Findings Of Fact Funway Learning Center is a child care facility licensed by Petitioner for operation at 735 North Thornton Avenue, Orlando, Florida. The most recent license for operation of the center was issued on June 20, 1994, License Number 694-23, and was valid for all relevant times herein. During all relevant times, Hugette Nelson was the owner/director of the facility. On or about February 21, 1995, Lydia Morris began work at Respondent's facility as a member of the child care personnel staff. As of that date the new employee had not completed a good moral character affidavit, nor submitted a fingerprint card or information sufficient to conduct a local, state or federal criminal records check. On February 21, 1995, personnel from Petitioner conducted a routine inspection of Respondent's facility. Several minor discrepancies were noted which have since been corrected. Staff was requested to produce the employee personnel records for two staff members on duty at the time of the inspection. Staff was either unable or unwilling to do so. The owner/director was not present at the facility at the time of the inspection. On February 21, 1995, Nelson was requested to make an appointment, prior to March 6, 1995, with Petitioner and bring with her the personnel file with the requested forms and information relating to the recent hire. On March 7, 1995, Nelson came to the Petitioner's office for a scheduled visit with the personnel file for Morris but was unable to produce a good moral character affidavit or finger print card for Morris. Morris never completed the required information while employed by Respondent. Morris worked only three days at Respondent's facility, thereafter she called in sick and never returned to work. Her last day on the job was February 24, 1995. Nelson officially terminated her on March 13, 1995. Nelson has since closed the facility. Respondent has received one prior citation in the past for a similar violation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered DISMISSING the Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of October, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of October, 1995. COPIES FURNISHED: James A. Sawyer, Jr., Esq. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 400 West Robinson Street, Suite S-827 Orlando, Florida 32801 Hugette Nelson 2320 Northwest 108 Street Miami, Florida 33168 Robert L. Powell Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Kim Tucker General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issues in the case are whether the suspension of the Petitioner's child care facility license should be terminated, and whether the Petitioner's application for license renewal should be approved.
Findings Of Fact In June 2008, the Petitioner received a license to operate the Royal Family Child Care and Christian Academy. The Petitioner was the sole owner and operator of the facility. Soon after becoming licensed, inspections of the facility revealed operational deficiencies that were revealed during seven inspections, dated October 15, 2008; February 9, 2009; February 25, 2009; March 4, 2009; March 23, 2009; March 27, 2009; and April 3, 2009. The specific deficiencies were set forth on inspection reports provided to the Petitioner at the time of each inspection. During the April 3, 2009, inspection, the Petitioner voluntarily relinquished the license for the facility. Shortly thereafter, the parties apparently entered negotiations regarding the continued operation of the facility. By a settlement agreement (agreement) dated April 7, 2009, the Petitioner admitted the deficiencies noted in the seven inspection reports, and the Respondent returned the license to the Petitioner. The agreement imposed a "30 day suspension" of operations and required the Petitioner to fully comply with relevant requirements of the Florida Administrative Code rules governing operation of child care facilities, to hire a credentialed director to operate the facility, to perform background screening on employees, and to ensure that the employees were properly trained and certified in first-aid/cpr techniques. The agreement also provided for a six-month probationary period to commence upon the expiration of the suspension. Because the agreement provided that the 30-day suspension period could be reduced or enlarged based upon whether or not the Petitioner complied with the requirements in the agreement, the suspension was essentially indefinite, at least until the license expired. The agreement further provided that the Respondent could revoke the license and deny an application for a new license based upon any failure of the Petitioner to comply with the agreement. On April 17, 2009, the Petitioner submitted a request to the Respondent to resume operation of the facility and renew the license and provided various documents to the Petitioner. The Respondent did not submit a current and completed application form. By two separate letters dated April 27, 2009, the Respondent advised the Petitioner that the submission