The Issue May Respondent, Department of Children and Families (the Department), deny the application for a renewal license of the Petitioner, Daddy's Daycare Early Learning Academy, Inc. (Daddy's Daycare)?
Findings Of Fact Daddy’s Daycare is a child daycare facility licensed by the Department. Lonnie Caldwell is the owner, operator, and director of Daddy’s Daycare. On March 25, 2015, D.T., a three-year-old child, was a student at Daddy’s Daycare, along with two siblings. She and her siblings were also foster children of Mr. Caldwell and his wife. On March 25, 2015, Mr. Caldwell and his wife were leaving the facility to take D.T. and other children to lunch. They were in the driveway of Daddy’s Daycare. D.T. did not want to go and threw herself down in a tantrum of resistance. Mr. Caldwell dragged D.T. down the driveway to the car, spanked her, and forcibly pushed her into the car. Mr. Caldwell’s rough treatment of D.T. abraded both her knees and bruised her legs. Photographs and testimony about direct observations establish the damage to D.T.’s knees and legs described in finding five. D.T. had other injuries. But the nature and cause of them were not established by persuasive evidence. Hearsay reports from observers lunching across the street from Daddy’s Daycare described the facts found in findings three and four. Mr. Caldwell’s statements, consistent and inconsistent, corroborate the observers’ hearsay. In a March 26, 2015, interview, Mr. Caldwell agreed that he and his wife were leaving to take children to lunch on March 25, 2015, at about the same time the observers reported seeing him drag D.T. across the driveway. He also agreed that D.T. threw herself to the ground. Mr. Caldwell denied dragging D.T. across the driveway. He did not mention anyone other than himself, his wife, and the children being in the driveway. Given the opportunity, Mr. Caldwell did not offer an explanation for D.T.’s injuries, although she spent the majority of her time with him either as a daycare student or as his foster child. His testimony at the hearing differed significantly. Mr. Caldwell was also evasive and made repeated references to knowing people were watching. This leads to a conclusion that he was trying to conceal information. At the hearing, Mr. Caldwell said that D.T. ran outside to the play area when she learned they were leaving for lunch. He says his son carried her to the car. This is one example of Mr. Caldwell’s testimony: I said, come on D. So when I told her that, D. immediately got off the swing but she dropped on the -- we have mulch on the field. So she just dropped to the ground and she was having one of her tantrums. I have an 11 year old son which was about to approach her. I said stop, Tim. I said stop right there. And I told my 15 year old because I knew that he wasn’t strong enough and my back was bothering so I just told my 15 year old, walk over there and pick D. up. I said because we are very visible. We don’t know who’s watching the center. And I don’t want any misconstrues. So I said, do not pull on her, pick her up and walk with her. So he did. He picked her up. I already went outside. You have to go through a gate. The vehicles are right up against the gate and on the grass area. Once he exit the – the gate with D., she’s still wailing and crying. I said give her to me. So he gave her to me. And when he gave her to me, she had mulch all over her – her pants and stuff so I had her face and back and I was just dusting the mulch off because I didn’t want her to sit on it because some of it is pretty prickly. So I made sure that all the mulch was off of her. And then I placed her in her car seat. She was still wailing because she does not like to be confined. But when D. sees that she has to get in her car seat, you don’t have to get a block away, she calms down completely. A totally different baby. She’s all calm. I said, see, that wasn’t bad at all. Was it? (Tr. pp.196-197) Mr. Caldwell’s March statements differ significantly from his testimony at the hearing in January 2016. The differences are not little “passage of time” sorts of discrepancies. In March he did not mention his two sons being present; he did not claim that D.T. was in the play area; he did not claim anyone else had touched D.T. Mr. Caldwell’s claim that at the time he expressed concern that someone may be watching and nobody should do anything that would be “misconstrued” persuasively indicates that he was trying to defensively adapt his testimony to fit other evidence. Altogether, the hearsay reports, Mr. Caldwell’s testimony, photographs of D.T.’s knees and legs, and Mr. Caldwell’s conflicting March statements are persuasive, clear, and convincing evidence that he dragged D.T. across the driveway, spanked her, and threw her in the car and has been trying to conceal those facts. These facts also resulted in an investigation concluding with a verification of physical abuse of D.T. by Mr. Caldwell. Visits by Department employees during the course of the investigation of the March 25 incident revealed several other licensing violations including: insufficient staff, inadequate supervision, roaches crawling on a table, peeling paint, an unplugged electrical outlet, hazardous materials (including cleaning supplies and a knife) available to the children, improper assembly of playpens (making them a danger to the children), failure to conduct a March fire drill, an improperly anchored swing set, bolts protruding from playground equipment, broken