The Issue The issues in this case are: (1) whether Respondent misrepresented or fraudulently provided information to Petitioner regarding compliance of its child care facility with the annual physical examination and annual vehicle inspection requirements in Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C- 22.001(6)(a) and (c), in violation of section 402.319(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and Child Care Facility Standard No. 63, incorporated by reference into rule 65C-22.010(1)(d)1.; and (2) if Respondent committed the alleged violations, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner is the state agency responsible for licensing, inspecting, and monitoring child care facilities pursuant to chapter 402, Florida Statutes. Respondent is a child care facility licensed by Petitioner, operating under License No. C11MD1476. Respondent's facility is located at 968 Southwest 82nd Avenue, Miami, Florida. Soraya Sanabria and Lyan Barrus are the Respondent's owners, and Sanabria is its Director. At the time of the alleged conduct giving rise to this proceeding, Respondent was designated a Gold Seal Quality Care provider pursuant to section 402.281(1)(b) and was participating in the Gold Seal Quality Care program. Events Giving Rise to this Proceeding License Renewal Process Pursuant to section 402.308(1), Respondent applied for the annual renewal of its child care facility license in mid- to late 2013. On November 20, 2013, Pauline Kinsey, Family Service Counselor, conducted a license renewal inspection of Respondent's facility. During the inspection, Kinsey identified a few minor noncompliance issues, which Respondent expeditiously addressed and are not at issue in this proceeding. As part of the annual license renewal application review process, Petitioner's auditors carefully review each application to ensure compliance with the statutes and rules governing child care facility licensure. Gloria Johnson, an auditor with Petitioner's child care facility regulation program, reviewed Respondent's 2013 license renewal application.5/ The Vehicle Inspection and Health Examination Forms In the course of her review of Respondent's 2013 application, Johnson discovered that Respondent had submitted a vehicle inspection form for its facility's child transportation vehicle dated June 14, 2011, that previously had been submitted as part of Respondent's 2011 license renewal application. Johnson notified Kinsey, who contacted Sanabria on December 17, 2013. Kinsey requested that Respondent submit a current vehicle inspection form for inclusion in its 2013 license renewal application. That same day, Sanabria faxed a vehicle inspection form, dated June 14, 2013, to Petitioner. Johnson reviewed this vehicle inspection form and determined that it was a copy of the June 14, 2011, form that had been altered. Specifically, the date in the top left space on the form had been altered by writing a "3" over the last "1" in "2011." In every other respect——including handwriting, vehicle mileage, name of inspector and business (Goodyear),6/ and date of inspection written in the lower right-hand corner——the two forms were identical. This spurred Johnson to take a closer look at Respondent's facility licensing files. In doing so, she discovered that the June 14, 2011, vehicle inspection form also had been submitted to Petitioner as part of Respondent's 2012 license renewal application.7/ Johnson notified Kinsey that the vehicle inspection form Respondent submitted on December 17, 2013, was an altered version of the form dated June 14, 2011. Kinsey immediately contacted Respondent regarding the altered form. On December 18, 2013, Respondent submitted a vehicle inspection form indicating that the vehicle had been inspected at Tires Plus that same day. Petitioner refused to accept the December 18, 2013, form. Kinsey informed Respondent that Petitioner had determined that the vehicle inspection form Respondent had submitted on December 17, 2013, was altered, so the matter was being referred to Petitioner's legal department to determine appropriate action. In the course of reviewing Respondent's license renewal application files, Johnson also discovered that a "Health Examination" form that Respondent had submitted in its 2012 license renewal application8/ also was altered. Respondent submitted a copy of the Health Examination form dated "6/10/2011" as part of its 2011 application, and then again submitted the same form in its 2012 application; however, the date on the form submitted in the 2012 application had been changed from "6/10/2011" to "6/10/2012" by whiting out the last "1" in "2011" and replacing it with a "2." In every other respect, including handwriting and other marks, the forms were identical.9/ Complaint Inspection and Administrative Complaints As a result of Johnson's discovery of the altered vehicle inspection and health examination forms in Respondent's application files, Kinsey conducted a complaint inspection of Respondent's facility on December 20, 2013. At that time, Petitioner issued an Administrative Complaint citing Respondent for violating section 402.319(1)(a), rules 65C-22.001(11) and 65C-22.001(6)(c), and Petitioner's