the children' substitute caregivers were adequately screened and because Respondent's home was over capacity and out of ratio. The notice stated: On December 18, 2003, there were eighteen (18) children in your day care home. Three (3) of the children were under the age of twelve (12) months. With 3 infants in your care, your license permits you to care for a maximum of six (6) children. The number of children in your home far exceeds the number of children allowed. During an inspection on March 12, 2003, seven (7) preschool age children ages 12 months and older were observed in your home. You are permitted six (6) children in this age group. This violates section 402.302(7), F.S. You also failed to insure [sic] that the substitute care persons in your home caring for children were properly screened in accordance with section 402.313, Florida Statutes. At the final hearing, Petitioner’s inspectors, Ms. Mathews and Ms. Step testified that when they arrived at Respondent’s facility on December 18, 2003, Mr. Hayes was in the facility. Based upon the testimony of the inspectors, Petitioner argued in its post-hearing submittal that Mr. Hayes had not been screened and that he had a criminal record. Petitioner presented no evidence to substantiate the claim that Mr. Hayes had a criminal record. The testimony and argument regarding this issue is hearsay without corroboration and disregarded. Respondent's Evidence Respondent testified that she was out of town on December 18, 2003, and that her substitute caregiver had begun training classes, but apparently had not completed the course and, therefore, had no background check performed. According to Respondent, non-compliant items identified by Petitioner’s inspectors were corrected as soon thereafter as possible. Respondent testified that she was confused regarding the infant and pre-school child-to-caregiver ratio because it was never explained to her in the manner testified to by both Ms. Mathews and Ms. Step. Continuing, Respondent testified that her substitute caregiver(s) had completed the required training and are now qualified to assist her. She contended that submission of the names and certification of training completion had been provided to Petitioner and that she was awaiting Petitioner's response. This testimony was not disputed by Petitioner. Respondent, to counter allegations that her facility and personnel presented a significant or potential risk of harm to the children, provided four testimonial letters from parents who were regular patrons of her facility. Each of the four parents expressed confidence in the assurance of safety and the ready necessity of Respondent’s child care services during the work week and often times during the weekend. Respondent presented photographs of her facility evidencing the facility’s configuration, carpeting, equipment, beds, and other furniture. Respondent testified that Mr. Hayes does not enter the facility during the time children are present. To ensure separation between the family’s living area and the attached rooms used for child care, Respondent installed a door between the room leading from the family’s living area to the anteroom and the garage. Respondent corrected every non-compliant item identified by Petitioner during their two inspections of her facility. Many, if not all, corrections were made when identified; i.e., the clogged toilet was flushed. The non- compliant items, individually or collectively, were minor and did not directly create an unsafe situation for the children in care. These efforts demonstrated a sincere intent and desire to comply with Petitioner's rules and regulations and to continue to provide a safe and necessary family day care home for working parents in her immediate neighborhood. Violations Proven by Petitioner Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence that on March 12, 2003, there were seven preschool children ages 12 months and older in the facility, Family Day Care License No. 907 permits a maximum of six children in care, an amount in violation of Subsection 402.302(7)(c), Florida Statutes (2003). Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence that on December 18, 2003, there were 18 children in Respondent's facility in violation of Subsection 402.302(7)(b), Florida Statutes (2003).
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Finding of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Family Services issue a final order as follows: Finding Petitioner guilty of violating Subsection 402.302(7), Florida Statutes (2003), twice. Finding Petitioner not guilty of violating Section 402.313(3), Florida Statutes (2003). Setting aside the revocation of Respondent's family day care home license. Suspending Respondent's family day care home license until such time that the following conditions are met to the satisfaction of the Department: Respondent's substitute caregivers are identified, trained, qualified, and approved by Petitioner. Respondent demonstrates an understanding of the required child-to-child caregiver ratios. Respondent has trained each of her substitute caregivers on the child-to-child caregiver ratios and provides written instructions to be followed by her caregivers each day when the children in care in a specific age group are out of ratio to the number of caregivers present. That all conditions hereinabove are completed to the satisfaction of Petitioner as the condition for lifting the suspension. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of September 2004, 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 17th day of September, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack Emory Farley, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 4720 Old Highway 37 Lakeland, Florida 33813-2030 Theresa Hayes Arielle's Angel Care 965 Waldon Avenue Bartow, Florida 33830 Paul F. Flounlacker, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204B Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Josie Tomayo, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Whether Petitioner, the holder of a family day care home registration, has violated Respondent's minimum standards for child care providers by failing to directly supervise an infant in her care on March 22, 2006, and whether her registration should be revoked, pursuant to Section 402.310(1), Florida Statutes.1
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Jacqueline Bizzell, has been operating a child care facility in her home, at the same location, since 1992. She has been a registered family day care home with Respondent since January 30, 2001. As a part of her application to be a registered family day care home provider, Petitioner sent Respondent verification that she completed the required training for child care providers, which includes knowledge of Respondent's rules and regulations in the area governing child care. On January 26, 2006, Petitioner was informed that her family day care home was again registered for one year, effective January 30, 2006. In the letter, Petitioner was informed that she must maintain her registration in accordance with Section 402.313, Florida Statutes (2005). On March 24, 2006, Respondent received an allegation of neglect or abuse that took place at Petitioner's family day care home on March 22, 2006. Rivers Lewis (Lewis) was a child protective investigator for Respondent on the date of the allegation. He conducted an investigation of the allegation and completed a report. As a part of the investigation, Lewis spoke directly with Petitioner who stated that on March 22, 2006, the child was the only child in her care the day of the incident, and that she left him sleeping on her bed and went into the hallway in front of another room to do laundry or to do something else. Petitioner told Lewis that as soon as she heard the child cry, she stepped back into the room to find that he had fallen from the bed. Petitioner said, first, that the child had fallen off the bed, but later stated that the child had been on the side of the bed and was hanging onto the covers. Lewis submitted his investigative report on April 27, 2006, concluding that the case could be closed with verified indicators of "inadequate supervision" by Petitioner. Shortly after Lewis submitted his report, Ivette Garcia, Child Care Licensing Administrator, received a copy and reviewed it with another worker. She sent Petitioner a letter, dated May 10, 2006, stating that: "The purpose of this letter is to advise you that effective immediately, your family day care home is closed and that your registration is no longer valid." The closure was based upon the incident that occurred on March 22, 2006, wherein the investigative report, submitted by Lewis, confirmed indicators of inadequate supervision. No further investigation or other action was conducted by the child care licensing section in DCF's District 7 before the letter was sent. Although Garcia testified at the hearing that inadequate supervision of a child is a Class I violation, the highest violation, Petitioner was not specifically advised of such classification in the May 10, 2006, letter, nor was a finding made of an immediate serious danger to the health, safety, or welfare of the children who are enrolled in Petitioner's home. Respondent's District 7 Child Care Licensing office did not go to Petitioner's home to inspect or verify the report. It had no further communication with Petitioner after said date. Petitioner was not charged with causing injury to a child under her supervision. Garcia testified that due to the limitations of the registration statute (§ 402.313, Fla. Stat.), Respondent had only one option to deal with a Class I violation: immediately close the home and invalidate the registration. Petitioner's family day care home operated under the name: Hi Granny Day Care. She had only one child in her home on March 22, 2006, the eight-month-old boy, Markel. The child had been fussy and throwing up all day. At about 4:00 p.m., she put the child in the middle of her bed when he finally went to sleep. The bed was by the door. She stepped across the hall to do some chores and while standing at the door, in front of the playroom for about 14 or 15 minutes. When she heard a noise, she immediately stepped back into the room. She admits that she said to the investigator that he fell out of the bed, but that he really did not fall to the floor, but slid off of the bed and was dangling from the bed when she came back into the room; and a blanket broke his fall. She provided a handwritten diagram of her home as it appeared on the date of the incident. Petitioner had been taking care of Sherina Clemons' eight-month-old son, Markel, for over two months when the incident occurred. On March 22, 2006, Petitioner called her between 4:45 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. asking Clemons to not be mad at her. Petitioner told her that the child had been asleep when she placed him on her bed, but that when she walked out of the room, he must have awakened and fallen off of the bed landing on a pallet of covers. According to Latoya Marion, Children's Home Society, the Petitioner's reputation in the community was very good as a child care provider. Latisha Rashawn Bell has known Petitioner for about three years and Petitioner cared for her daughter in 2006. She came to Petitioner's home on March 22, 2006, later in the evening, and knocked on the door. Petitioner came to the door, holding the child, who was whining or crying. Petitioner told her that the child had fallen out of the bed, but had not landed on the floor. Chakera Angelette Faniel is a child care provider, who is not employed by Petitioner. Petitioner cared for Ms. Faniel's daughter for the first three years of her daughter's life, but no longer does. She has known Petitioner for about five years and knows her to be a caring and loving person. Petitioner has a very good reputation in the community as a child care provider. The clear and convincing evidence demonstrates that late in the afternoon of March 22, 2006, Petitioner placed a sleeping eight-month-old boy in the middle of her king-size bed, which was located in her bedroom near the door. Petitioner stepped across the hall and did some chores, while standing in front of the playroom for about 14 or 15 minutes. Although she was only three or four feet from the child, Petitioner could not see the child from where she was standing. When she heard the child cry, she immediately stepped back into the room and found the child lying on some covers on the floor. She picked the child up, who did not appear to be injured. Shortly thereafter, Petitioner contacted the child's parents and reported the incident to them. The child's mother arrived later and took the child home. The evidence is clear and convincing that Petitioner failed to provide direct supervision of the child while he was napping, in the late afternoon, on March 22, 2006. The evidence is clear and convincing that Petitioner is a long-term child care provider, who obviously gives compassionate care to the children in her care. There have been no prior reported incidents of neglect or abuse filed against Petitioner, nor were prior deficiencies listed. Petitioner enjoys a good reputation as a child care provider in her community. Except for the incident on March 22, 2006, no evidence was presented that Petitioner presented an immediate serious danger to the public health, safety, or welfare to the children who are enrolled in her family day care home.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: The Secretary of the Department of Children and Family Services issue a final order as follows: Finding Petitioner guilty of a single violation of the provisions of Florida Administration Code Rule 65C-22.001(5)(a) and (b) on March 22, 2006; Imposing an administrative fine of $100; and Immediately reinstating Petitioner's family day care home registration for a period of 264 days and permitting Petitioner the opportunity to submit an application for renewal of her family day care home registration at the appropriate time. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of April, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of April, 2007.
