The Issue At issue is whether Respondent committed the Class II violation alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what is the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Department is authorized to regulate child care facilities pursuant to sections 402.301 through 402.319, Florida Statutes. Section 402.310 authorizes the Department to take disciplinary action against child care facilities for violations of sections 402.301 through 402.319. Chappell operates at eight child care locations in Duval and St. Johns Counties, admitting children from the ages of six weeks to five years. Chappell also has an after school program for children ages five to eight, and a summer camp for children ages five to ten. Chappell is licensed to operate the Child Care Facility at 8400 Baycenter Road, Jacksonville, Florida, pursuant to License Number C04DU0093. The facility on Baycenter Road is commonly called Chappell’s Deerwood facility. Gretrell Marshall works for the Department as a Licensing Counselor. She inspects child care facilities and family daycare homes to ensure they are not operating in violation of Department standards. She has worked for the Department for two years. Ms. Marshall’s previous experience includes operating a family daycare home for two years, and seven years as the owner and director of a licensed child care facility in Jacksonville. She has worked as an infant and toddler development specialist and holds a bachelor's degree in psychology. On October 10, 2019, Ms. Marshall went to Chappell to investigate a parent’s complaint that a child at the facility was repeatedly biting other children. The Department’s rules require child care facilities to document all accidents and incidents that occur while a child is in the care of program staff. The incident reports must be completed on the same day the incident occurs. The documentation of the incident must be shared with the child’s parent or guardian on the day the incident occurs. Chappell’s “accident/incident report” form contained spaces for the name and age of the child, the names of the teachers and other adults present, and the date and time of the incident. It had multiple choice check- boxes for location (classroom, playground, bathroom, cafeteria, or “other”); markings (abrasion, bite, bruise, bump, cut/tear, fracture, puncture, red mark, rug burn, scratch, sprain, or “other”); appendage (a list of 26 body parts); and first aid given (irrigate, antibacterial soap, bandage, ice pack, splint, or “other”). The form also included space for a narrative description of the accident or incident, and whether the parent was called. Ms. Marshall found several accident/incident reports that student E.W., a two-year-old boy, bit other children and a teacher between August 21 and October 4, 2019. On August 21, 2019, E.W. bit another student in the back while jostling for position in a line. The skin was not broken and the bite did not require first aid. Chappell recorded that the bite left bite marks. An August 27, 2019, incident report described two biting incidents on the same day. First, E.W. bit another student “just because” and pulled another student’s hair. Then, E.W. indicated to the teacher that he had to use the bathroom. The teacher took him to the bathroom but the child just ate toilet paper and urinated on himself. When the teacher tried to change his diaper, E.W. bit and kicked the teacher. For the August 27, 2019, incident, Chappell’s accident/incident report form left blank the first aid treatment space. The report noted the bites left bite marks. On September 11, 2019, E.W. bit another child in the back. Chappell’s accident/incident report recorded that first aid was administered, but did not specify the form of treatment. The report noted that the bites resulted in bite marks. Chappell reported that two biting incidents occurred on September 30, 2019. E.W. bit another student on the back during circle time. Later, when the students went outside to play, E.W. bit another child on the back without provocation. The teacher talked to him about being gentle with friends. The accident/incident report left blank the space for reporting first aid. On October 2, 2019, E.W. bit another student in the back. A different form, called a “behavior incident report,” was used by Chappell to record this incident. This form did not contain the check-boxes of the accident/incident report but simply provided space for a narrative “description of behavior incident.” The narrative stated that E.W. and other students were on the castle playhouse in the playground when E.W., “unprovoked,” bit another student on the back. Chappell did not record whether this bite left marks or required first aid. On October 4, 2019, at 12:40 p.m., E.W. bit another student on the right shoulder during play time in their classroom. The accident/incident report recorded that the bite left a bite mark. The space on the form to indicate whether the bite required first aid was left blank. A separate accident/incident report completed on October 4, 2019, documented that E.W. bit another student at 3:15 p.m., while the children were lining up at the door of the classroom. The report did not indicate whether