Child Care Facility Standard No. 63, by having misrepresented information and fraudulently provided information to Petitioner related to Respondent's child care facility. On January 13, 2014, Respondent filed a request for administrative hearing challenging the Administrative Complaint. Attached to the request for hearing was a vehicle inspection form dated June 14, 2013. The information on the form stated that the vehicle had been inspected on that date by Francisco Perez, a mechanic employed at Albert of Miami. This document had not previously been submitted to Petitioner and was not part of Respondent's 2013 license renewal application. On February 18, 2014, Petitioner issued an Amended Administrative Complaint, alleging in greater detail the facts giving rise to its charges that Respondent misrepresented information and fraudulently provided information to Petitioner related to the child care facility. The Amended Administrative Complaint charged Respondent with the same statutory and rule violations as had been charged in the Administrative Complaint, and imposed the same penalties. Respondent's Defenses At the final hearing, Barrus and Sanabria testified that Respondent inadvertently had submitted a copy of the June 14, 2011, vehicle inspection form in its 2013 license renewal application. When contacted by Kinsey, Sanabria had accidentally faxed a draft copy of the vehicle inspection form with the date changed to June 14, 2013. Barrus and Sanabria testified that this draft had been prepared for the purpose of demonstrating to the mechanic how to complete the form. They claimed that Perez did, in fact, inspect the vehicle on June 14, 2013, as evidenced by the vehicle inspection form showing his name that was submitted as an exhibit to the request for administrative hearing filed on January 13, 2014.10/ They claimed that the vehicle actually had been inspected twice in 2013, so that Respondent was in compliance with the rule requirement regarding annual vehicle inspection.11/ Barrus testified that the June 14, 2011, vehicle inspection form mistakenly had been included in the 2012 license renewal application. Barrus and Sanabria both testified that Respondent did not transport children in its facility vehicle in 2012, so that in any event, Respondent was not required to submit a vehicle inspection form showing current inspection status for that year. Neither Barrus nor Sanabria disputed that the Health Examination form discovered in its 2012 license renewal application file had been altered by the date having been changed from "6/10/2011" to "6/10/2012." Barrus testified that she did not know how the altered form came to be part of Respondent's 2012 license renewal application. She reiterated that Respondent did not transport children in its facility vehicle in 2012, so that under any circumstances, Sanabria was not required to have a physical examination that year.12/ Findings of Ultimate Fact The undersigned finds the testimony of Barrus and Sanabria regarding the vehicle inspection form issue incredible and unpersuasive. The evidence establishes that Respondent submitted the June 14, 2011, inspection form as part of its 2013 license renewal application. The credible, persuasive evidence in the record gives rise to the inference that when Petitioner discovered the outdated form and contacted Respondent, on December 17, 2013, Respondent intentionally submitted the altered inspection form with the date changed from June 14, 2011, to June 14, 2013. Petitioner discovered this alteration and contacted Respondent. Thereafter, in an attempt to comply with the annual inspection requirement, Respondent had the vehicle inspected by Tires Plus on December 18, 2013, and submitted the vehicle inspection form to Petitioner that day. The credible, persuasive evidence further gives rise to the inference that when Petitioner refused to accept the December 18, 2013, form, Respondent created another vehicle inspection form that it dated June 14, 2013, obtained Perez' handwritten name on the form, and submitted the form to Petitioner as an exhibit to the request for hearing that it filed on January 13, 2014.13/ In committing this conduct, Respondent misrepresented information and fraudulently provided information to Petitioner related to the child care facility, in violation of section 402.319(1)(a) and Standard 63 of Petitioner's Child Care Facility Standards. The undersigned also finds the testimony of Barrus and Sanabria regarding the "Health Examination" form in the 2012 application incredible and unpersuasive.14/ The credible, persuasive evidence gives rise to the inference that Respondent altered the Health Examination form by changing the date from "6/10/2011" to "6/10/2012" and intentionally submitted the altered form to Petitioner as part of its 2012 renewal application. In committing this conduct, Respondent misrepresented information and fraudulently provided information to Petitioner related to the child care facility, in violation of section 402.319(1)(a) and Standard 63 of Petitioner's Child Care Facility Standards. In sum, Petitioner has proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Department of Children and Families, enter a final order imposing a $200.00 administrative fine on Respondent, My First School, Inc.; converting Respondent's child care facility license, License No. C11MD1476, to probation-status for a six-month period; and terminating Respondent's Gold Seal Quality Care designation. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of August, 2014, 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 6th day of August, 2014.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, Department of Children and Families (Department or Respondent), was substantially justified in initiating a disciplinary action against Petitioner, My First Steps of Bradenton, Inc. (My First Steps or Petitioner), and/or whether special circumstances exist that would make it unjust to award attorney's fees and costs to Petitioner pursuant to section 57.111, Florida Statutes (2019).1
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating child care facilities, to ensure the health and safety of children in care. 3 By agreeing to an extended deadline for post-hearing submissions beyond ten days after the filing of the transcript, the parties waived the 30-day time period for issuing the Final Order. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 28-106.216. The Department initiated the underlying action by issuing an Administrative Complaint against My First Steps, a licensed child care facility. My First Steps is owned and operated by Carina Piovera. It is organized as a corporation, with its principal office in Florida. When the underlying action was initiated, My First Steps had no more than 25 full-time employees and a net worth of not more than $2,000,000.00. As the parties stipulated, My First Steps is a small business party as defined in section 57.111(3)(d). My First Steps was the prevailing party in the underlying action. The Department was not a nominal party in that action. My First Steps timely filed its application for an award of attorney's fees and costs under section 57.111, less than 60 days after the Final Order was rendered. Petitioner filed an affidavit attesting to the attorney's fees and costs incurred in the underlying action, provided billing records, and submitted an attorney's affidavit attesting to the reasonableness of the hourly rate charged by counsel of record for Petitioner. Respondent filed a counter-affidavit that disputed certain charges and one cost item. At the hearing, Petitioner withdrew the items to which Respondent objected. Petitioner's revised claim, quantified in its Proposed Final Order, is for $7,015.00 in attorney's fees and $507.88 in costs. The revised claim is reasonable, appropriately supported, and not disputed by Respondent. The only disputed issues to be determined are related to the Department's defenses: whether the issuance of the Administrative Complaint was substantially justified; and/or whether special circumstances exist which would make the award of fees and costs to My First Steps unjust. Findings Related to Substantial Justification Defense The Administrative Complaint set forth the following alleged facts that were the basis for the charged violation: On May 30, 2018, K. Alejandra-Pacheco,[4] a child care personnel, worked on an art project with one of the children in her care, while the other children were climbing on up and down the chairs and taking off their shoes. Ms. Alejandra-Pacheco stated that she is not allowed to discipline the children, only the facility director, Carina Piovera. Ms. Piovera came into the classroom and made the children sit down. A.M., a one-year old toddler, was one of the children in the classroom. In it, Ms. Piovera is seen roughly handling A.M. by grabbing him, aggressively wiping his nose, having intense body language when talking to the child, forcefully pushing the child's chair into position at the table, and then aggressively put his hands on the table. A.M. is visibly afraid and upset, crying throughout the interaction with Ms. Piovera, who appears to be intimidating the child. This incident was recorded by the facility camera. The inappropriate discipline described above was frightening to the child and is a Class I violation of child care licensing standards. The charge against My First Steps was as follows: The foregoing facts violate Section 2.8, Child Care Facility Handbook, incorporated by reference in Rule 65C-22.001(6), F.A.C. (2017), which states in part: 2.8 Child Discipline A. The child care facility shall adopt a discipline policy consistent with Section 402.305(12), F.S., including standards that prohibit children from being subjected to discipline which is severe, 4 The staff person identified in the Administrative Complaint as K. Alejandra-Pacheco testified in the underlying action that her full name is Karina Alejandra Briseño Pacheco. She is referred to by different combinations of these four names throughout the record in this case, including Karina Briseño, Karina Pacheco, Alejandra Briseño, and Alejandra Briseño; and the name Briseño is sometimes spelled Briceño. All of these references are to the same person. She is referred to herein as Ms. Pacheco. humiliating, frightening, or associated with food, rest, or toileting. Spanking or