The Issue Whether Respondent proved the allegations contained in its January 30, 2004, notice of revocation of family day care home registration letter to Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating child care facilities, including family day care homes. Petitioner, by and through aid, assistance, and training of the federally funded Weed and Seed Support Group program of the Fort Myers area, began her family day care home provider training in 2001 and, upon completion of training, was registered as a family day care home from July 25, 2002, to June 30, 2003. On June 23, 2003, Respondent acted upon Petitioner's re-registration application to provide child care in her home for up to ten children, effective June 30, 2003, through June 30, 2004. Respondent acknowledged that at the time Petitioner's registration was acted upon, Leona Mark, Petitioner's identified substitute caregiver, had cleared her for background screening but she had not completed either the minimum or 30 hours of family day care home training prior to caring for children in a family day care home. Notwithstanding the situation with Ms. Marks, Respondent's recommendation was to "Issue registration to Deborah Scurry to provide child care in her home for up to 10 children." Ms. Mark did not testify, and the record contains no evidence that Ms. Mark completed her training at any time prior to Respondent's notice of revocation letter of January 30, 2004. Respondent, by letter dated January 30, 2004, informed Petitioner that her family day care home registration was revoked. The revocation letter gave the following basis for revocation: On December 22, 2003, the licensing unit received a complaint that a nine month old sustained a skull facture while in your care. The complaint also stated that you left your daycare children with your 15 year old daughter. During the investigation, you denied ever leaving the daycare children alone and that you always took them with you. The Department, upon conducting interviews, has determined that you did leave the children with your 15-year-old daughter, which is a supervision violation. The letter cited Subsections 402.302(1) and (7) and 402.313(1)(a)4., Florida Statutes (2003), as the provisions determined to have been violated and the authority for revocation of the registration. The Injured Child D.B. is Petitioner's nephew, and he was routinely placed in her family day care home when his mother was working. On Friday morning at approximately 6:30 a.m., on December 12, 2003, L.B., D.B.'s mother, left D.B., a nine-month-old child, in Petitioner's family day care home. At that time, neither L.B. nor Petitioner noticed a bump on D.B.'s head. According to Petitioner, D.B. became "fussy" during morning breakfast at approximately 7:00 a.m., at which time she noticed a small bump on his head. The bump was soft to her touch, and she thought no more about it. During lunch, Petitioner's daughter noticed that the bump had gotten larger and told her mother, who, by telephone, attempted to reach L.B., but was unsuccessful. When L.B. came to pick D.B. up at approximately 6:30 or 7:00 p.m., on December 12, 2003, Petitioner and L.B. discussed the bump on D.B.'s head. L.B. recalled that while playing D.B.'s sibling had hit him on the head with a plastic toy bat at some earlier time and that D.B. had fallen out of bed and hit his head on the floor. L.B. testified that she does not know where D.B. hit his head. It could have happened at home while playing with siblings, when he fell out of bed, or when he was with his father. She was firm in her conviction and belief that D.B. was not injured while in Petitioner's family day care home. There is no evidence of record to account for D.B.'s whereabouts on Saturday and Sunday, December 13 and 14, 2003. On Monday, December 15, 2003, L.B. dropped D.B. off at Petitioner's family day care home. On Tuesday, December 16, 2003, D.B. was again dropped off at Petitioner's family day care home. On Wednesday, December 17, 2003, Petitioner noticed that the bump had gotten larger and called L.B. L.B. came later in the day and carried D.B. to the Emergency Room at Cape Coral Hospital for a medical examination. Medical Examination of the Injured Child A Medical Examination report, dated December 19, 2003, was completed by Susan Sherman (Nurse Sherman), ARNP of the Child Protection Team. The Medical Examination report provides Dr. Michael Weiss' findings, which are as follows: X-RAY FINDINGS: A copy of the report for CT of the head without contrast and a complete skeletal survey are available. These x-rays were read by Dr. Michael Weiss on December 19, 2003. On the CAT scan of the head without contrast, the findings are as follows, "The ventricles are normal in size and midline in position. There is no intracranial hemorrhage. No intra or extra- axial fluid collection. There is a stellate fracture of the left parietal bone. There is also a high right parietal fracture identified. There is no evidence of depression on either side. There is an associated soft tissue hematoma." The impression of the CT scan is as follows: "Biparietal skull fractures, rule out child abuse." Findings and recommendations were reviewed with Dr. Burgett at the time of study. (Dr. Burgett is a pediatrician at the Physician's Primary Care.) . . . (emphasis added) Notwithstanding the findings of Dr. Weiss, Nurse Sherman reported her impression and plan as follows: IMPRESSION: Biparietal skull fractures. From the x-ray report, the skull fracture on the left side of his head is a stellate fracture. There is also a fracture of the parietal bone on the right side of the head. These injuries are consistent with physical abuse. PLAN: The child will be followed medically by his primary care provider. At this time, I do not recommend the child be sheltered. My only recommendation is the child not return to the day care setting. This mother needs to find alternative childcare for [D.B.]. It was reasonable for Nurse Sherman to take the protective approach and recommend that D.B. not return to the family day care home because she believed Petitioner had a history of utilizing substitute caregivers who had not completed required training, and, she also believed that on more than one occasion in the past, Petitioner's child-to-child caregiver ratio was exceeded. An acceptable ratio requires a specific number of caregivers per the number of children within a specific age range. Petitioner had more children than she had certified caregivers required for the separate age range(s) of children found in her family day care home. However, the Department did not charge "past violations of overcapacity" and/or "utilizing substitute caregivers who were not properly qualified" in the January 30, 2004, revocation letter. The evidence of record was inconclusive to demonstrate to any reasonable degree of certainty: first, the date D.B. sustained his injury/injuries; second, whether D.B. was injured while in the care of Petitioner; third, whether D.B. was injured while in the care of his mother; or forth, whether D.B. was injured while in the care of his father. On December 22, 2003, Respondent received a compliant report of a license violation, to wit: over-capacity and background screening. The complaint report was assigned to and investigated by Celeste Davis and a second unnamed person. Ms. Davis closed her report on December 23, 2003. Ms. Davis' investigation found eight children in care: one infant, three preschoolers, and four school-age children. Petitioner was within her ratio at the time of this inspection. Through interviews with the children at the day care, Ms. Davis determined that Petitioner, on occasion, left her day care children alone with L.S., her teenaged daughter, who was not a qualified caregiver. Regarding D.B.'s head injury, Petitioner informed Ms. Davis that the injury did not occur when D.B. was in her care and probably occurred the night before D.B. was brought to her home. Ms. Davis cited Petitioner for one license violation, leaving her day care children alone with her teenage daughter. Ted Leighton investigated an Abuse Hotline Report filed on December 19, 2003. Mr. Leighton did not testify but his written report was introduced into evidence without objection. Respondent argued in its post-hearing submittal that information Mr. Leighton received from his interviews with four minor children, his review of reports from medical personnel and health care providers, and his conclusion that "it was 'probably' on December 15 or 16, 2003, D.B. was injured at the family day care home accidentally by another child when the Petitioner was not present," as fact. Respondent's argument is not based on facts, but upon uncorroborated hearsay, assumptions and conjectures of Mr. Leighton. For those reasons Respondent's argument is rejected. In support of Mr. Leighton's conclusions, Respondent cited the testimony of Nurse Sherman. Nurse Sherman concluded that D.B.'s injuries were "very serious and 'could have' been life threatening, 'could have' happened accidentally 'if' another child jumped off a bed, landing on D.B., while D.B. was laying on the floor with a hard object under his head." The intended purpose of Nurse Sherman's testimony was twofold: to demonstrate the severity of D.B.'s injury and the location D.B.'s injury was sustained. The inference drawn by Respondent was that a lack of supervision was the primary cause of the injury. This argument is likewise not based upon facts found in the evidence of record. Nurse Sherman's conclusions are but an extension of Mr. Leighton's assumptions and conjectures. This argument is likewise rejected. D.B.'s mother recalled one occasion when D.B. had fallen out of her bed at home. She testified that her older daughter told her that while playing with D.B., he had fallen from his bed to the floor on more than one occasion at home. She speculated that D.B. could have been injured at home or by her three-year-old son, who when playing with D.B. had struck him on his head with a plastic toy bat. L.B. testified further that she and Petitioner are related and that her three children have been continuously in Petitioner's family day care home since Petitioner has been qualified as a provider. She was certain that Petitioner did not and would not injure her children. She testified that D.B. "could have" suffered the injury to his head when he was in the care and custody of his father over the weekend. Of the several possibilities of the date, time, place, and in whose custody D.B. may have been when the injury occurred, the mother was not certain. The inconclusive and conflicting evidence regarding D.B.'s whereabouts and the identification of the person or persons who had custody of D.B. when his injury occurred is, as it must be, resolved in favor of Petitioner. Respondent failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that D.B. was injured when in the care, custody, and control of Petitioner while in the family day care home as alleged in its notice of registration revocation dated January 30, 2004. Caregivers supervision and Over capacity Respondent demonstrated that as of June 13, 2002, neither Petitioner's 15-year-old daughter nor any other person present on the days of inspection who was serving as a caregiver was properly trained. By evidence of record, Respondent demonstrated that Petitioner was over capacity, based on the child-to-child caregiver ratio on or about June 2, 2001. With knowledge of the one occasion of over capacity by Petitioner, Respondent approved Petitioner's re-registration application on June 23, 2002, effective through June 30, 2003, and permitted Petitioner to provide care for up to ten children. The approved re-registration increased Petitioner's child care capacity. Respondent's January 30, 2004, letter did not allege an over capacity violation, and no other pleading filed by Respondent contained information from which Petitioner could have been so informed of the over capacity allegation. Respondent failed to prove that D.B. sustained his head injuries while in Petitioner's family day care home. Respondent has shown that Petitioner did on one occasion leave children in the care of a person or persons, including Petitioner's 15-year-old daughter, who were not trained, certified, or qualified as substitute caregiver(s). There is no evidence of record that Petitioner's violation of child-to-child caregiver ratio demonstrated either gross misconduct and/or willful violation of the minimum child care standards within the meaning of the statutes and rules charged. The evidence demonstrated that Petitioner did not fully understand the child-to-child caregiver