there were bite marks or whether first aid was required. Chappell intended to suspend E.W. for one day on October 4, 2019. The school phoned the parents but was unable to get anyone to come in and pick up E.W. Therefore, the suspension was enforced on the next school day, October 7, 2019. The school warned the parents that another biting incident would result in the child’s permanent removal from Chappell. On October 23, 2019, E.W. bit another child at the school. Chappell expelled E.W. Nancy Dreicer, the Chief Executive Officer of Chappell, testified that there is a societal problem with small children being suspended and expelled from childcare centers. She stated that more children are expelled from child care centers in the United States than are expelled from grade schools and high schools. Ms. Dreicer testified that disciplinary expulsions were problematic for multiple reasons. Behaviors such as biting are common among two year olds, but a child that age learns nothing from being suspended or expelled from school. The parents are forced to find another child care facility and whatever behavioral issue is causing the child’s misbehavior is not addressed. The problem is merely pushed off onto a new child care facility. Ms. Dreicer testified that in 2019, Chappell received a grant from Hope Haven Children’s Hospital and the Community Foundation of Jacksonville to have a behavioral psychologist at the Deerwood facility to work with the children and to train the teachers in dealing with behavior problems. The psychologist worked with E.W., observing the child in the classroom, tracking the timing of his misbehavior, and looking for triggers to his actions. He worked with the teachers on how to identify triggers. Ms. Dreicer pointed out that suspending the child would have meant that the psychologist could not observe him. She noted that nothing approaching a serious injury had occurred, and added that the school would not have kept E.W. in the classroom if there was any possibility of his being a danger to the other students. She believed that E.W.’s behavior was improving, but that biting is such a natural part of a two year old’s development that it was very difficult to stop it completely. The Department has adopted a Child Care Facility Handbook (the “Handbook”), intended to be used on conjunction with sections 402.26 through 402.319. The Handbook has been adopted by reference in Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C-22.001(6).1 The Introduction to the Handbook states, “To protect the health and welfare of children, it is the intent of the Legislature to develop a regulatory framework that promotes the growth and stability of the child care industry and facilitates the safe physical, intellectual, motor, and social development of the child.” Section 2.8 of the Handbook, titled “Child Discipline,” provides, in relevant part: The child care facility shall adopt a discipline policy consistent with Section 402.305(12), F.S., including standards that prohibit children from 1 The cited rule references the May 2019 edition of the Handbook. However, the version of the Handbook provided on the Department’s website and through the hyperlink provided in the rule as published in the Florida Administrative Register is dated December 2019. To further complicate matters, the version of the Handbook introduced at the hearing was dated October 2017. The October 2017 and December 2019 editions are identical in all respects relevant to the determination in this proceeding, which leads to the inference that the May 2019 edition is likewise identical. being subjected to discipline which is severe, humiliating, frightening, or associated with food, rest, or toileting. Spanking or any other form of physical punishment is prohibited. The child care facility operators, employees, and volunteers must comply with written disciplinary and expulsion policies. Verification that the child care facility has provided the parent or guardian a written copy of the disciplinary and expulsion policies used by the program must be documented on the enrollment form with the signature of the custodial parent or legal guardian. * * * E. A copy of the current[2] disciplinary and expulsion policies must be available for review by the parents or legal guardian and the licensing authority. Providers must have a comprehensive discipline policy that includes developmentally appropriate social-emotional and behavioral health promotion practices, as well as discipline and intervention procedures that provide specific guidance on what child care personnel should do to prevent and respond to challenging behaviors. Preventive and discipline practices should be used as learning opportunities to guide children’s appropriate behavioral development …. (emphasis added). Pursuant to section 2.8.A of the Handbook, Chappell has adopted and implemented a discipline policy, titled “Child Management Behavior Protocol.” Chappell’s policy sets forth the following mission statement: Chappell recognizes the importance of promoting acceptable behavior and methods of discipline within the child care setting. We believe that all 2 The word “current” is not in the October 2017 edition of the Handbook. This