any other form of physical punishment is prohibited. * * * The following discipline techniques shall be prohibited in the child care facility: The use of corporal punishment/including, but not limited to: Hitting, spanking, shaking, slapping, twisting, pulling, squeezing, or biting; Demanding excessive physical exercise, excessive rest, or strenuous or bizarre postures; Compelling a child to eat or have in his/her mouth soap, food, spices, or foreign substances; Exposing a child to extreme temperature; Rough or harsh handling of children, including but not limited to: lifting or jerking by one or both arms; pushing; forcing or restricting movement; lifting or moving by grasping clothing; covering a child's head. The penalty sought by the Administrative Complaint for the alleged Class I violation was a fine of $500.00. The factual allegations were primarily based on a video of the incident. The allegations reflect the collective perceptions of a group of Department personnel who met to assess the video when considering whether to issue an Administrative Complaint. The group included Maritza Gonzalez, who was and is the child care licensing supervisor for a region that includes Manatee County, where My First Steps in located; and Mary Beth Wehnes, the Department's expert in this case, who was the Department's regional program safety manager at the time. The Department's perception of the video was as follows: in the beginning, five of the six children circling a table in a classroom were left to their own devices while the teacher, Ms. Pacheco, was engaged in a one-on- one art project with one child at one end of the table. The five children were unruly, understandably so, considering these one- and two-year-olds were not given any appropriate activity, and did not want to sit still and do nothing. Some of the children, including A.M., were standing on their chairs and taking their shoes off; another child was chewing on a shoe. When A.M. hoisted himself up on the table (about 50 seconds into the video), the teacher spoke to him (though there is no audio, so what she said could not be determined). A.M. quickly scooted off the table and into his chair. Ms. Piovera then strode into the room and all of the children appeared to freeze. Ms. Piovera went straight to A.M., got down in front of A.M.'s chair, grabbed him and the chair, and moved in very close to hover over him. Her body language was intimidating, especially to a little one only 18 months old. When Ms. Piovera shifted a little to the side, A.M.'s face was revealed (at the 1:12 mark). He was crying and appeared frightened. Ms. Piovera then reached for a couple of tissues, and roughly wiped/pinched his nose several times, the second time so roughly that his feet flew up and his head went back. Shortly after that, Ms. Piovera forcefully turned and pushed A.M.'s chair, with him in it, up to the table. She then grabbed A.M.'s arms from under the table and forcefully lifted them up, then put them down on the table. A.M. put his head down on the table, continuing to cry. The child next to him also put her head on the table; all of the children seemed scared in reaction to Ms. Piovera. She then left the room. In viewing the video, the Department had the impression that Ms. Piovera came in to discipline the children, considering how the teacher was handling the classroom and how the children were acting before Ms. Piovera entered the room. The Department considered Ms. Piovera's actions in the room to be inappropriate discipline. The Department was concerned with the aggressive, intimidating body language of Ms. Piovera when she aggressively strode into the room, squatted down in front of A.M., grabbed him and his chair, and moved in to hover over him. The Department was concerned with Ms. Piovera's rough physical handling of A.M., when she repeatedly wiped his nose, pinching it as she wiped, so forcefully that she made his feet fly up and head go back. The Department was concerned by Ms. Piovera pushing the child in his chair up to the table, then grabbing his arms from under the table to forcefully lift them up and bring them back down on the table. The Department perceived this rough physical handling of A.M. to be the disciplinary consequence for his misbehavior. The Department considered it to be a serious matter that violated the licensing standards for child discipline, classified by rule as a Class I violation. The Department's decision to issue the Administrative Complaint also took into consideration a joint investigation of My First Steps, following a complaint to the central abuse hotline (Hotline). The complaint was made by A.M.'s mother, based on her observations from a camera feed in A.M.'s classroom at My First Steps. She saved the video to her phone. Ms. Gonzalez received the initial report regarding the incident by email from the child's mother on June 12, 2018, with additional follow-up information provided by the mother through June 15, 2018. Based on the nature of the allegations, Ms. Gonzalez instructed the mother to report the incident to the Hotline, operated by a different Department division. The Hotline received the mother's report of the incident, accepted the