ratio differentiations by age groups. Petitioner's lack of understanding does not absolve her of the obligation to know all rules and regulations. It does, however, provide a reasonable inference that the out-of-ratio situation was not an intentional act on behalf of Petitioner. Weed and Seed Support Group in the Fort Myers Area Petitioner presented the testimony of Susan B. Davis, a family child care specialist employed by the Weed and Seed Support Group of the Fort Myers area. The purpose and organizational goal of this federally funded agency is identification of economically disadvantaged persons who are interested in becoming day care providers in their homes in their respective communities. The methodology of the agency is to first assist those persons identified with acquiring required training and certification. Second, the agency assists the trained candidate(s) with the application process through Respondent. According to Ms. Davis, the federal grant overall objective is twofold: first, to seek, find, and train family day care home providers in the community and second, to provide a source of employment and income to the provider's family. As a direct result of this community service, other families within the economically disadvantaged community will have local and affordable family child care service within their respective communities. By accomplishing the identification and training of community child care providers, employed and unemployed parents in need of day care in the various Fort Myers communities will be the beneficiaries of the available family day care home, thereby enabling some parents to become employed and enhancing employment opportunities for employed parents. The Weed and Seed Support Group of the Fort Myers area offers free help and support to self-employed child care providers. In 2001, Ms. Davis identified and assisted Petitioner in becoming a qualified child care provider. Ms. Davis assisted Petitioner in acquiring her 30 hours of training to become a qualified child care provider. She introduced Petitioner and others to the rules and regulations of Respondent pertaining to child care providers. Thereafter, she would visit with Petitioner and others to whom she rendered assistance only as her time and scheduling permitted. Ms. Davis' last visit with Petitioner occurred sometime before Christmas of 2003. Though she had no knowledge of the injury suffered by D.B., she offered to render assistance and additional training, including assisting Petitioner in acquiring a functional understanding of Respondent's rules, regulations, proper maintenance of required records, and correct completion of required reports and forms, that would enable Petitioner to continue her self-employment status as a qualified child care provider offering daily child care services within her community.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Finding of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Family Services enter a final order: Finding that Petitioner left children at her family day care home during her absence from the premises under the supervision, care, and control of unqualified substitute caregivers; and Imposing on Petitioner a fine in the amount of $250.00; and, upon payment thereof, Set aside and vacate revocation of Petitioner's family day care home license/registration; and Issue to Petitioner a six-month provisional license. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of September 2004, 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 20th day of September, 2004.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner is entitled to issuance of a license to operate a family day care home, pursuant to chapter 402, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C-20.008.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner, Shaguandra Ruffin Bullock, is an applicant for a family day care home license for the Ruffin Bullock Family Day Care Home. Respondent is the state agency responsible for licensing family day care homes in Florida. § 402.312(1), Fla. Stat. Events Giving Rise to this Proceeding A "family day care home" is an occupied residence in which child care is regularly provided for children from at least two unrelated families and which receives a payment, fee, or grant for any of the children receiving care, whether or not operated for profit. § 402.302(8), Fla. Stat. On or about July 6, 2017, Petitioner filed an application to operate a family day care home. Respondent reviewed the application and determined that it was incomplete, pending completion of the background screening required by sections 402.313(3), 402.305, and 402.3055.2/ On or about December 8, 2017, Respondent sent Petitioner a Notice of Intent to Deny Family Day Care Home Licensure ("NOI"), informing her of Respondent's intent to deny her application for a family day care home. The NOI stated, in pertinent part: On October 10, 2017, the Department received background clearance letters from child care personnel at Respondent's Family Day Care Home. Pursuant to Section 402.313(3), Florida Stat., childcare personnel in family day care homes are subject to applicable screening provisions. Pursuant to Section 402.302(15), Florida Stat. and Section 39.201(6), Florida Stat., The Department assessed the background of child care personnel at Respondent's family day care home including, but not limited to information from the central abuse hotline. The Department's assessment revealed the Respondent did not meet minimum standards for child care personnel upon screening which requires personnel to have good moral character pursuant to Section 402.305(2)(a), Florida Stat. The foregoing violates Rule 65C- 22.008(3), Fla. Admin. Code,[3/] Section 402.305(2)(a), Fla. Stat. and Section 402.313(3), Florida Stat. Based on the foregoing, Ruffin Bullock Family Day Care Home's, [sic] pending licensure application will be denied. Evidence Adduced at the Hearing At the final hearing, Respondent acknowledged that the background screening for Petitioner and her husband, Marlon Bullock, did not reveal that either had ever engaged in any of the offenses identified in section 435.04, Florida Statutes, which establishes the level 2 screening standards applicable to determining good moral character in this proceeding, pursuant to section 402.305(2)(a).4/ Rather, Respondent proposes to deny Petitioner's license application solely based on two confidential investigative summaries ("CIS reports") addressing incidents—— one involving Petitioner that occurred over 11 years ago, and one ostensibly involving Marlon Bullock that allegedly occurred almost 11 years ago. The CIS report for Intake No. 2007-310775-01 addresses an incident that occurred on or about January 16, 2007. Petitioner acknowledges that the incident addressed in the CIS report for Intake No. 2007-310775-01 occurred. Petitioner testified, credibly and persuasively, that at the time of the incident, Petitioner and her then-husband, Bernard L. Johnson, were going through a very difficult, emotionally-charged divorce. Petitioner went to Johnson's home to retrieve their minor children. An argument between her and Johnson ensued, and she threw a car jack through the back window of Johnson's vehicle. As a result of this incident, Petitioner was arrested. However, she was not prosecuted, and the charges against her were dropped. Respondent's witnesses, Ann Gleeson and Suzette Frazier, both acknowledged that they did not have any independent personal knowledge regarding the occurrence, or any aspects, of the incident reported in the CIS report for Intake No. 2007-310775-01. The other CIS report, for Intake No. 2007-455485-01, addresses an incident that ostensibly took place on September 7, 2007, involving Marlon Bullock, who is now Petitioner's husband. Petitioner was not married to Bullock at the time of the incident reported in the CIS report for Intake No. 2007- 455485-01. She credibly testified that she was completely unaware of the incident, and had no knowledge of any aspect of it, until she saw the CIS report in connection with this proceeding. Gleeson and Frazier both acknowledged that they did not have any independent knowledge regarding the occurrence, or any aspects, of the incident addressed in the CIS report for Intake No. 2007-455485-01.5/ The CIS reports and their contents are hearsay that does not fall within any exception to the hearsay rule.6/ The CIS reports and the information contained therein consist of summaries of statements made by third parties to the investigators who prepared the reports. The investigators did not have any personal knowledge about the matters addressed in the reports. It is well-established that hearsay evidence, while admissible in administrative proceedings, cannot form the sole basis of a finding of fact in such proceedings. § 120.57(1)(c), Fla. Stat. Accordingly, the CIS reports do not constitute competent, substantial, or persuasive evidence in this proceeding regarding the matters addressed in those reports. Thus, Petitioner's testimony constitutes the only competent substantial evidence in the record regarding the matters addressed in the CIS report for Intake No. 2007-310775-01, and there is no competent substantial evidence in the record regarding the matters addressed in the CIS report for Intake No. 2007-455485-01. Respondent has not adopted a rule defining the term "good moral character." Therefore, it is required to determine an applicant's "good moral character" based on the definition of that term in statute. As noted above, section 402.305(2)(a) provides that "good moral character" is determined "using the level 2 standards for screening set forth in" chapter 435. Ann Gleeson reviewed Petitioner's application for a family day care home license. She testified that based on her review of the CIS reports for Intake No. 2007-310775-01 and Intake No. 2007-455485-01, she "didn't feel comfortable" recommending approval of Petitioner's application for a family day care home license, and she recommended that the license be denied. As noted above, Gleeson did not have any personal knowledge of any of the matters in the CIS reports. She relied on the reports and their contents in making her recommendation to deny Petitioner's application. Suzette Frazier, Gleeson's supervisor, made the ultimate decision to deny Petitioner's application for the license. At the final hearing, Frazier testified that she determined that Petitioner's license should be denied based on the matters addressed in the CIS reports. Frazier testified that Petitioner's application raised particular concerns because of the two CIS reports, even though the CIS report for Marlon Bullock contained a "Findings – No Indicator" notation.7/ Frazier testified that it is Respondent's "policy" to deny an application for a family day care home license in every case in which the background screening for the applicant reveals an incident addressed in a CIS report. According to Frazier, this policy applies even if the background screening shows that the applicant does not have a history involving any of the offenses listed in section 435.04. Further to this point, when Petitioner asked Frazier at the final hearing what she (Petitioner) could do to demonstrate that she has good moral character for purposes of obtaining her license, Frazier told her that although she could reapply, she would never qualify to get the license because of the CIS reports. Frazier testified that, in her view, the CIS reports contain information indicating that both Petitioner and Marlon Bullock have a "propensity" toward violent behavior. Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 11th edition,8/ defines "propensity" as "a natural inclination or tendency." A "tendency" is "an inclination, bent, or predisposition to something." Id. An "inclination" is a "tendency toward a certain condition." Id. A "predisposition" is a "tendency to a condition or quality." Id. Frazier's view that Petitioner and Marlon Bullock have a "propensity" toward violent behavior is not supported by the competent, substantial, or persuasive evidence in the record. To the extent Frazier relies on the information contained in the CIS reports to conclude that Petitioner and Marlon Bullock have a "propensity" toward violent behavior, neither of these reports constitutes competent substantial evidence regarding the matters addressed therein. Furthermore, to the extent Petitioner acknowledges that she engaged in the conduct addressed in CIS report Intake No. 2007-310775-01, the competent, substantial, and persuasive evidence shows that this incident——which was an isolated event that occurred in the context of an extremely emotional and difficult personal event in Petitioner's life——simply does not establish that she has a "tendency" or "inclination" or "predisposition" toward violent behavior. To the contrary, the competent, persuasive evidence shows that this was a one-time event that happened over 11 years ago, that Petitioner did not have any instances of violent behavior before then, and that she has not had any instances of violent behavior since then. Far from showing a "propensity" toward violent behavior, the competent, persuasive evidence shows that Petitioner has exhibited an otherwise completely non-violent course of conduct throughout her life. Additionally, as previously noted, the evidence shows that neither Petitioner nor Marlon Bullock have any history involving any of the offenses listed in section 435.04. There is no competent substantial evidence in the record showing that Petitioner has engaged, during the past 11-plus years, in any criminal or other conduct that would present a danger to children, and there is no competent substantial evidence in the record establishing that Marlon Bullock has ever engaged in any criminal or other conduct that would present a danger to children. To the contrary, the competent substantial evidence establishes that Petitioner and Marlon Bullock are law-abiding citizens. Petitioner is employed as the manager of a department for a Wal-Mart store. Marlon Bullock is, and has worked for 23 years as, a chef. Petitioner credibly and persuasively testified that she is a Christian who attends, and actively participates in, activities with her church. Petitioner also credibly and persuasively testified that she has raised her four sons from her previous marriage to be law-abiding, upstanding citizens. None of them has ever been arrested or involved in any criminal behavior, and her three adult children are all gainfully employed. Petitioner posits, persuasively, that her children are testaments to the stability of her character and her ability to provide a safe, nurturing environment for the care of children. Frazier testified that Respondent's review of Petitioner's application showed that apart from the good moral character requirement, Petitioner's application met all other requirements to qualify for a family day care home license.9/ Findings of Ultimate Fact Although Respondent has adopted a rule, detailed in its Handbook, which establishes the background screening process for purposes of determining good moral character, Respondent has not adopted a rule defining "good moral character" or establishing, apart from the standards set forth in section 402.305(2)(a), any other substantive standards for determining "good moral character." Accordingly, pursuant to the plain language of section 402.305(2)(a), the level 2 screening standards set forth in section 435.04 are the standards that pertain in this proceeding to determine good moral character. Pursuant to the foregoing findings of fact, and based on the competent, substantial, and persuasive evidence in the record, it is found, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Petitioner and Marlon Bullock are of good moral character. Conversely, the competent, substantial, and persuasive evidence in the record does not support a determination that Petitioner and Marlon Bullock do not have good moral character. As noted above, Respondent determined, in its review of Petitioner's application, that other than the good moral character requirement, Petitioner met all other statutory and rule requirements for a family day care home license. Because it is determined, in this de novo proceeding under section 120.57(1), that Petitioner and Marlon Bullock meet the good moral character requirement, Petitioner is entitled to issuance of a family day care home license pursuant to sections 402.305(2)(a), 402.312, and 402.313 and rule 65C-20.008. Finally, it is noted that Respondent has not adopted as a rule pursuant to section 120.54(1)(a), its "policy" of denying applications for family day care home licenses in every case in which the background screening for the applicant reveals an incident addressed in a CIS report. Accordingly, pursuant to section 120.57(1)(e)1., Respondent cannot rely on or apply this "policy" to deny Petitioner's application for a family day care home license.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order granting Petitioner's license for a family day care home. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of April, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS 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 12th day of April, 2018.
The Issue The issue is whether to deny Petitioner's application to renew her registration to operate a family day care home for the reasons stated in the Notice of Denial dated April 7, 2017.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the agency charged with the responsibility of licensing and registering family day care homes. See § 402.313, Fla. Stat. A family day care home is an "occupied residence in which child care is regularly provided for children from at least two unrelated families and which receives a payment, fee, or grant for any of the children receiving care." § 402.302(8), Fla. Stat. In order to operate a family day care home, the home must be licensed or registered by the Department. § 402.312(1), Fla. Stat. Unlike a licensed home, which is subject to more regulatory oversight, a registered home is not subject to periodic inspections, and the home is only required to undergo an annual evaluation during the registration process. § 402.313(1), Fla. Stat. Petitioner has operated a registered family day care home under the name of Little Bright Stars of Orlando at 4419 Fairlawn Drive, Orlando, for several years. Her most recent registration expired on March 9, 2017. This proceeding concerns Ms. Rosado's application for renewal of her registration. Unless a complete renewal application is filed, the application will be denied. § 402.313(1), Fla. Stat. This is because the Department has no authority to approve an incomplete application conditioned on an applicant filing the missing items at a later time. On March 9, 2017, Petitioner filed her renewal application with the Department. The application did not have the following required items: the application fee; a list of children in her care; a copy of the current immunization record for each child in her care; a copy of a training certificate, an in-service training record form 5268, or a continuing education unit certificate documenting ten clock hours of annual in- service training; a copy of the completed Registered Family Care Home Health and Safety Checklist; a copy of the tear-off section signed by the parent or legal guardian for each child in her care; a copy of the completed Child Abuse & Neglect Reporting Requirements form, signed and dated by the substitute(s); and a Level 2 Background Screening (livescan) for the operator, adult household members, and substitute(s). Petitioner was sent an email the following day informing her that she must file the incomplete and missing items. When the application was filed, Petitioner had several health-related issues, which required her to temporarily stop caring for children in her home. At that time, she was forced to make a choice between paying her medical expenses or the costs associated with renewing her application. She chose the former and submitted an incomplete application without a filing fee. Once the Notice of Denial was issued, Petitioner decided there was no reason to incur the costs associated with the missing items until she knew whether her application would be approved. As of the date of the hearing, the application was still incomplete. Pursuant to section 39.201(6), Florida Statutes, information in the Department's central abuse hotline and automated abuse information system may be used in its evaluation of a registration application. In May 2016, the Department received a complaint that Petitioner's home was "operating illegally," and she had forced a three-year-old child to clean up his urine when he had an accident. Petitioner characterizes the complaint as "false" and asserts it is based on erroneous information provided by a disgruntled parent who just removed her two children from the home. The Department's subsequent investigation belies this contention. In response to the complaint, a Child Institutional Investigation was conducted by a Department Licensing Counselor and a Child Protective Investigator on May 23, 2016. While investigating the urine incident, the investigators observed an unscreened person, Petitioner's 17-year-old daughter-in-law, living in the home and assisting with the care of the children. They also observed children sleeping on the floor with no mats, a leaking ceiling in the area where the children play, and paint cans that were accessible to the children. These conditions violate Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C-20.010, which establishes health and safety-related requirements for family day care homes. The Department closed the investigation on July 4, 2016, with verified findings of inadequate supervision and environmental hazards. See Dep't Ex. B. The report concluded that based on the confirmed findings, the safety assessment was "low," meaning the deficiencies did not present a high risk of injury to the children. Petitioner was notified by letter dated August 16, 2016, that the investigation was closed and she could request a copy of the report. Petitioner did not request a copy, and she saw the report for the first time when the Department pre-filed its exhibits. At hearing, most of Petitioner's evidence addressed the confirmed findings in the abuse report. She questioned why she was never offered a hearing to contest those findings, but there is no statutory requirement that the Department conduct a hearing to allow a perpetrator to challenge a confirmed report. In any event, Petitioner was allowed to respond to the findings in the report and to provide evidence to mitigate or contradict the observations of the investigators. Petitioner also questioned why a second inspection was never conducted by the Department to determine if the violations observed during the May 23 investigation had been corrected. An abuse investigation, however, differs from a licensing inspection, and there is no requirement that the Department conduct a second inspection to verify that abuse violations have been corrected. At hearing, Petitioner explained that her 17-year-old daughter-in-law was a temporary occupant of the home while her husband (Petitioner's son) was on active duty in the military. She admitted, however, that the daughter-in-law was not screened, which is a requirement for all persons having contact with the children in a family day care home. She also acknowledged that her husband resides in the home but is not screened. At hearing, Petitioner denied that she had forced a child to clean up his urine. She explained that the child had actually spilled water on the bathroom floor while washing his hands and she made the child clean up the spilled water. During the investigation on May 23, 2016, however, Petitioner admitted to the investigators that the child had continued to urinate on himself and she required the child to clean up the urine in the hope that he would not do this in the future. This is a Class 1 violation of rule 65C-20.010(6)(a), which prohibits humiliating a child as a disciplinary measure. It also meets the definition of "abuse," as defined in section 39.01(2), and "harm," as defined in section 39.01(30). For these reasons, the abuse report confirmed the finding of inadequate supervision. Petitioner further explained that on May 23, 2016, her husband was in the process of making repairs to the leaking roof and the damaged ceiling in the home, and these repairs were completed shortly after the investigation. After being told that sleeping mats were required for the children, Petitioner purchased ten mats for the children. Even so, these deficiencies were observed on May 23, 2016, are confirmed by testimony and photographs received in evidence, and are grounds to verify the abuse allegations. Two parents who have used Petitioner's services attested to her good character and the quality of care that their children receive. They urged that the home be allowed to remain open. Even if the abuse report is not considered, the Department would still be required to deny the application because it is incomplete. According to a Department witness, if a complete application had been filed, denial would still be required based on the confirmed abuse report.