equipment, unsecured medication menu not posted, unlabeled bottles and “sippy cups”, incomplete personnel records, and failure to properly record attendance. The Department also asserted that employees used physical discipline or the threat of it. The Department did not prove this by non-hearsay evidence. The evidence is insufficient to prove the claims. § 120.57(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (2015).1 On July 25, 2014, Daddy’s Daycare was in violation of many licensing requirements. Its staffing was insufficient, and it was not providing the children sufficient supervision. Daddy’s Daycare also had not properly recorded children’s attendance, had not documented level 2 background screening for some employees, had not documented required staff training, and had not documented the employment history for some employees. In addition, on July 25, 2014, Daddy’s Daycare did not have the required records of all the children’s immunizations. Other violations on July 25, 2014, were not properly sanitizing the diapering surface, rinsing a bottle in the handwashing sink, failure to properly document a volunteer, failure to label the children’s bottles and “sippy cups”, feeding a child using a propped up bottle, and incomplete enrollment information for some children. On August 26 and 27, 2014, Ms. Ebrahimi and Ms. Dukes inspected Daddy’s Daycare. On those days Daddy’s Daycare was again not in compliance with several licensing requirements. Mr. Caldwell and two employees had not completed required in- service training. On the 27th, two infants did not have proper supervision. Toxic substances including bleach, cleaning supplies, and paint were available to the children. So were plastic bags and a knife. The posted emergency contact information was incomplete. Substitutions to the posted menu were not posted. On December 29, 2014, Ms. Dishong inspected Daddy’s Daycare for the Department. Daddy’s Daycare was again in violation of several licensing requirements. The staffing was insufficient. The kitchen was not securely separated from the classroom area. The infant room was not properly secured. Playground equipment was not properly anchored. On April 21, 2015, Daddy’s Daycare did not have the lighting required for a daycare facility.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Department of Children and Families, enter a final order denying renewal of the daycare license of Petitioner, Daddy’s Daycare Early Learning Academy, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of March, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN D. C. NEWTON, II 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 25th day of March, 2016.
The Issue Whether Respondent, a licensed childcare facility, committed a Class I violation related to inadequate supervision of a child as alleged in the Petitioner's Amended Complaint; and, if so, what is the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence presented and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: The parties stipulated to the following facts in their Joint Pre-Hearing Stipulation (paragraphs 1 through 10 below): DCF is an administrative agency of the state of Florida, charged with the duty to enforce and administer the provisions of chapter 402, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rules 65C-22.010 and 65C-20.012. Global Learning operates a licensed childcare facility known as Global Learning of Port Saint Lucie, Inc., located at 4333 Southwest Darwin Boulevard, Port Saint Lucie, Florida 34953. The facility operates under license/ID No. C19SL0139 issued by DCF with a licensed capacity of 132. At all relevant times, Global Learning was regulated by DCF according to, inter alia, the following documents: (i) DCF Child Care Facility Handbook, incorporated by reference in rule 65C-22.001; (ii) CF-FSP Form 5316, Child Care Standards Classification Summary, October 2017, rule 65C22.010(1)(e)1.; (iii) Florida Department of Children and Families Desk Reference Guide, updated July 2018; (iv) section 402.281; (v) section 402.305; (vi) section 402.310; (vii) section 402.310; (viii) rules 65C-22.001 through 65C- 22.010. As referenced in the Complaint, DCF cited Respondent with a violation of standard 4.2, which states "Class 1 violation; [o]ne or more children were not adequately supervised in that a child was unsupervised, which posed an imminent threat to a child, and could or did result in death or serious harm to the health, safety or well-being of a child." As referenced in the Amended Complaint, DCF cited Respondent with a violation of standard 4.3, "Class I violation; [a] child was not adequately supervised and left the facility premises without child care personnel supervision." As referenced in the Complaints, DCF imposed a fine upon Global Learning in the amount of $500.00. As referenced in the Complaints, DCF seeks to revoke Global Learning's Gold Seal Quality Care designation. At all relevant times, Global Learning held a valid child care license to provide child care services. At all relevant times, Global Learning possessed a Gold Seal Quality Care designation. At no time prior to the violation referenced in this matter did Global Learning ever receive a Class I violation. Case History and Investigation The case began when DCF conducted an investigation into an alleged violation of the Child Care Licensing Standards, which occurred on April 26, 2019, at Global Learning Center in Port Saint Lucie, Florida. The