complaint for investigation, and referred it for a joint investigation: a child protective investigation to be conducted pursuant to standards in chapter 39, Florida Statutes, and corresponding rules; and a child care licensing complaint investigation to be conducted pursuant to licensure standards in section 402.305 and implementing rules. The child protective investigation was referred to the Manatee County Sheriff's Office (MCSO), the designated child protective investigator. The child care licensing complaint investigation was referred to Ms. Gonzalez, who assigned a child care licensing counselor. The joint investigation began on June 20, 2018. An on-site investigation was conducted at My First Steps that afternoon by the MCSO child protective investigators and the child care licensing counselor. The investigation centered on the video provided by A.M.'s mother. The owner/ director, Carina Piovera, was shown the video and interviewed, as was Ms. Pacheco, the teacher assigned to the classroom for one- and two-year-olds where the incident occurred. Ms. Gonzalez participated by telephone to translate the interview with Ms. Pacheco, who only spoke Spanish. Separate reports were prepared by the MCSO for the child protective investigation and by the child care licensing counselor assigned for the licensure complaint investigation. Both reports summarized the mother's complaint allegations, which were, in pertinent part5: The director (Carina) mistreated A.M. on [May 30, 2018]. There were 6 children in the classroom with the teacher. The teacher had one of the children with her doing an art project and the other 5 children were sitting at a table doing nothing. Then, the 5 children began taking off their shoes and standing in the chairs. The teacher never made the children sit down while she was with another student doing art. … Carina stormed in the room and hovered over the children. A.M. burst into tears and she grabbed him. Carina reached and grabbed a napkin to wipe A.M.'s nose twice very hard. Carina used enough force to cause A.M.'s head to go back and his feet lift off the floor. Carina took A.M.'s chair and shoved it under the table, pulled his arms up from under the table roughly and put his arms down. A.M. put his head down 5 The mother's Hotline complaint raised other issues addressed in the joint investigation, regarding her child being put in timeout, other children being put in timeout for long periods of time, and another child left to sleep in a chair. A longer video related to these other matters was not offered in evidence. These other complaint issues are omitted from the reports' summary of the mother's complaint because they are not germane to this case. The Department did not include charges in its Administrative Complaint for these other matters. and continued to cry. It is stated you could tell Carina was angry and was very forceful with A.M. The MCSO investigators' findings in the "Overall Safety Assessment" and "Summary/Findings Implications" sections of their report set forth their perception of the video. Included were findings that Ms. Piovera "forcefully" wiped A.M.'s nose and "caused the child's head to go back and his feet to come off the floor"; Ms. Piovera also "forcefully" put the child's arms on the table. The MCSO investigators included in the Overall Safety Assessment Ms. Piovera's statement to investigators that the video on the mother's phone was not accurate, so "it looks more rough than it actually was in real life." But, the report noted, Ms. Piovera stated (on June 20, 2018) that she did not have the original video "since [the incident] was almost one month ago." After June 20, 2018, the MCSO investigators checked with parents of other children at My First Steps and found no expressions of concern about their children's treatment. On July 16, 2018, they closed the child protective investigation under abuse and neglect standards in chapter 39 with a determination of "not substantiated." That is an intermediate determination, between "verified" and "no indicators." As described by Ms. Gonzalez from her experience in other investigations, "not substantiated" is used when the event actually happened, but it did not cause the level of harm required under chapter 39. Her description comports with the rule definition of the term.6 6 Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C-30.001(16) (December 2017) provides: "'Child Maltreatment Index' is a document that defines specific types of abuse, neglect, or abandonment; and guides decision making by staff at the [Hotline] and Child Protective Investigations regarding screening decisions and investigative findings. The 'Child Maltreatment Index,' CF Operating Procedure No. 175-04, October 2015, is incorporated by reference and available at http://www.flrules.org/Gateway/reference.asp?No=Ref-06454." The linked rule-document, at page 5, provides the following definitions: "'Verified' is used when a preponderance of the credible evidence results in a determination the specific harm or threat of harm was the result of abuse, abandonment, or neglect. 'Not substantiated' is used when there is credible evidence which does not meet the standard of being a preponderance to support that the specific harm was the result of abuse, abandonment, or neglect. 