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 Petitioner's application to renew her family day care home registration. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of July, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of July, 2017. COPIES FURNISHED: Lisa M. Eilertsen, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Families Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 (eServed) Cynthia Rosado 4419 Fairlawn Drive Orlando, Florida 32809-4409 (eServed) Rebecca Falcon Kapusta, General Counsel Department of Children and Families Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 (eServed) Brian Christopher Meola, Esquire Department of Children and Families. Suite S-1129 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801-1707 (eServed) Mike Carroll, Secretary Department of Children and Families Building 1, Room 202 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 (eServed)
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent's license to operate a family day care home should be revoked.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony and evidence received at the hearing, the following findings are made: Parties The Department is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating child care facilities, including family day care homes. The Department routinely conducts inspections of licensed family day care homes to determine whether the home is in compliance with the applicable statutes and rules. Any problems found during the inspection are noted on a report which is provided to the home's operator immediately following the inspection. When appropriate, the inspection report provides a time frame within which the problems must be corrected. Regular inspections are conducted approximately twice a year. More frequent inspections -- monthly or every six weeks - - are conducted on family day care homes which have a provisional license rather than a standard license. The Department also conducts inspections in response to complaints it receives, and it has the authority to inspect family day care homes at any time with or without notice. Respondent is the owner and operator of a licensed family day care home located at 1218 Jordan Avenue in Orlando, Florida (hereafter "Respondent's facility" or "the facility"). Respondent and her husband reside at that address as well. Respondent has operated day care homes in Florida since 1992, and she has been involved in child care for approximately 21 years. As a result, she is or should be familiar with the rules regulating family day care homes. Respondent keeps children in the back portion of her home. The children also play in Respondent's backyard, which is enclosed by an approximately six-foot high wooden fence. A wooden gate in the fence connects Respondent's backyard to the backyard of the house immediately behind Respondent's home. That house has been rented by Annette Rodgers since November 2002. Respondent does not have a pool in her yard. Ms. Rodgers' yard does have a pool, which at the time of the Department's February 27, 2003 inspection (discussed below), was only partially filled with water. Ms. Rodgers' pool is not visible from Respondent's back yard because of the wooden fence and gate. The photographs and videotape received into evidence show that Ms. Rodgers' pool is now completely enclosed by a series of fences.4 The evidence does not clearly and convincingly establish that the fences were not in place on February 27, 2003. Indeed, the weeds and high grass which can be seen along the base of and around the posts of the chain-link fence and the discoloration on some of the fence posts indicate that at least that fence has been in place for quite some time.5 Previous Inspections of Respondent's Facility and Actions Taken by the Department Respondent's facility was inspected on May 28, June 14, and September 30, 2002. Several areas of noncompliance were identified during each of those inspections, including inadequate supervision of children, unsafe storage of chemicals, evidence of roaches in the home, and incomplete enrollment and health records for the children at the home. On each occasion, Respondent was given a period of time within which to correct the areas of noncompliance. The inadequate supervision for which Respondent was cited in June 14, 2002, involved several children playing unsupervised in Respondent's carport area, which has access to the street; several children playing in the backyard under the "supervision" of Respondent's mother, who was not an authorized caregiver; and several children playing unsupervised on the porch area in the vicinity of tools and small screws. The Department issued Respondent a provisional license on October 28, 2002, presumably as part of the license renewal process. The provisional license was based upon Respondent's history of noncompliance with the Department's minimum standards, and it was valid through April 2, 2003, unless Respondent applied for an received a change in license status (which she apparently did not) or "if the license is suspended or revoked by the Department." A provisional license is issued where the Department has continued concerns regarding the day care home's compliance with the applicable statutes and rules. A provisional license is issued in lieu of denying a license renewal or suspending or revoking the home's license. A provisional license gives the licensee an opportunity to correct the areas of noncompliance, and because such homes are inspected more frequently, the Department has an opportunity to monitor the licensee's progress. On October 29, 2002, Respondent was assessed an administrative fine of $100.00 based upon deficiencies identified during the May 28 and June 14, 2002, inspections. The fine was based primarily upon the incident described above involving inadequate supervision of the children at the home. Respondent apparently did not contest the administrative fine or the issuance of the provisional license rather than a standard license. Despite the provisional license and the administrative fine, the Department's inspections continued to identify areas of noncompliance at Respondent's facility. For example, the November 14, 2002, inspection identified "evidence of rodents/vermin in the home" as well as incomplete enrollment and immunization records for the children in the home. The December 18, 2002, inspection identified these same deficiencies, including "live roaches in the children's area and the kitchen," as well as the storage of plastic shopping bags and chemicals which can pose dangers to children in an unlocked cabinet accessible to the children. These violations were the same as or similar to those for which Respondent had been previously cited and which led to the imposition of the administrative fine and issuance of the provisional license. The Department did not take immediate action to suspend or revoke Respondent's license based upon the results of the November 14 and December 18, 2002, inspections. Instead, the Department continued to give Respondent an opportunity to bring her home into compliance with the minimum standards in the Department's licensing rules and statutes. Inspection of Respondent's Facility on February 27, 2003 The Department next inspected Respondent's facility on February 27, 2003. That inspection was conducted by Department employee Brandi Blanchard. Ms. Blanchard had been responsible for inspecting Respondent's facility since at least September 2002, so she was familiar with the layout of the facility and its history of noncompliance. Respondent testified that Ms. Blanchard, unlike the prior inspector, had been "very good to her." Ms. Blanchard arrived at Respondent's facility by car between 8:30 a.m. and 8:45 a.m. As she arrived, Respondent was pulling her car into the driveway/carport at the facility. Ms. Blanchard parked her car directly behind Respondent's car. Ms. Blanchard got out of her car as Respondent was getting out of hers, and she said, "Hello, Ms. Alli," to Respondent. Upon seeing Ms. Blanchard, Respondent quickly went into the house through the carport door. Ms. Blanchard followed Respondent into the facility. Ms. Blanchard lost sight of Respondent as she went down a hallway towards the back of the house where the children were located. The backdoor of the house was open, and by the time that Ms. Blanchard caught up with Respondent, Respondent was directing the children through the facility's backyard towards the back gate connecting Respondent's yard to Ms. Rodgers' yard. Several of the children, led by Ms. Rodgers' 14-year-old son carrying an infant in a car seat and Ms. Rodgers' 13-year-old son carrying a toddler had already reached Ms. Rodgers' yard. Ms. Blanchard told Respondent to stop and return to the facility with the children, which she did. Ms. Blanchard went through the open gate onto Ms. Rodgers' property and directed Ms. Rodgers' sons to return to Respondent's facility with the children, which they did. While on Ms. Rodgers' property, Ms. Blanchard saw a partially-filled swimming pool and other ongoing construction. Ms. Blanchard did not notice any fencing around the pool and saw one of the children, which she estimated to be three or four years old, walking in the construction area close to the edge of the pool. After the children had been returned, Ms. Blanchard assessed the situation and commenced her inspection of the remainder of Respondent's facility. Ms. Blanchard found roach droppings in the bathtub and in other locations in the facility. Respondent acknowledged a roach problem, but claimed that she had an exterminator working on the problem and that he was due to come out and treat the facility. Respondent did not present any documentation to Ms. Blanchard to corroborate her claims regarding the exterminator, nor did she introduce such documentation at the hearing. Ms. Blanchard found plastic bags in an unlocked cabinet accessible to the children. Respondent acknowledged at the hearing that the bags were in the cabinet and further acknowledged the suffocation danger that they posed to young children. Ms. Blanchard's review of the facility's records identified missing enrollment and immunization records for the children in the home. However, Ms. Blanchard did not document the children whose records were missing and she did not determine whether, as Respondent claimed at the time and in her testimony at the hearing, any of the missing records were for students who had enrolled in Respondent's facility within the prior two weeks. Ms. Blanchard documented the results of her inspection, including the events surrounding the movement of the children to Ms. Rodgers' yard on her inspection report. The inspection report identified each of the violations that she observed, including inadequate supervision based upon Respondent's absence from the facility, unsafe storage of materials dangerous to children (i.e., plastic bags) in a location accessible to the children, evidence of roaches, incomplete enrollment and immunization records, and more than the allowed number of children in the home. Ms. Blanchard also cited Respondent's facility for the dangers posed by Ms. Rodgers' pool since the children were being taken onto Ms. Rodgers' property. With respect to the citation for having too many children, Ms. Blanchard's inspection report did not include any detailed information about the children such as their names (or initials), ages, or descriptions. The report simply stated that Ms. Blanchard counted seven children at the facility -- i.e., "3 infants, 3 preschool and 1 school age child." Ms. Blanchard's testimony at the hearing referred to only two infants, which was consistent