was incomplete. One letter addressed the request to resume operation, and a second letter addressed the renewal request, but there were issues common to both. The letters specifically identified the information to be submitted, including: information related to background screening and central abuse registry records searches; employment histories, training documentation, credentials, and fingerprint cards for specified staff members; corporate documentation; fire, food, and health inspection documentation; documentation that the deficiencies referenced in the April 7, 2009, agreement had been corrected; and a completed application on a current form. Both letters advised that assistance was available and provided a telephone number for a child care licensing counselor to respond to questions. By letter dated May 15, 2009, the Respondent advised the Petitioner that the deficiencies referenced in the agreement had not been corrected and that the suspension of the facility's license remained in effect. The letter explicitly noted the remaining deficiencies in staff documentation and the facility itself and advised that technical assistance was available to assist in "understanding the rules and regulations" relevant to the facility. On May 26, 2009, the Petitioner submitted additional information to the Respondent. By two separate letters dated June 3, 2009, the Respondent advised the Petitioner that the submission remained incomplete. The letters identified the information to be submitted, including: information related to background screening, employment histories, and training documentation for specified staff members; corporate documentation; and a completed application form. The Respondent also noted that vehicle inspection and registration information was required, as well as payment of current and delinquent licensure fees. Both letters again advised that assistance was available and provided the telephone number for the child care licensing counselor. On June 11, 2009, the Petitioner submitted another renewal application and information in response to the deficiencies identified in the April 7, 2009, agreement. On June 16, 2009, the Respondent conducted an inspection to determine compliance with the agreement and for the purposes of the license renewal application. The inspection revealed that employee documentation, including employment applications, hire dates, histories, and background screening, was not available. Such documentation was specifically required by the terms of the agreement as well as for renewal of the license. In addition to the lack of background information on employees, the inspection revealed other problems at the facility. There was no shade available in the outdoor play area. The swing set s-hooks were open, and the plastic coating on the chains was missing, presenting the possibility of injury to children. A "Little-Tykes" play-set was located against a fence, providing the possibility of escape by a child climbing over the fence from atop the play-set. The water fountain was not securely attached to the wall and, despite an attempt to correct the deficiency during the inspection, could not be repaired. A child could have pulled the water fountain away from the wall and caused injury. Some floor mats provided for napping were torn, and the interior foam was exposed, preventing adequate sanitation and presenting a health hazard to children sleeping on the mats. The First-Aid kit located in the facility was incomplete and was missing various items, including a thermometer. Medical supplies, including various creams and ointments, were stored in an open area under a changing table less than one foot above the floor. A child could access and ingest the supplies. The inspection also noted the absence of daily attendance sheets used to account for children present at the facility; however, because the license had been suspended, the facility had not been in operation, and no children had been present. At the hearing, the Petitioner testified that there had been attempts to comply with the Respondent's requirements, but that the requirements were unclear. She opined that she should have been provided assistance to understand what was necessary to re-open the facility and renew the license. At all times material to this case, the Respondent provided assistance to licensees and applicants through personal contacts and various workshops, and such assistance was available to the Petitioner. The Petitioner registered for, but did not attend, several workshops related to licensure and operation of child care facilities. Additionally, the Petitioner was specifically advised as to the documentation necessary to comply with the agreement and failed to submit the materials.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner's request to terminate the suspension of the child care facility license and for renewal of the license be denied. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of December, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of December, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Tesha S. Ballou, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 400 West Robinson Street, Suite S-1114 Orlando, Florida 32801 Jacqueline Ritchie Royal Family Child Care and Christian Academy 1440 Pine Hills Road Orlando, Florida 32808 Gregory Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204B 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John J. Copelan, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 George H. Sheldon, Secretary Department of Children and Family Services Building 1, Room 202 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Whether level 2 screening pursuant to Section 435.07, Florida Statutes (2003), mandates denial of an application of a potential foster parent who has a prior DUI-manslaughter conviction.
Findings Of Fact Based upon observation of the witness and his demeanor while testifying in person and the documentary materials received in evidence, official recognition granted, evidentiary rulings during the final hearing, and the entire record complied herein, the following relevant and material facts are found: Petitioner, D.S., applied to become licensed as a foster parent with the Department on July 11, 2003. However, Petitioner is not seeking nor requesting that the Department assign foster children to his home, should his application be granted. Petitioner is seeking to become the foster parent of his nephew, C.N.L., a 16-year-old male. After the death of his mother, more than five years ago, C.N.L. was moved in with Petitioner who has continuously provided shelter, supervision, care, and support for his nephew. Petitioner is now seeking to become the foster parent of his nephew because C.N.L. is the age (16) where "authority of a parent or guardian" will be necessarily required in his future. Other than Petitioner, C.N.L. has no other known relatives and has not been adjudicated or declared a dependent child pursuant to Section 39.507, Florida Statutes (2003). There is no other pending action by the Department regarding this minor child except the issue under consideration in this cause. The Family Profile form submitted by Petitioner detailed his current family information. Therein, Petitioner listed himself, white male, divorced, as prospective parent 1, and Daniel Walrad, white male, single, as prospective parent 2. Petitioner included therein, and acknowledged at the hearing, that as the result of one automobile accident that occurred on December 17, 1989, of which Petitioner was the driver, the passenger in the vehicle died. As a result, Petitioner was found guilty and convicted of a felony. Law enforcement did not arrest Petitioner at the time of this accident but charged Petitioner with felony DUI-manslaughter. With private counsel, Petitioner entered a nolo contendere plea to the charge of "homicide"-negligent vehicle manslaughter, Section 316.193, Florida Statutes (1989). The Circuit Court, Ninth Judicial Circuit, Orange County, Florida, accepted the plea of Petitioner, entered an adjudication of guilt, and convicted Petitioner on the charge. The Court sentenced Petitioner to and he successfully completed five years of probation and two years of community control. Petitioner, as a demonstration of his remorse and rehabilitation, has not drunk alcohol since the accident 13 years ago. As evidence of his commitment to caring for his nephew, Petitioner is currently attending Model Approach to Partnership in Parenting (MAPP) classes that are required for potential foster parents. Petitioner, with the understanding that C.N.L. has not been declared a "depending child" and is, therefore, not registered in the Department's system as a dependent child, concluded that he is free to and would, should the Department deny his foster parent application, move his current family, including C.N.L., to the State of New Hampshire. The above Findings of Fact are undisputed by either party to this proceeding.
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 denying the application of Petitioner, D.S., to be licensed as a foster parent. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of December, 2003, 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 December, 2003.
The Issue At issue is whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalties should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Department is authorized to regulate child care facilities pursuant to sections 402.301-402.319, Florida Statutes. Section 402.311 authorizes the Department to inspect licensed child care facilities. Section 402.310 authorizes the Department to take disciplinary action against child care facilities for violations of sections 402.301-402.319. Tiny Blessings is a child care facility operating pursuant to License Number C04DU0799. The facility is located at 4932 Blanding Boulevard, Jacksonville, Florida. Lawanda Jackson is the owner of Tiny Blessings. Jacqueline King is a family service counselor for the Department's child care licensing program. She is charged