'No indicators' is used when there is no credible evidence to support that the specific harm was the result of abuse, abandonment or neglect." (Emphasis added). The Department was aware that the child protective investigation was closed with the intermediate "not substantiated" determination. The Department considered both the outcome of the child protective investigation and the findings made by the MCSO investigators in their report, which were consistent with the Department's perception of the video. The Department also considered the investigation report of its licensing counselor, who assessed the complaint in the context of the child care facility licensing standards. The counselor's report found non-compliance with the child discipline standards in section 2.8 of the Child Care Facility Licensure Handbook (Handbook), as well as two other standards. The Recommended Order set forth how the ALJ perceived the incident upon consideration of the testimony at the hearing in the underlying action and his perception of the video (as discounted by the ALJ's finding in paragraph 8 that the video was "a little fast," a matter relevant to the special circumstances defense discussed below): Around 10:21 a.m., … Ms. Piovera entered the toddler room to assist Ms. Pacheco in redirecting the children to a new activity, i.e., to sing and do art work, after efforts by Ms. Pacheco to have the children sit down and keep their shoes on were unsuccessful. Redirection is considered a form of discipline by the Department, but Ms. Piovera considers moving to a new task a routine action in caring for toddlers. Just before Ms. Piovera entered the room, A.M. and two other children were standing in their chairs and climbing onto the table. When A.M. saw Ms. Piovera enter the room, he immediately sat down in the chair. Ms. Piovera placed him in an upright position, adjusted his pants, and observed that his nose needed to be wiped and he had taken one shoe off. His nose had crusted mucous and the discharge was green. The child was crying at this point. The mother acknowledged that A.M. does not like having his nose wiped. Ms. Piovera needed two swipes with a tissue to clear A.M.'s nose. His feet lifted slightly when his nose was wiped, but this was because A.M. was trying to avoid having his nose cleaned. Ms. Piovera also put his shoe back on. Although A.M. began crying when she first touched him, no unusual force or pressure was used, and there were no marks or bruises on the child. Within a few seconds after his nose was cleaned, A.M. became calm, stopped crying, and placed his head on the table. The class continued with painting activities. (RO at 6-7). The video evidence is subject to differing interpretations by reasonable persons. While Petitioner in its Proposed Final Order invited the undersigned to adopt the findings in the Recommended Order describing the incident shown on the video as the findings herein, that invitation must be declined, as the undersigned would describe the incident as portrayed in the video in substantially different terms from the Recommended Order. For example, while the undersigned would agree that Ms. Piovera came into the classroom to help Ms. Pacheco, who could not keep the children sitting down with their shoes on (and out of their mouths), there is no sign in the video that Ms. Piovera attempted to redirect children from actively standing on chairs and chewing on shoes to actively engaging in appropriate activities such as art and singing. Instead, the video shows that both before and after Ms. Piovera was in the room, only one child was provided an art activity. None of the other five children who were being unruly were redirected to an art activity, singing, or any other activity. And the "class" did not continue with painting activities after Ms. Piovera left the room; only one child continued a painting activity, the same child engaged in the one-on-one painting project with the teacher before Ms. Piovera's entrance. For the remaining one and one-half minutes of the video after Ms. Piovera left the classroom, no new activity was started for the five other children, including A.M. All five children were subdued in the aftermath of Ms. Piovera. A.M., in particular, continued to cry for a while after Ms. Piovera left the room, kept his head down on the table, and appeared morose, in contrast to the happy, active child he appeared to be before his encounter with Ms. Piovera. The undersigned also would not describe Ms. Piovera's handling of A.M. the same as in the Recommended Order. Instead, the undersigned would agree with the Department's perceptions when viewing the video before issuing the Administrative Complaint. A reasonable interpretation of the video evidence is that rather than making physical contact with A.M. to constructively redirect him to an appropriate activity, Ms. Piovera imposed a physical consequence on A.M. for misbehaving by roughly and forcefully wiping/pinching his nose, twisting and pushing A.M. in his chair up to the table, and forcefully pulling his arms up from under the table and pushing them down