is the only relevant difference between section 2.8 in the October 2017 Handbook and section 2.8 in the December 2019 edition of the Handbook children have the right to expect positive approaches to discipline, which foster self-esteem, respect, tolerance and self-control. Behaviors which injure people either emotionally or physically or damage property are real problems to adults/staff and the other children. These behaviors must be dealt with in an appropriate manner. After setting forth a catalogue of acceptable and unacceptable methods of discipline to be applied in specific instances of misbehavior, the Chappell discipline policy next stated the process to be followed “In The Case of Persistent Inappropriate Behavior” as follows, in relevant part: The child’s parents/caregivers will be involved at first hit, kick, thrown toy, etc. The Director will discuss the situation with the parents/caregivers in an attempt to find the possible cause of the behavior. The Director and the parents/caregivers will together develop strategies for dealing with the unwanted behavior, which could be implemented at home. Should it be necessary and with the consent of the parent/caregiver, advice and assistance will be sought from relevant external specialists to address the matter. After two incidences in one week, which caused or could have caused injury to self or others, the child will be suspended for one day, and after five such incidences the child will be suspended for a week. However, if the Director at any time feels the behavior is extreme and dangerous to other children or teachers, the child will be removed from the Center. This may be a temporary or permanent expulsion…. There was no question that the Chappell discipline policy meets the requirements of the Handbook. The Class II violation alleged by the Department is that Chappell failed to follow its own discipline policy in the case of E.W., thereby violating section 2.8.B of the Handbook, which requires child care facilities to “comply with written disciplinary and expulsion policies.” The Department points out that the Chappell discipline policy specifies that after two incidences in one week that “caused or could have caused injury,” the child will be suspended for one day, and that five such instances will result in one week’s suspension. The Chappell policy gives the Director discretion to remove a child for extreme or dangerous behavior. The Department notes that the policy does not give the Director discretion to waive the stated discipline schedule. Ms. Marshall calculated that under Chappell’s written policy, E.W. should have been suspended for one day after the two biting incidents on August 27, 2019, and again following the two biting incidents on September 30, 2019. Chappell did not suspend E.W. on either occasion. Ms. Marshall calculated that in the space of the five days between September 30 and October 4, 2019, E.W. was involved in five biting incidents. Ms. Marshall testified that, under Chappell’s policy, E.W. should have been suspended for one week. Chappell gave E.W. a one-day suspension on October 7, 2019. Ms. Dreicer conceded in the abstract that biting is an act that could cause injury to another child. She did not concede that E.W.’s biting was injurious or threatened actual injury to the other children at the child care facility. It was a developmental behavior issue that the facility’s staff and a psychologist were attempting to correct. Chappell ultimately decided that it had to expel the child, but only after making every effort to correct the biting behavior. Chappell argued that neither the Department’s Handbook nor Chappell’s policy defines the term “injury.” Ms. Marshall believed that a bite is always an injury. It leaves a mark, however temporary, and requires some treatment. Chappell noted that none of the bites recorded in its accident/incident reports broke the skin of the other child or required treatment of any kind. Ms. Dreicer and the staff of the Deerwood facility made a determination that E.W.’s behavior presented no danger of injury to the other children. Chappell argues that, whatever the literal language of the written policy, the director of a child care facility must be allowed to exercise discretion on a case-by-case basis in making disciplinary decisions. Chappell points to section 2.8.E of the Handbook, with its admonitions that a comprehensive disciplinary policy must be “developmentally appropriate” and that discipline practices “should be used as learning opportunities to guide children’s appropriate behavioral development.” Ms. Dreicer forcefully made the case that suspending or expelling a two year old teaches nothing and abdicates the facility’s responsibility to the child. Neither party appeared to take note of another section of the Chappell disciplinary policy. The undersigned observes that, while the language of the Chappell policy quoted above appears to prescribe a rigid disciplinary process admitting no exceptions, another portion of the policy gives Chappell discretion as to when the disciplinary process commences: After an incident, our first step: We will tend to the injured child to see if medical attention is needed. We will give the child who hit, kicked, etc. an opportunity to apologize and provide comfort. We will notify both sets of parents and prepare an incident report (Attachment 1). DCF requires the report be signed by a parent or caregiver the day of the incident. If behaviors persist, Chappell will follow the process management flow chart. (Attachment 2)[3] (emphasis added). 