with inspecting day care facilities. Ms. King has worked for the Department for over 20 years. In addition to five years in her current position, Ms. King has worked as a child protective investigator on sexual abuse cases and has served as a juvenile probation officer. Ms. King conducted the inspections of Tiny Blessings that are at issue in this case. Count I On October 6, 2010, Ms. King conducted an inspection of Tiny Blessings. The facility's records appeared to show that employee Monalisa Tedtaotao had been hired on September 3, 2010, but that her background screening had not been completed until September 27, 2010. Ms. King noted that the facility's records indicated that Ms. Tedtaotao's 40-hour training program began on September 3, 2010. Ms. Tedtaotao testified she began work at Tiny Blessings on September 27, 2010, the day the background screening was completed. Ms. Jackson was adamant that Ms. Tedtaotao did not begin work at Tiny Blessings until September 27, 2010. She believed that Ms. King either mistook the date on Ms. Tedtaotao's job application for her starting date, or was intentionally misstating the facts in order to stack the alleged violations and close down Tiny Blessings.2/ The Department produced no witness who actually saw Ms. Tedtaotao working at Tiny Blessings prior to September 27, 2010. The only document in evidence showing the date of September 3, 2010, was created by Ms. King as part of her inspection report. It is noted that Ms. Jackson produced no payroll records or other evidence to verify Ms. Tedtaotao's starting date. As to Count I, the Department proved at most that Tiny Blessings' recordkeeping was inadequate. The Department did not prove that Ms. Tedtaotao worked at Tiny Blessings as an unscreened individual. Count II Ms. King testified that, at the time of the October 6, 2010, inspection, employee Tiffany Turner's personnel file was missing a mandatory document: CS-FSP 5131, "Background Screening and Personnel File Requirements" ("Form 5131"). The Department characterized this as a "filing problem," not a situation in which the employee had failed to undergo background screening. Ms. Jackson agreed that a Form 5131 was not in Ms. Turner's personnel file on the date of the inspection. Count III Ms. King testified that on or about October 12, 2010, the Department received a complaint that Ms. Jackson had been arrested for domestic violence but was still working at Tiny Blessings. Ms. King's investigation revealed that Ms. Jackson had been charged with domestic battery in violation of section 784.03(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2010), on October 6, 2010, and had pled no contest to the charge on October 7, 2010. The county court in Jacksonville withheld adjudication and placed Ms. Jackson on 12 months of probation with early termination contingent upon her completion of the Safe Families program and her having no contact with the victim. Under the provisions of section 435.04(3), Florida Statutes (2010), a plea of nolo contendere to an offence that constitutes domestic violence as defined in section 741.28, Florida Statutes, is an offence that disqualifies a person from occupying a position for which a Level 2 Background Screening is required. Ms. King testified that on October 12, 2010, she advised Ms. Jackson that her plea constituted a disqualifying offence. Ms. Jackson did not accept Ms. King's statement. Ms. King put Ms. Jackson on the phone with staff in the Department's background screening office, who confirmed Ms. King's statement. Ms. Jackson testified that she entered her plea only upon the assurance by the court and the assistant state attorney that the domestic violence charge was not a disqualifying offense and the plea would not affect her child care license. On November 3, 2010, Ms. Jackson's counsel filed in the county court a motion to vacate and set aside the judgment. In the motion, counsel stated as follows, in relevant part: The Defendant, by and through her undersigned counsel, raised the issue of the Defendant's fear of losing her daycare license as a result of pleading to the charge of Battery. The State Attorney and the judge both advised the undersigned counsel that the daycare license would not be affected. Upon reliance on same, the Defendant entered a plea of nolo contendere to the charge of Battery and was sentenced on the same day. On or about October 15, 2010, the Defendant was visited by an agent from the Department of Children and Families and advised that due to her plea of no contest to the battery charge and being sentenced on same, the Defendant's daycare license was subject to forfeiture and ineligibility. This came as a result in a change of law that took effect in July 2010 that mandates that either an adjudication of guilt or a withhold [sic] of guilt on a domestic charge, such as Battery, makes the license holder ineligible to run a daycare.3/ As of the date of the hearing in the instant case, the county court had not acted on Ms. Jackson's motion to vacate. On May 24, 