to the table. Ms. Piovera forced A.M. into the position of sitting at the table and forced his arms on the table not to prepare him to start a new activity, but as punishment. Ms. Piovera did not offer A.M. or the other five children any new activity; she left the room after she was done positioning A.M. so Ms. Pacheco could continue her one-on-one painting session with the same one child (and Ms. Pacheco did so for the last one and one-half minutes of the video). This interpretation is supported by the summary of the on-site investigation in the licensing inspection report. In summarizing Ms. Pacheco's interview, the report noted Ms. Pacheco said that the five children were behaving improperly while she was attempting to conduct a painting activity with one child. She was asked why she did not attempt to get the children in her classroom under control and she explained that only Ms. Piovera could "correct the children when they are off task."7 7 Ms. Gonzalez, who translated the interview, recalled Ms. Pacheco stating that only Ms. Piovera could discipline the children. Ms. Gonzalez remembered that because she made a point of asking Ms. Pacheco what she meant by "discipline." Ms. Pacheco responded that, "well, redirection is what is in the policy." It was reasonable for the Department to consider Reasonable persons can differ—and have differed—regarding their perceptions of the video. The allegations of fact in the Administrative Complaint are substantially supported by a reasonable perception of the video evidence, albeit that the ALJ in the underlying action saw it differently. The Administrative Complaint allegations are further supported by the investigations and findings of the child protective investigators and the child care licensing counselor in their respective reports. This material was all available to and considered by the Department before issuing the Administrative Complaint. The testimony at the final hearing in this case elicited by Petitioner's counsel makes the point that the allegations are supported by a reasonable perception of the video. In questioning the Department's expert, Petitioner's counsel asked whether it was a reasonable interpretation of the video for the ALJ to find that when the child's feet lifted up and head went back with Ms. Piovera's second nose wipe, that was the child pulling back because he does not like his nose wiped. The witness responded, "I don't agree with that." Counsel then asked, "But it's one that's possible, isn't it?" The witness agreed, "Sure." (Tr. at 91). The issue here is not whether the ALJ's findings reflect one possible interpretation of the video. The issue is whether another reasonable interpretation of the video—that of the Department's witnesses at the time, supported by the investigations—provided a reasonable basis for the allegations in the Administrative Complaint. The undersigned finds that there was a reasonable basis in fact for the allegations in the Administrative Complaint. Petitioner argued that the Department should have given weight to Ms. Piovera's statement that the reason for the mother's complaint was that information from the investigation provided by Ms. Gonzalez, who was part of the group that assessed the video when deciding whether to issue the Administrative Complaint. Her information supported the group's perception from the video itself. Ms. Gonzalez also made contemporary notes during the interview, but the notes are fairly sketchy, as would stand to reason given her focus on actively translating for Ms. Pacheco. the mother owed her money. Petitioner also argued the Department should have considered the fact that even though the mother saw the incident on the camera feed, she nonetheless let the child remain at the facility for several more hours, until coming to pick up him at 2:15 p.m. Lastly, Petitioner pointed to the mother's delay in lodging the complaint. None of these issues affect what is shown on the video or what was found in the investigative reports. If the mother's testimony had been the sole or primary evidence of the incident, then the points raised by Petitioner would bear on her credibility. However, the basis for the complaint was what the mother observed on the camera feed. It is noteworthy that the Department was able to, and did, independently assess the video evidence and, as previously noted, did not include charges in the Administrative Complaint for some aspects of the mother's complaint. As for the charge stemming from the incident shown on the video in evidence, however, Petitioner's points do not undermine the reasonable basis in fact for the allegations. Findings Related to Special Circumstances Defense Ms. Piovera was not forthright regarding the availability of the actual video footage recorded on her security system. She repeatedly suggested that the original video footage would present a different, slower scene in which she would not appear to be aggressive and rough with A.M., to plant the seed of doubt regarding the accuracy of the video provided by the mother, while not ever producing the original video footage so her theory could be tested. In Ms. Piovera's interview with the MCSO investigators, she told them