3 The referenced attachments were not part of the record. From the context, the undersigned has inferred that the referenced “flow chart” was a graphic representation of the disciplinary procedure quoted at Finding of Fact 26 above. The underscored language, read together with the title of the discipline policy, “In The Case of Persistent Inappropriate Behavior,” gives Chappell discretion to determine when the child’s behaviors have reached the stage of “persistence” warranting commencement of the disciplinary process. The Department did not account for this discretion in finding that Chappell violated section 2.8.B of the Handbook. Ms. Dreicer’s testimony was consistent with the Chappell disciplinary policy. Though the facility eventually expelled the child, it exercised the discretion afforded by the policy to determine whether the child’s behavior was potentially injurious and whether the behavior was persistent enough to warrant invocation of the disciplinary process. Clear and convincing evidence was not presented that Chappell committed the Class II violation alleged by the Department.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Families enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of May, 2020, 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 14th day of May, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Nancy Drier Chappell Schools, LLC 8400 Baycenter Road Jacksonville, Florida 32256 Lacey Kantor, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Families Building 2, Room 204Z 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 (eServed) David Gregory Tucker, Esquire Department of Children and Families 5920 Arlington Expressway Jacksonville, Florida 32231-0083 (eServed) Jesse Nolan Dreicer, Esquire Tassone, Dreiver & Hill 1833 Atlantic Boulevard Jacksonville, Florida 32207 (eServed) Chad Poppell, Secretary Department of Children and Families Building 1, Room 202 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 (eServed) Javier Enriquez, General Counsel Department of Children and Families Building 2, Room 204F 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 (eServed)
The Issue The issues in this matter are whether Respondent, the owner of a child care facility, committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what is the appropriate sanction for the violation.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the complete record, the following Findings of Fact are made: DCF is authorized to regulate child care facilities pursuant to sections 402.301 through 402.319, Florida Statutes. Section 402.310 authorizes DCF to take disciplinary action against child care facilities for violations of sections 402.301 through 402.319. A to Z Child Development Center (A to Z) is a child care facility owned and operated by Jill Johnson at 1049 East 8th Street, Jacksonville, Florida. The license number is C04DU1409. It is undisputed that on December 20, 2020, Respondent received a citation for employing a person for which she had not conducted a background screening following a 90-day break in employment. At all times material to this matter, E.L. was a child care provider working at A to Z. She began working with the facility on February 2, 2021. E.L. had been cleared and found “eligible” to work as a child care provider on April 6, 2017, at a different child care facility. On April 22, 2021, Gretrell Marshall, a DCF licensing counselor, conducted a routine inspection of the child care facility. Ms. Marshall has 20 years working with DCF. She has worked as a family services counselor for three years and has been trained to inspect child care facilities. Before working with DCF, Ms. Marshall owned a family day care home for two years and served as a director for a child care facility for seven years. During her inspection of A to Z, Ms. Marshall reviewed the employment records for each employee of the facility. Specifically, she reviewed the file for E.L. and discovered that the background screening for E.L. was completed on April 9, 2021. This was a concern for Ms. Marshall as child care personnel should update their background screening if there is more than a 90-day absence from working as a child care provider. Ms. Marshall reviewed the completed background screening report and employment history form for E.L. The background screening report dated February 3, 2021, reflected that E.L. had successfully passed a background screening on April 6, 2017. The employment history and reference form reflected that E.L. was last employed as an assistant teacher at Nono’s Home Daycare (Nono’s). The employment dates were listed as October 2019 to Present. Although there is a question regarding whether E.L. had a 90-break in employment or worked at Nono’s, she was subsequently she was deemed eligible to work with children. Ms. Marshall then reviewed the