with Respondent's testimony on that issue. As a result, the evidence is not clear and convincing that there were seven children in Respondent's care at the facility rather than the authorized six children. During the course of her inspection, Ms. Blanchard did not see any adults (other than Respondent, who arrived as Ms. Blanchard was arriving) at the facility. It is undisputed that Respondent's husband, who is the designated substitute caregiver, was not at the facility that morning. There is no credible evidence that Respondent's 22- year-old son, Abdel, was at the facility that morning. He did not testify at the hearing, and, if as Respondent claims, Abdel was at the facility that morning, Ms. Blanchard would have seen him at some point during the commotion surrounding Respondent's rushing the children out the back door or during her subsequent inspection of the facility. In any event, Abdel was not the substitute caregiver designated by Respondent. He was not even authorized to watch the children because, although he had been background screened by the Department, he had not taken the Department's mandatory child care training program and was not certified in cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). It is more likely than not that Ms. Rodgers' teenage sons were actually left to supervise the children at Respondent's facility during the time that Respondent was gone on the morning of February 27, 2003. Indeed, that is the most likely explanation of their presence at the facility and their involvement in the movement of the children to Ms. Rodgers' yard. However, the evidence on this issue is not clear and convincing. Respondent's explanation of her actions on the morning of the inspection -- i.e., that she hurried into the house upon her arrival and directed all of the children to Ms. Rodgers' yard so she could convey an important message to Ms. Rodgers -- is not credible. Her explanation of the roach droppings that Ms. Blanchard found in the bathtub -- i.e., that it was actually dirt from washing one of the children's feet -- is also not credible. By contrast, Respondent's explanation of the incomplete records -- i.e., that the missing records were for those children who had enrolled in the facility within the prior two weeks -- is reasonable. Because Ms. Blanchard's inspection report did not identify the children whose records were missing and did not document the date of their enrollment, the evidence is insufficient to prove this violation. Respondent admitted at the hearing that she "was taking a chance" by leaving the children at the facility without her husband, the designated substitute caregiver, being present. Respondent testified that she was gone only 15 minutes to drop one of her children off at school, and that she follows that same routine every day although her husband is usually at the facility while she is gone. After Ms. Blanchard completed her inspection, she discussed the results with Respondent and provided Respondent a copy of the inspection report. Ms. Blanchard then went back to her office and discussed the results of the inspection with her supervisor, Patricia Richardson. Based upon the results of the February 27, 2003, inspection and the history of noncompliance at Respondent's facility (both before and after the provisional license), Ms. Richardson determined that Respondent's license should be revoked. Thereafter, on February 28, 2003, Ms. Richardson sent a letter to Respondent informing her that her license was being revoked and advising Respondent of her right to "appeal" that decision through the administrative process.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Family Services issue a final order revoking Respondent's license to operate a family day care home. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of June, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of June, 2003.
The Issue The issues in this case are: (a) Whether Petitioner's license as a family day care home should be renewed; (b) Whether Petitioner was required to list her son, Stephen Randall, as a household member on her annual registration application for a family day care home for 2000 and 2001; and (c) Whether Stephen Randall was a member of Petitioner's household at any time in 2000 and 2001.
Findings Of Fact Based on the testimony and demeanor of the witnesses and the documentary evidence presented, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner's application for license for a family day care home dated October 20, 1997, was received by Respondent on November 20, 1997. Listed among the "household members" on the application was Petitioner's son, Stephen H. Randall, whose date of birth is March 28, 1981. On January 10, 1998, Petitioner submitted her application for registration for a family day care home; the application was received by Respondent on January 14, 1998. Stephen Randall is also listed as a household member on this application. On January 15, 1998, Respondent wrote a letter to Petitioner acknowledging her desire to withdraw her application for license as a family day care home. On February 18, 1998, Petitioner was registered as a family day care home for one year effective February 28, 1998. The letter advised: To maintain your registration in accordance with Section 402.313, Florida Statutes, you must do the following: * * * (3) Send in background screening forms including fingerprints for household members who become 18 years of age, or for adults who move into your home, or when your substitute changes and has not been screened. On October 26, 1998, Petitioner forwarded a renewal application for registration as a family day care home which listed Stephen Randall as a "household member." As a result of a December 9, 1998, inspection by Respondent, it was determined that an adult who had not been screened was living in the registered day care home and, therefore, Petitioner was notified that screening was to be accomplished "ASAP." On January 12, 1999, Respondent sent Petitioner a Certified Letter reminding her that "Adult members residing in the family day care home must go through a background screening process in accordance with Florida Statutes, " On January 28, 1999, Petitioner telephoned Respondent indicating that she "changed her mind about daycare." This telephone call was followed by a letter from Respondent to Petitioner dated January 29, 1999, indicating, "Per your request January 28, 1999, we have withdrawn your Family Day Care license application and closed your registration effective this date." On April 9, 1999, Petitioner submitted an original registration application which listed her 18-year-old son, Stephen Randall, as living in the home which was to become the registered family day care home. On July 6, 1999, Petitioner, by letter, advised Respondent that "My son Stephen H. Randall is no longer living with me (Maxine Torres)." On July 20, 1999, Respondent mailed Petitioner a letter advising that "The Department of Children & Family Services has registered your Family Day Care Home for one year effective July 30, 1999." The letter also advised Petitioner of the necessity of advising Respondent when unscreened adults move into the home in the same language as contained in paragraph 4, supra. On September 23, 1999, Respondent sent Petitioner a Certified Letter which stated: We have received your letter dated July 7, 1999 in reference to your son, Stephen Randale [sic], moving out of your home. Should he return, he must be background screened within ten (10) days. Please remember that all household members must be screened in accordance with F.S. Section 202.303 and 402.305. Failure to do so in a timely manner may result in administrative action, which could result in a fine, suspension, or revocation. On October 31, 2000, the Circuit Court in and for Orange County, Florida, in Case Number CR-O-00-4737/A adjudicated Stephen Henry Randall, Petitioner's son, guilty of violating the following criminal statutes: Subsections 806.13(1)(b)1, 810.02(3), and 812.014(2)(c)5, Florida Statutes, two of which offenses are felonies, and sentenced him to one day in jail and three years' probation. Stephen Randall had been arrested in April 2000 for the criminal offenses he committed. The offenses occurred at a residence two residences away from Petitioner's home, the registered family day care home. Petitioner submitted an application for re-licensure dated May 14, 2000, in which she was required to disclose the name of "everyone who lives in your home." By signing the application, Petitioner attested that the information on the application was "truthful, correct, and complete." Stephen Randall was not listed as living or residing at Petitioner's home. Respondent's investigators and independent witnesses presented credible testimony indicating that Stephen Randall was residing in Petitioner's residence (the registered day care home) during the calendar year 2000. In particular, an abuse report of an incident in January 2000, indicates that Petitioner reported that she "left her teenage son in the home" purportedly to supervise the children left in Petitioner's care; in June 2000, Petitioner again told an investigator, that if she wasn't there her son, Stephen Randall, her daughter or husband watch the children. In addition, independent witnesses, whose children were at the day care home, reported repeatedly seeing Stephen Randall there. Stephen Randall was living in the residence of Petitioner, which was a registered day care home, during the calendar year 2000 and had not been screened as required by Florida Statutes because Petitioner did not advise Respondent that he had returned and was residing in the home. Respondent investigated two Florida Protective Services abuse hotline complaints against Petitioner and determined the complaints to be well-founded. In both instances, Petitioner failed to properly supervise children left in her care and, as a result, failed to ensure the safety of the children. Independent witnesses confirmed the abuse hotline complaints and presented other complaints, all confirming that Petitioner failed to properly supervise children left in her care and failed to ensure their safety.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Family Services deny Petitioner's application for re-licensure of her family day care home. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of May, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JEFF B. CLARK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of May, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard Cato, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 400 West Robinson Street Suite S-1106 Orlando, Florida 32801-1782 James Sweeting, III, Esquire 506 West Washington Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Paul Flounlacker, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204B Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Josie Tomayo, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue in this matter is whether the Department of Children and Families should deny Respondent’s application for registration as a family day care home.