investigation was prompted after DCF received a complaint that a young child had left his classroom at the Global Learning day care facility, wandered in the neighborhood without supervision for some period of time, and was eventually found by a passing motorist walking on a sidewalk alongside the road. The assigned DCF investigator visited and inspected the facility, reviewed documentation, and conducted interviews of staff members and other witnesses. Discovery by a Good Samaritan The evidence disclosed that a local resident, Jeanette Plesnick, was driving down Kester Street in Port Saint Lucie, Florida, on the afternoon of April 26, 2019. While driving she spotted a five-year-old child, B.K., walking alone on the sidewalk with his blanket. The sidewalk ran alongside a public road.2/ Out of concern, Plesnick stopped her car and questioned the child. He was unharmed and in good shape. Nonetheless, she secured the child and immediately reported the matter to local law enforcement. Plesnick waited with the boy for law enforcement to respond. A police officer arrived roughly 30 minutes later. Plesnick was familiar with the location of the Global Learning facility. She estimated that it was a block to a block-and-a-half away from the location where she found the young boy. Plesnick also estimated that it would take her about ten minutes to walk to the day care facility directly from the location where she found B.K. The boy's father, Kent Kummerfeldt, was notified by law enforcement that his son had left the day care facility. Kummerfeldt immediately left his job in Palm Beach County and drove to the day care facility in Port Saint Lucie. His son was safely back at the day care when he arrived. Naturally, Kummerfeldt had expected his son to be educated in a safe environment at Global Learning, and was surprised that his son was allowed to leave the facility unsupervised. Classroom Incident on April 26, 2019 The essential facts surrounding how, when, and why the boy departed from his classroom at Global Learning were largely undisputed. B.K. told his father that he left the classroom alone through an exit door, went outside to the children's playground, and then climbed over the playground fence. DCF's investigator, Deanna Trainor, interviewed several of Respondent's employees, including the classroom teacher, LaJane James ("James"). As the facts developed, it was revealed that James was the only adult teacher in the classroom when the boy left. It was clear that for some period of time, James was solely responsible for the supervision of B.K. and the other 21 children who were napping in the classroom. More specifically, another teacher assisting James in the supervision of the classroom had left to eat lunch. This left James alone to watch the napping students. There was also evidence, which the undersigned credited, that the number of children in the classroom exceeded the allowable one to 20 ratio of students-to-teacher, while James was alone in the classroom. James told the investigator that she started cleaning up the room after she laid the children down for naps. James admitted that it must have been during that period of time that B.K. got up off his sleeping cot and went out the door without her seeing him.3/ In the investigator's opinion, the class room had loud acoustics and the exit door B.K. used to go out to the playground was also very loud. From the evidence and pictures submitted, the classroom was large, open, and the view to the exit door was unobstructed. In fact, the pictures revealed that the teachers' desk area was immediately next to the exit door used by B.K. Based on Trainor's investigation and inspection of the exit door and surrounding area, she concluded that it would have been "hard to miss" if a child opened the classroom door and went outside. This conclusion by Trainor is credited and accepted. Janet Higgins, was the general manager of Global Learning on the day of the incident. She offered a good deal of testimony regarding the operations, accreditation, training, licensing, and credentials of Global Learning.4/ Higgins acknowledged that B.K. was supposed to be supervised in the classroom at all times. Higgins was not present in the classroom when the incident occurred, but related that at approximately 12:30 p.m., as was the normal practice, the children would have been laid on their mats or cots for daily naptime. Higgins acknowledged that the child made his way outside the facility she managed and was eventually found by a Good Samaritan down the street. After the incident, Global Learning took remedial action and made some physical changes to the exit doors, installing bells and higher doorknobs. Not surprisingly, James was terminated by Higgins shortly after the incident. After concluding its investigation, DCF ultimately determined that the allegations were verified. This determination was followed up by the issuance of an administrative complaint seeking sanctions against Global Learning.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Families enter a final order: (1) Finding that Global Learning violated Handbook Rule 2.4.1(B) and, by reference, standard 4.3.; (2) Imposing a fine in the amount of $500.00; and (3) Revoking Global Learning's Gold Seal Quality Care Designation, as required by law. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of January, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT L. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of January, 2020.