2011, the court denied a May 17, 2011 motion filed by Ms. Jackson to "amend the record."4/ The Department sent Ms. Jackson a certified letter, dated December 1, 2010, advising her of her disqualifying offence and of the process contained in chapter 435 for Ms. Jackson to seek an exemption from disqualification. The post office tracking slip indicated that the letter was returned unclaimed on December 31, 2010. Ms. Jackson knew or should have known, no later than December 31, 2010, that she was disqualified from operating a day care facility. Ms. Jackson has never filed an application for an exemption from disqualification. Count IV K.J. is a four-year-old autistic boy. He has a six- year-old sister, A.S. Their mother is Annette Wiggins. K.J. and A.S. attend Oak Hill Elementary School ("Oak Hill"). During the period relevant to this proceeding, K.J. was enrolled in pre-kindergarten and A.S. was in kindergarten. During the latter part of September 2010, K.J. and A.S. were enrolled for day care at Tiny Blessings. Ms. Wiggins would normally drop off K.J. and A.S. at Tiny Blessings, and Tiny Blessings would transport the children to Oak Hill. Two days per week, Ms. Wiggins would pick up the children from school at the end of the day. Three days a week, Tiny Blessings would pick up the children when Oak Hill dismissed its students, and then Ms. Wiggins would pick up the children from Tiny Blessings. K.J.'s teacher at Oak Hill, Amalia Santiago, an autism specialist, testified that at the beginning of the school year, Ms. Wiggins was "heavily dependent" on the day care to provide transportation for the children. Ms. Wiggins works at Point West Cluster, a nursing home. Her regular work hours are from 7:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. Ms. Wiggins did not drop off her children at Oak Hill unless one of the children was sick, she was not working that day, or there was some special occasion. Ms. Wiggins testified that she always let Ms. Jackson and Ms. Santiago know whether she would be taking the children to Oak Hill. Ms. Santiago confirmed that Ms. Wiggins was scrupulous in informing her of the children's transportation arrangements. Ms. Santiago and Ms. Wiggins had a close working relationship because of their mutual concerns with K.J.'s autism. Ms. Santiago testified that in her experience, Ms. Wiggins had never dropped her children off at Oak Hill without personally leaving K.J. with her. Sharon McKahand is K.J.'s grandmother and Ms. Wiggins' mother-in-law. Ms. McKahand was sometimes responsible for picking up K.J. from school or from day care but never for dropping him off in the morning. Nancy Garrett is a fifth grade teacher at Oak Hill. She also is the extended day director at Oak Hill for early and after-school care. Ms. Garrett's responsibilities include overseeing children who are brought to Oak Hill between 7:00 a.m. and 8:05 a.m. because their parents have to go to work early. Ms. Garrett stated that there were approximately 55 children who stayed in early care during the early part of the 2010-2011 school year. Ms. Garrett is assisted by a paraprofessional named Barbara Johnson. Neither K.J. nor A.S. was enrolled in the early care program at Oak Hill. One day near the end of September 2010,5/ Ms. Garrett found K.J. and A.S. in a hallway at Oak Hill at a time close to 7:00 a.m. The children were not accompanied by an adult. Ms. Garrett did not know the children's names and had no idea how they got there. Philip Gardner, a special education teacher who specialized in autistic children, recognized K.J. and took the children to his classroom. Ms. Garrett noted that it was not quite light outside when the children were dropped off. She was there for early care, and Mr. Gardner was a well-known "early bird," but aside from them, there were very few people on the Oak Hill campus at seven in the morning. Ms. Garrett reasonably believed that because the children were "tiny," and K.J. had special needs, an adult should have been with the children. A couple of days later, Ms. Garrett was at Oak Hill at about the same time in the morning and heard "little knockings going on in the hallway." Upon investigation, she discovered K.J. and A.S. again alone in the hallway. This time, Ms. Garrett took the children to Ms. Santiago's classroom. Ms. Santiago and Ms. Garret asked the children who had dropped them off. K.J.'s language deficits were such that he was unable to answer. A.S. told Ms. Santiago that they had been dropped off by "the day care." Ms. Garrett then informed Ms. Santiago that this was not the first time she had found the children alone in the hallway. Ms. Santiago phoned Ms. Wiggins to alert her that her children had been found roaming the campus unattended and that A.S. said that the day care had dropped them off. Ms. Santiago testified that Ms. Wiggins was "livid" when she learned that her children had been wandering the campus unattended. Ms. Wiggins was at work when Ms. Santiago called her. Because she was unable to leave work to address the issue, Ms. Wiggins