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with regulating providers that are licensed or registered as family day care homes. Family day care homes must register annually with the Department. See § 402.313(1)(a), Fla. Stat. Respondent is owned and operated by Cherrie Scally. Ms. Scally has registered Respondent as a family day care home since 1997. In or about August 2015, Ms. Scally filed an application with the Department to renew Respondent’s registration as a family day care home for 2016. Respondent's registration for 2015 expired on October 30, 2015. Upon receiving Ms. Scally’s application, the Department reviewed whether to renew Respondent’s registration as a family day care home. As part of its determination, the Department examined the Florida Central Abuse Hotline Records Search (“CAHRS”). In CAHRS, the Department identified an Investigative Summary involving Respondent that verified a finding of “inadequate supervision” in March 2015. Based on the CAHRS Investigative Summary, the Department issued an Administrative Complaint in November 2015, revoking Respondent’s registration as a family day care home.2/ The Department determined that it could no longer approve Respondent’s registration “based on the verified finding of inadequate supervision.” The CAHRS resulted from an incident that allegedly occurred on March 5, 2015. On March 6, 2015, the Central Abuse Hotline received an anonymous phone call reporting an injury to a child at Respondent’s family day care home. A four-year-old girl who attended Respondent’s family day care home reported to her mother that another child had hurt her.3/ Jessica Baloy, a child protective investigator with the Department, was assigned to investigate the incident. Her duties include investigating facilities regarding complaints of child abuse and neglect. Ms. Baloy prepared the CAHRS Investigative Summary. Ms. Baloy visited Respondent's family day care home on March 9, 2015, to investigate the allegation. Ms. Scally informed Ms. Baloy that she had no knowledge of how or when the child was injured. Ms. Scally did not learn of the incident until the child’s mother called her the evening after the child was picked up. Ms. Scally thought that the incident may have occurred in her “playroom” while she was in her kitchen either cleaning up another child or preparing snacks.4/ During her visit, Ms. Baloy found that the part of Ms. Scally’s home used for childcare consists of two rooms, a “playroom” and a kitchen. The rooms are located next to each other, but a wall separates them. Ms. Baloy observed that the wall obstructs the view between the playroom (where the injury allegedly occurred) and the kitchen where Ms. Scally believes she was located at the time of the incident. Ms. Scally admitted to Ms. Baloy that, while she is able to hear the children in the playroom from the kitchen, she is unable to see directly from the kitchen into the playroom. In her investigation, Ms. Baloy reported that the child had “no indicator” of physical injury. In other words, Ms. Baloy did not find evidence to suggest the child had sustained an injury. Ms. Baloy personally interviewed the child and did not observe any discomfort or physical injuries. Ms. Baloy also received information from the child’s mother that a doctor had examined the child and determined that she had not suffered any trauma, just “some irritation.” The child’s mother decided that no further medical treatment or examination was needed. In her Investigative Summary, Ms. Baloy reported that “[o]bservations of the home daycare were positive that it was not hazardous for the children.” Ms. Baloy also declared that Ms. Scally “once notified by a parent completed the proper notifications needed in regards to this incident.” However, Ms. Baloy did have “some concerns in regards to supervision.” She found that when Ms. Scally was working/standing in her kitchen, she could not view the children in the playroom. Consequently, if something bad happened, she would not be able to see it. Also during her visit to Respondent, Ms. Baloy observed 11 children in Respondent’s facility. Consequently, Respondent was over capacity by one child. (As discussed below, family day care homes are restricted to a maximum of ten children at one time.) After her visit, Ms. Baloy closed her investigation with “verified findings for inadequate supervision.” Ms. Baloy was not aware of any prior investigations involving Respondent. Dinah Davis is the policy supervisor for the Department’s Office of Childcare Regulation. Her responsibilities include approving applications for family day care home registrations with Samantha Wass de Czege, the Department’s Director for the Office of Childcare Regulation. Ms. Davis expressed that the Department was concerned with Ms. Baloy’s Investigative Summary because the finding of “inadequate supervision” indicated that Ms. Scally left the children unattended outside of her direct supervision. The Department’s “rule of thumb” regarding supervision is that a caregiver must be within “sight and sound of the children and [be] able to respond to emergency situations.” Ms. Davis expressed that a constant sightline is crucial to allow the caregiver to respond to and prevent an emergency or potentially harmful situation. Adequate “sight” supervision means that children should be at least within the caregiver’s peripheral vision. In addition, Ms. Davis explained that, by statute, no family day care home is allowed to care for more than ten children at one given time. Ms. Davis referred to section 402.310 as the Department’s authority to deny Ms. Scally’s application. Although section 402.310 allows the Department to place a family day care home registration on probation status, Ms. Davis stated that the Department did not consider the option to place Respondent on probation. Ms. Wass de Czege also testified regarding the Department’s decision to revoke (deny) Respondent’s application for registration. Ms. Wass de Czege stated that the Department’s action was based on the child protective investigator’s findings of “inadequate supervision” and overcapacity. Ms. Wass de Czege agreed with Ms. Davis that supervision in a family day care home requires “direct sight and hearing of the children at all times” so that the caregiver is “able to respond to meet the needs of the children.” Ms. Wass de Czege explained that based on the floor design of Ms. Scally’s home, “she could not have the children in her sight. So, she was not meeting that parameter of the definition of supervision.” Ms. Wass de Czege explained that the Department’s definition of “inadequate supervision” for family day care homes is found in Florida Administrative Code Chapters 65C-22 and 65C-20.5/ Ms. Wass de Czege also remarked that having more than ten children in care at a family day care home is considered overcapacity. Therefore, having 11 children present in the home at the time of Ms. Baloy’s visit caused Respondent to be out of compliance with the governing regulation. Ms. Wass de Czege also conveyed that registration of a family day care home is basically a paper process. The applicant submits the paperwork. The Department checks off the information listed in section 402.313(1)(a). If approved, the applicant can care for children. Ms. Wass de Czege commented that, because of a lack of manpower and resources, a registered family day care home is not subject to routine inspections by the Department. Consequently, the Department has little regulatory oversight of Ms. Scally’s home. Based on its review of the CAHRS, the Department determined that Respondent failed the background check necessary to register as a family day care home for 2016. Ms. Scally testified on behalf of Respondent at the final hearing. Ms. Scally has operated her family day care home since 1997. She has successfully registered with the state every year since then. She cares greatly for the children entrusted to her. This current matter is the first issue she has encountered regarding her registration. Regarding the incident on March 5, 2015, Ms. Scally did not learn that a child may have been harmed at her home until the child’s parent called her that evening to report an injury. The parent relayed that her daughter told her that another child had poked her in a sensitive area, drawing blood. Upon learning of the injury, Ms. Scally immediately took action. That evening, she spoke with the parents of both children involved to make sure all parties were aware of the situation. The next morning, Ms. Scally called the injured child’s parent back to inquire of her well-being. Ms. Scally also contacted her own pediatrician seeking advice on the situation. Ms. Scally offered to arrange for her pediatrician to examine the child. Ms. Scally herself was the anonymous caller reporting the incident to the Central Abuse Hotline.6/ She called the abuse hotline on the next morning. (The CAHRS Investigative Summary notes that the call was received on March 6, 2015, at 10:38 a.m.) Ms. Scally called the abuse hotline because she knew reporting the injury was the proper and legally required step to take. Ms. Scally commented that the Department would not have learned of the incident but for her phone call. Ms. Scally conceded that, when she is standing in her kitchen, she does not have a direct line of sight with the children in her playroom. Consequently, Ms. Scally admitted that if the child was injured in the playroom while she was in the kitchen, the child was out of her sight for a short period of time. On the other hand, Ms. Scally asserts that she can always hear her children from the kitchen. Furthermore, no child is ever out of her eyesight for more than a couple of moments. Ms. Scally also represented that she has taken steps to ensure that she can maintain “sight and sound” supervision over her children in the future. She has purchased a mirror to place in the hallway between the playroom and the kitchen. This mirror allows her to see into either room from the other. Ms. Scally stated that in her 19 years of childcare, she has never had any incidents in her family day care home. Ms. Scally acknowledged that she might have had 11 children in her care on the occasion of Ms. Baloy’s visit to her home on March 9, 2015. Ms. Scally explained that it was likely during a “transition” period as her children were being picked up and dropped off and was not a regular occurrence or for an extended period of time. Based on this incident, Ms. Scally asserts that she will be extra cautious about the interactions between the children in her care. Ms. Scally presented testimony from several parents whom she serves. They each asserted that Respondent provides a valuable service, and they trust her with their children in her home. Mia Carla Hagins placed her daughter with Respondent from 2009 through 2014. Ms. Hagins testified that Ms. Scally ensures safety, nurturing, and care for the children she supervises. Thomas Breck placed two children with Ms. Scally from 1996 through 2000. Mr. Breck testified that Ms. Scally provided excellent care and demonstrated complete professionalism. Mizanne Brown placed her child with Ms. Scally for ten years. Ms. Brown testified that Ms. Scally was fabulous, nice, and wonderful. Ms. Scally also produced 26 letters of recommendation from parents and teachers of children for whom she has cared. Ms. Scally asserted that these letters show how positively her community views her, her home, and her childcare services. Based on the competent substantial evidence presented at the final hearing, the Department failed to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, sufficient grounds to deny Respondent’s application for registration as a family day care home under the provisions of section 402.310. Accordingly, the Department should approve Respondent’s application to register as a family day care home.
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 approving Respondent’s application for registration as a family day care home. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of August, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. BRUCE CULPEPPER 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 2nd day of August, 2016.