DCF Child Care Administration, Regulation and Enforcement System (CARES). CARES maintains employment history information for child care personnel, including new employee information, verifying existing employees, and checking employment history. The information input in the system is reported by employers. However, employees do not have access to review information in the system. Ms. Marshall’s review of CARES reflected that E.L.’s most recent employer was with T and A Learning Center, which terminated in February 2020. CARES did not reflect that E.L. worked at Nono’s. After review of E.L.’s employee records, Ms. Marshall concluded that E.L.’s background screening should have been completed on February 2, 2021, when E.L. began working at A to Z. Ms. Marshall testified that the form reflected that Jill Johnson was identified as the person contacted to verify employment. The evidence of record demonstrated that the person contacted was actually Nono Johnson (owner of Nono’s) instead of Respondent’s owner, Jill Johnson. Ms. Marshall also reviewed the renewal application records for Nono’s. There was no record in the renewal applications that E.L. was an employee. Relying upon her review of E.L.’s records maintained by Jill Johnson, the renewal applications for Nono’s, and the CARES records, Ms. Marshall determined that a background screening was warranted for E.L. because it appeared that she had a 90-day break in employment. Ms. Marshall did not interview Nono Johnson and she did not interview E.L. In addition, neither person testified at the final hearing. Ms. Marshall testified that a factor in making her decision was that the employment history form for E.L. did not clearly indicate the person contacted for employment verification. However, the record reflects that Nono Johnson was listed as the person contacted to verify the background reference check. The threshold issue in this matter is whether E.L. worked for Nono’s. If E.L. worked for Nono’s, the background screening would not be required. On the other hand, if E.L. did not work for Nono’s, E.L. would be required to perform the background screening due to the 90-day break in employment. Ms. Johnson presented the testimony of Crystal McMillion, who assisted Ms. Johnson with the reference checks. She testified that she spoke to Nono Johnson and verified that E.L. worked at Nono’s during the dates provided on the employment history form. Ms. McMillion testified that she then logged into the background screening portal and verified that E.L. had previously successfully completed a background screening in 2017. Ms. McMillion was the only witness with direct knowledge of the employment verification for E.L. Ms. McMillion has experience as a child care facility operator and understands what is required to conduct employment verification. The undersigned found her to be credible and truthful. However, her testimony was uncorroborated hearsay.1 Such evidence may not be considered by the undersigned as a basis for findings of fact. Assuming Ms. McMillion made an error in her employment verification as argued by Petitioner, the question remains whether Nono’s failed to properly disclose all its employees and E.L. was in fact an employee. The undersigned finds it unlikely, but possible, that E.L. presented erroneous employment history information. Another possibility is that the records for Nono’s did not accurately reflect all of its employees and, thus, such information was not put into CARES. Neither Nono Johnson nor E.L. testified at the hearing. Likewise, the record does not include any interview statement made by Nono Johnson or E.L. The only evidence presented by DCF to demonstrate that E.L. had a 90-day break in employment was the absence of records for Nono’s, a facility over which Respondent has no control. This evidence is not sufficient to meet the clear and convincing evidence burden in this matter. Ultimate Finding of Fact Based on the evidence presented at the hearing, the undersigned finds that there was no clear and convincing evidence to establish that E.L. had a 90-day break in employment. As a result, there is no clear and convincing evidence to establish that Respondent was required to obtain background re-screening for E.L. DCF’s burden in this case is to prove the facts alleged in the Administrative Complaint by clear and convincing evidence, and the credible admissible evidence did not meet that burden. 1 Because Nono Johnson did not testify during the final hearing, the portion of Ms. McMillion’s testimony concerning Nono’s verification of employment is uncorroborated hearsay that cannot support a finding of fact. See § 120.57(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (2020)(providing that “[h]earsay evidence may be used for the purpose
Conclusions For Petitioner: David Gregory Tucker, Esquire Department of Children and Families 5920 Arlington Expressway Jacksonville, Florida 32211 For Respondent: Jill Johnson, pro se A to Z Child Development Center 1049 East 8th Street Jacksonville, Florida 32206