contacted Ms. McKahand and asked her to go to Oak Hill and make further inquiries into the situation. Ms. McKahand immediately went to Oak Hill. The receptionist at Oak Hill could not tell Ms. McKahand who had dropped off the children that morning. Ms. McKahand next went to Tiny Blessings. Ms. McKahand testified that Ms. Jackson stated that Tiny Blessings had dropped off the children that morning, but that they had dropped the children off on time and would never drop them off early. Ms. King testified that she learned of this incident while investigating a report that staff of the day care was physically abusive to a school-age child who arrived at Tiny Blessings early in the morning. Ms. King arrived at the day care early on the morning of October 13, 2010, to interview parents as they dropped off their children. She saw Ms. Wiggins dropping off K.J. and A.S. Ms. King noted that A.S. appeared to be of school age. She asked Ms. Wiggins whether the day care was transporting A.S. to school. This was significant to Ms. King because Tiny Blessings had told the Department that it did not provide transportation. Ms. Wiggins told Ms. King that Tiny Blessings had been providing school transportation for both children since the start of the school year. Ms. King then asked Ms. Wiggins if she had any concerns about the care her children received at Tiny Blessings. Ms. Wiggins proceeded to tell Ms. King about her children being dropped off at Oak Hill by Tiny Blessings and later being found wandering in the hallway at the school. Ms. King informed Ms. Wiggins that she would have to make other provisions for the transportation of her children to school, because Tiny Blessings did not have an employee who met the licensing standards to transport children. Ms. Wiggins told Ms. King that in that event she would remove her children from Tiny Blessings. With Ms. Wiggins' permission, Ms. King interviewed A.S., who told Ms. King that "Joe" drove her and K.J. to and from Oak Hill. Joseph Williams is Ms. Jackson's son and an employee of Tiny Blessings. Ms. King interviewed Mr. Williams, who admitted transporting children in his mother's vehicle but denied ever dropping off the children without ensuring they were released to school staff at the curbside pick-up and drop-off location. Ms. Santiago, who assisted in the curbside pick-up, recalled that a "young man" frequently picked up the children after school. Mr. Williams did not testify at the hearing. At the hearing, Ms. Jackson denied that Tiny Blessings ever dropped the children off early. Ms. Jackson testified that on many days the children could not have been dropped off early at school because Ms. Wiggins did not drop them off at Tiny Blessings until around 8:00 a.m. Ms. Jackson introduced Tiny Blessings' parent sign-in sheets for the period from September 20, 2010, through September 29, 2010. On September 20, Ms. Wiggins dropped off the children at 8:04 a.m. On September 21, 2010, Ms. Wiggins dropped off the children at 8:11 a.m. On September 22, Ms. Wiggins dropped off A.S. at 7:59 a.m.; the sheet indicated that K.J. was not dropped off at the day care. On September 23, the date that Ms. Santiago believed to be the second date on which the children were found wandering the school, Ms. Wiggins dropped off the children at 7:09 a.m. On Friday, September 24, Ms. Wiggins dropped off the children at 7:04 a.m. On Monday, September 27, Ms. Wiggins dropped off the children at 7:36 a.m. On September 28, Ms. Wiggins dropped off the children at 8:02 a.m. On September 29, Ms. Wiggins dropped off the children at 7:11 a.m. Ms. Jackson testified that on days when the children were brought to Tiny Blessings at around seven, they were given breakfast at the day care before being transported to Oak Hill. On days when Ms. Wiggins was running late, Ms. Jackson would drive the children directly to school. School staff persons would be waiting at the curb to take the children from the vehicle. Ms. Jackson testified that she had one child whom she had to pick up from the child's home no later than 7:30 a.m. By the time she returned to the day care at around 7:45, it would be time to transport school-age children such as A.S. Ms. Jackson stated that, within the strictures of her morning schedule, it would make no sense for her to drive K.J. and A.S. to school before 7:45 a.m. Ms. Jackson testified that on the days in question, Ms. Wiggins must have dropped the children off at school herself. She noted that on September 22, Ms. Wiggins had not dropped both children off at Tiny Blessings because K.J. was sick. It is problematic that the Department could not definitely state the dates on which K.J. and A.S. were dropped off at the school. However, the Department has proven facts sufficient to establish Tiny Blessings' responsibility for the incident. Ms. Garrett and Ms. Santiago were absolutely clear that both K.J. and A.S. had been dropped off early at Oak Hill and been found wandering the halls of the school. Ms. Garrett witnessed this situation twice