The Issue Whether Petitioner's license to operate a family day care home should be disciplined, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the testimony and evidence received at the hearing, the following findings are made: The Parties Petitioner is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating child care facilities, including family day care homes. Petitioner routinely conducts inspections of licensed family day care homes to determine whether the home is in compliance with the applicable statutes and rules. Any problems found during the inspections are noted on a report which is provided to the home's operator immediately following the inspection. When appropriate, the inspection report provides a time frame within which the problems must be corrected. Regular inspections are conducted approximately twice a year. More frequent inspections--monthly or every six weeks-- are conducted on family day care homes which have a provisional license rather than a standard license. Petitioner also conducts inspections in response to complaints it receives, and it has the authority to inspect family day care homes at any time with or without notice. Respondent is the owner and operator of a licensed family day care home located at 2406 Winter Ridge Drive, Auburndale, Florida (hereinafter "Respondent's facility" or "the facility"). Respondent resides at that address as well. Respondent has operated a day care home at the above address for approximately five years, and she has been involved in child care for approximately ten years. Respondent has taken all required training in order to be licensed. As a result, she is, or should be, familiar with the rules regulating family day care homes. Respondent keeps children in her home, and children also play in Respondent's backyard. This area is enclosed by an approximately three and a half foot high chain-link fence. Respondent also owns a one-acre parcel behind her house and yard, which is apparently not fenced. Inspections and Resulting Actions by Petitioner Respondent's facility was inspected on April 16, 2003, and several areas of non-compliance were identified during this inspection. Noted as violations included Petitioner's son and husband who were in the home without a completed background screening on each of them; a fence surrounding the property had protruding chicken wire and was less than four feet in height; children's floor mats were torn and not properly covered; a bathroom sink was missing and needed replacement; no paper towels were in the bathroom for the children; one child's immunization records had expired and one child's required physical examination was out of date; and there were eight preschool children over the age of one year old in the home, where the maximum allowed was six. A re-inspection was conducted on April 23, 2003. On January 22, 2004, Petitioner's inspector Mr. Pickett went to Respondent's family day care home to carry out a routine inspection. Several areas of non-compliance were identified. Ms. Gainey's husband, Jerry Gainey, was staying in the home, but he had no letter on file showing he had been properly screened; there were too many children in the home (three children under 12 months old) when the maximum allowable is two; there were seven preschool children in the home when the maximum allowable is three; hazardous containers, a gas can and a paint can, had been left near the front door easily accessible to small children; a glass sliding door had a metal obstacle that could cause children to trip and fall; and three of the children in the home had no enrollment information on file--even their names and parents' names could not be found or names of anyone to call in case of an emergency. After Pickett completed his inspection, he discussed the results with Respondent and provided Respondent a copy of the inspection report. Pickett then went back to his office and discussed the results of the inspection with his supervisor, Ms. Hamilton. Based upon the results of the January 22, 2004, inspection and the prior incidence of non-compliance at Respondent's facility, Ms. Hamilton determined that Respondent's license should be revoked. Petitioner did not give Respondent an opportunity to bring her home into compliance with the minimum standards in Petitioner's licensing rules and standards. Thereafter, on January 26, 2004, Pickett sent a letter to Respondent informing her that her license was being revoked and advising Respondent of her right to "appeal" that decision through the administrative process. At the hearing, Ms. Hamilton testified that she was particularly concerned about Respondent's repeat violations, namely Respondent's husband not being screened for nearly nine months and the repeated ratio violations, that is, too many children in the home. She characterized these as serious child safety violations. These were the primary reasons she recommended that Respondent's child care license be revoked. Respondent, in her testimony, did not deny committing the violations noted in the inspections of April 16, 2003, and January 22, 2004. However, she did demonstrate that a re-inspection of her facility on April 23, 2003, listed her to be in compliance with all violations listed in the April 16, 2003, report, except for the background screening requirement for her husband. Respondent insisted that her son, Jerry L. Gainey, who is 28 years old, lives down the street from her and does not regularly watch the children in her home. Due to an emergency situation, she was required to leave her home in order to pick up some children from school, and she called upon her son to watch the children until her return. Respondent asserts that her son has not watched the children since that date. Respondent also asserts that her husband, who has had a stroke and is cognitively impaired and walks with the aide of a cane or scooter, does not reside with her full-time but, in fact, lives with his sister in Arkansas. The testimony in regard to her husband's permanent place of resident is not credible, since he was in the home on at least two occasions--April 16, 2003, and January 22, 2004--when it was inspected. It is undisputed that Respondent was not at the facility when Mr. McClary arrived in the early afternoon of April 16, 2003. Her husband and son were watching the children. Respondent's testimony indicated that her husband was physically impaired and not capable of supervising the children. Therefore, only her son was left in charge of the facility and the children that afternoon, and her son was not authorized to supervise the children. As a result, the children were effectively left unsupervised when Respondent left the facility that afternoon. Respondent's testimony is credible, especially when bolstered by her client's testimony, that she is a loving and caring person who goes out of her way to care for the children she keeps in her home. Respondent explained that at the time of the April 16, 2003, inspection, the sink was missing because the entire bathroom was being renovated, and the renovation has been complete for some time. Respondent also stated that she did not understand the need for Petitioner's insistence on strict compliance with the four-foot height requirement for the chain- link fence, especially since she owns the one-acre parcel in the back of her yard. Respondent also explained that the reason she had exceeded the maximum allowable number of children in her home on two occasions was concern for the custodial parents' inability to find suitable child care when they worked odd hours or the swing shift and that she was willing to inconvenience herself in order to provide this service. This testimony was corroborated by several parents and grandparents who testified in Petitioner's behalf. The evidence is clear and convincing that Respondent violated several code provisions, including failure to properly screen her husband, having too many children in the home, and failure to have current enrollment on file for each child. The evidence is not clear and convincing that Respondent violated the code provisions relating to minimum fence height requirements; improper floor mats; failure to have a functioning sink in the children's bathroom; no paper towels in the bathroom for the children; expiration of a child's shot records or that a child's physical examination was outdated. Respondent has shown mitigating evidence that she is a concerned and loving caregiver which demonstrates that her license as a family day care home license should not be revoked.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Family Services issue a final order as follows: Finding Petitioner guilty of violating the provisions of Florida Administrative Code Rules 65C-20.009(3)(a) (one count), 65C-20.010(1)(b) (one count), and 65C-20.011(4); and Subsection 402.032(7), Florida Statutes (two counts). Finding Petitioner not guilty of violating the provisions of Florida Administrative Code Rules 65C-20.010(1)(o), 65C-20.010(1)(f), and 65C-20.011(1) and (2)(a). Issuing Respondent a provisional license and imposing an administrative fine of $250.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of June, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of June, 2004.
The Issue Whether Respondent, Mildred Jones, doing business as Jones Family Day Care (Jones or Respondent), committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated May 29, 2012, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, Respondent operated a licensed day care facility located in Orange County, Florida. On the date of the attempted inspection in this case, Respondent had six children enrolled in her day care program. Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility of licensing and inspecting day care facilities throughout the State of Florida. As part of that responsibility, Petitioner routinely inspects day care facilities to assure compliance with rules and regulations that govern day care programs. On May 4, 2012, Petitioner’s agent, Luz Torres, inspected Respondent’s home. This was not Ms. Torres’ first visit to the home and, like all other visits, she approached the front door during regular business hours and knocked. Upon knocking, Ms. Torres was greeted by a female voice behind the door who advised that she could not let Ms. Torres into the home. The female, later identified as Christine Randall, refused Ms. Torres admission even after the inspector advised that it was required by law. Despite her efforts to enter the home, Ms. Torres was denied access. Ms. Torres could hear the sounds of children within the home but could not from outside the front door determine the identity or number of the voices. Ms. Randall did not advise Ms. Torres that Ms. Jones was in the rear of the property. Ms. Randall did not direct Ms. Torres to go to the rear of the property. Ms. Torres could not view the rear of the property from the front entrance. Ms. Torres’ efforts to reach Ms. Jones by telephone proved fruitless. Ms. Randall has not been screened or had a background check in years. Ms. Randall was not listed as a substitute caregiver for Respondent’s facility. Ms. Jones’ claim that only Ms. Randall’s two children were present on the date Ms. Torres attempted entrance has not been deemed credible. Ms. Jones also claimed Ms. Randall was present helping her prepare for her inspection. Had only two children been present, Ms. Randall could have easily admitted Ms. Torres, had her observe that the home was being prepared for inspection without other children present, and addressed her role as helper to Ms. Jones with only her own children present in the home. Instead, Ms. Randall denied access to the home and failed to direct Ms. Torres to the rear of the property (presuming Ms. Jones was, in fact, there). Ms. Wright’s suggestion that only Ms. Randall’s children were present on the date in question has not been deemed persuasive as Ms. Wright did not enter the home on that date, did not view the home for the entire time, and does not routinely know who is or is not in the home from her vantage as Respondent’s neighbor and friend.
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 Respondent committed a Class I violation and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $250.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of October, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. D. PARRISH 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 1st day of October, 2012. COPIES FURNISHED: Stefanie C. Beach, Esquire Department of Children and Families Suite S-1129 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801-1782 Mildred Jones Jones Family Day Care Home 5027 Caserta Street Orlando, Florida 32819 Gregory Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Families Building 2, Room 204B 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 David Wilkins, Secretary Department of Children and Families Building 1, Room 202 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Marion Drew Parker, General Counsel Department of Children and Families Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