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 dismissing the Administrative Complaint against Jill Johnson d/b/a A to Z Child Development Center. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of August, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S YOLONDA Y. GREEN Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of August, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: Shevaun Harris, Secretary Department of Children and Families 2415 North Monroe Street, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 David Gregory Tucker, Esquire Department of Children and Families 5920 Arlington Expressway Jacksonville, Florida 32211 Javier Enriquez, General Counsel Department of Children and Families Office of the General Counsel 2415 North Monroe Street, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Jill Johnson A to Z Child Development Center 1049 East 8th Street Jacksonville, Florida 32206 Danielle Thompson, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Families Office of the General Counsel 2415 North Monroe Street, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32303
The Issue Whether Petitioner, Department of Children and Families ("Department"), established by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent, A Child's World Childcare and Preschool, Inc. ("A Child's World"), committed a Class I violation; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Department is responsible for the enforcement of sections 402.301 through 402.319, Florida Statutes, governing the regulation of child care facilities in Florida. Since 2003, A Child's World has operated continuously as a licensed child care facility at 703 Southwest 6th Street, Okeechobee, Florida. By all accounts, A Child's World is an exemplary facility. A Child's World is recognized as a Tier 4 provider by the Early Learning Coalition, the highest quality indicator in the community. Since 2004, A Child's World has been Gold Seal accredited. The incident giving rise to the Administrative Complaint occurred on January 29, 2019, at the child care facility. In August 2018, K.P. began attending A Child's World along with her older sister, A.P. On the date of the incident, K.P. was four years old and A.P. was five years old. During the morning of January 29, 2019, K.P., A.P., and other children were playing on the outdoor fenced-in playground at the facility. At that time, all of the children were supervised by a teacher. Subsequently, Angela Osterman, center director for A Child's World, called for A.P to be brought from the playground to the office for dismissal. When K.P. went to the office along with A.P., Ms. Osterman brought K.P. back to the playground and brought her directly to Deion Hayes, the teacher responsible for the group of children still on the playground. Subsequently, Ms. Osterman made an intercom announcement to all staff not to allow K.P. to accompany her sister when only the sister is called for dismissal. At 11:55 a.m., the children and teacher came inside the building from the playground. However, K.P. was left outside on the playground, alone and unsupervised because the teacher who was responsible for her confused his "head count" of the children when he brought the children back in the building.1/ K.P. was alone and unsupervised playing on the playground for approximately 40 minutes. At 12:37 p.m., K.P. exited the playground by climbing a five-feet high chain-link fence, which surrounds the perimeter of the playground. Almost immediately, facility staff saw K.P. standing close to the front of the building (approximately three and one-half to four feet from the building) in front of the infant room, playing with rocks in a flower bed, at which time K.P. was retrieved and brought back inside the building for an immediate evaluation. K.P. never left the facility premises. A video recording shows K.P. on the playground, alone; climbing over the fence at 12:37 p.m.; and being retrieved and brought back inside the building almost immediately thereafter. K.P. was not injured or in any distress following the incident. In fact, K.P. was smiling and in very good spirits following the incident. Under the particular facts of this case, the Department failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the inadequate supervision of K.P. posed an imminent threat which could or did result in her death or serious harm to her health, safety, or well-being. At 1:12 p.m., Malissa Morgan, the owner of the facility, self-reported the incident. In addition, K.P.'s mother was contacted and came to the school. K.P.'s mother kept K.P. in school for the remainder of the day and K.P. returned to the school the very next day. A Child's World fired Mr. Hayes on January 29, 2019. In addition, the next day, A Child's World conducted a full retraining of its staff and imposed stricter policies regarding supervision. K.P. continued attending A Child's World for months after the incident and returned after summer vacation. K.P. and A.P. are currently enrolled for this new school year.2/
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 that A Child's World did not commit a Class I violation and dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of September, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DARREN A. SCHWARTZ 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 3rd day of September, 2019.