within a few days. These teachers had no motive to invent such a story. Ms. Santiago testified as to the shock and anger registered by Ms. Wiggins when she learned that her children had been found wandering the school, and that Ms. Wiggins always came in and spoke to her when she dropped off her children at the school. Ms. Wiggins' testimony was credible and consistent with Ms. Santiago's observations. Ms. Jackson's own records established that Ms. Wiggins left both children at Tiny Blessings on each weekday morning between September 20 and 29, with the exception of September 22, when only A.S. was left at Tiny Blessings. Therefore, Ms. Wiggins could not have dropped off the children at Oak Hill at around 7:00 a.m. on any of those mornings. The children could only have been left at Oak Hill by Ms. Jackson or some agent of Tiny Blessings.6/ The Department did not prove that the children were dropped off at the school by Mr. Williams. The hearsay statements of Mr. Williams and A.S. are the only evidence supporting a finding that Mr. Williams drove the children to school. Though she denied that anyone at Tiny Blessings would ever drop off the children without supervision, Ms. Jackson testified that she did most of the driving in the mornings. Mr. Williams drove mostly in the afternoons, picking up the children from Oak Hill. Counts V, VI, and VII Ms. King followed up her October 13, 2010, investigation with a visit to Tiny Blessings on October 14. During the follow up visit, Ms. King observed an individual named Trameka Monroe supervising the one-year-old children. Ms. King did not recognize Ms. Monroe and requested to see her personnel folder. The personnel folder showed no documentation that Ms. Monroe had undergone an employment history check, a part of the background screening the Department requires of child care personnel. Also, Ms. Monroe's folder contained no documentation of the required FBI/FDLE criminal records clearance. Ms. Jackson testified that Ms. Monroe had obtained background screening and that her local law enforcement clearance and FDLE/FBI clearance had been completed on October 13, 2010. She introduced a document produced by the Department stating that it had received Ms. Monroe's complete criminal history records and found nothing that would disqualify her from working for Tiny Blessings. The letter stated: "RESULTS VALID AS OF: 10/13/2010." However, the document also stated: "PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT CHECKS WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THE DETERMINATION/PROCESS." No evidence was presented that Ms. Monroe's background screening was ever fully completed. Ms. Jackson did not provide an employment history for Ms. Monroe. Ms. Jackson testified that Ms. Monroe was so anxious to start work at Tiny Blessings that she personally went to the Department's office on October 13 to have her background check completed. Ms. Jackson stated that the morning of October 14 was Ms. Monroe's first day on the job, and that it was a coincidence that this was the day Ms. King arrived at the facility. Ms. Monroe did not testify at the hearing. In the absence of any information in the personnel file confirming the status of Ms. Monroe's background screening, Ms. King instructed Ms. Monroe to leave the premises, which she did. Ms. Jackson testified that Ms. Monroe never came back "because of how rude Ms. King was." Ms. King also observed that the personnel file for employee Sarra Brown was incomplete. Ms. Brown had been employed previously at Tiny Blessings, but at some point she had been terminated and then rehired. Ms. Jackson provided no records to show the dates of the prior employment or how many days elapsed from the day Ms. Brown was fired to the date she was rehired. Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C- 22.006(4)(e)6. provides that child care personnel must be re- screened following a break in employment in the child care industry that exceeds 90 days. Because Ms. Brown's file lacked an employment history, Ms. King was not able to determine whether or for how long Ms. Brown had been out of the day care industry. Ms. King required Ms. Brown to leave the premises. The personnel files of both Ms. Monroe and Ms. Brown were missing completed Form 5131 and CS-FSP 5337, "Child Abuse & Neglect Reporting Requirements" ("Form 5337"). Ms. Monroe's file lacked the forms entirely; Ms. Brown's forms were incomplete. Ms. Brown later completed the forms in her file. Ms. Monroe did not complete the forms, possibly because she never came back to Tiny Blessings after Ms. King directed her to leave on October 14.
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 imposing a fine of $1,225.00 upon Lawanda Jackson d/b/a Tiny Blessings, and suspending License Number C04DU0799 until such time as the Department grants Lawanda Jackson an exemption from disqualification pursuant to section 435.07, Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of December, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 December, 2011.