that the video obtained from the complaining mother was not accurate, making her appear to be rougher than she actually was in dealing with A.M. But, she said, the original video was no longer available, because it had been nearly one month since the May 30, 2020, incident. When Ms. Piovera said that—on June 20, 2018—21 days had passed since the incident. The pre-hearing documents in the underlying action officially recognized in this case at the Department's request show that Ms. Piovera made the same claim of inaccuracy when deposed in the underlying action, but suggested that she could obtain the original video from the security system company. That triggered an elaborate effort by the Department to obtain the original video in discovery, strung along by Petitioner's promises through her attorney that the video would be forthcoming, followed by changing excuses as to why the video was not yet forthcoming but would be soon, and changing stories as to when and how it would be provided. The Department's motion to compel in early February 2019 laid out the efforts to that point to obtain the video. See First Amended Motion to Compel at 2, ¶ 9, filed Feb. 8, 2019. The motion to compel was granted, but still no video was produced; instead, there were more promises and changing stories as to when and how the video would be provided. Ultimately, the Department moved for sanctions, which was granted by Order issued March 18, 2019 (Sanction Order). The Sanction Order recited that the Department had a copy of the surveillance footage from a third party (the mother), but that My First Steps "contends the copy does not accurately depict the incident in question because the video replay is faster than the real time. As a sanction, the Department requests that [My First Steps] be prevented from objecting to the accuracy of the Department's copy." The ALJ agreed, and imposed the following sanction: "[My First Steps] will not be allowed to object to the accuracy or admissibility of the Department's copy of the facility surveillance video for May 30, 2018." My First Steps moved for rehearing of the Sanction Order. The Department's response chronicled the progression of assurances provided by Ms. Piovera, through counsel, none of which were met, and ultimately, as before, the story changed. The ALJ denied the motion for rehearing. Again, at the hearing in the underlying action, counsel for My First Steps tried to revisit the Sanction Order, offering case law suggesting harsh sanctions should not be imposed against a party for the counsel's actions. The ALJ stated that he did not think counsel was stonewalling, but he believed that Ms. Piovera was stonewalling. The ALJ denied this second request for reconsideration of the Sanction Order. (underlying action Tr. at 29-30). Petitioner essentially concedes that the discovery fiasco is a special circumstance, but argues it should only render part of the claimed fees unjust. Petitioner contends that its agreement to withdraw those items should end the issue of special circumstances. Petitioner's view of the limited scope and impact of these special circumstances is not supported by the record. The issue of the original video's availability was more than just a discovery matter. Instead, Ms. Piovera invoked her claim that the mother's copy of the video was inaccurate, making her appear rougher with the child than she was, when she was investigated on June 20, 2018. The investigators found her statement significant enough to include it in their Overall Safety Assessment, after they described the video showing that Ms. Piovera was rough and forceful with the child. The investigators also made a point of recounting Ms. Piovera's representation that the original video was no longer available by that point, three weeks after the incident. A fair inference from that recitation is that the investigators asked Ms. Piovera for the original video after she said the copy they were reviewing was not accurate. The issue of the original video's availability also had an impact on the outcome of the underlying action. Despite the Sanction Order, at the final hearing Ms. Piovera was permitted to testify over objection—for the stated purpose of allowing My First Steps to make a record—that the video in evidence was not accurate, appearing faster than real life. She painted the picture that the "inaccurate" video made her look like she rushed into the room and was aggressive and rough. Again, notwithstanding the Sanction Order and the stated purpose for allowing this testimony, the ALJ ended up accepting Ms. Piovera's testimony, finding that the video in evidence was "a little fast." (RO at 5, ¶ 8). Implicitly, the ALJ accepted the implications: that Ms. Piovera appeared rough when she really was not; Ms. Piovera appeared to rush in when she really did not move that fast; and Ms. Piovera's actions appeared aggressive and harsh when they really were not. A critical point that must be made here is that Ms. Piovera's own testimony at the hearing in the underlying action established that, contrary to what she told the investigators on June 20, 2018, she could have obtained the original video, and she knew she could have obtained the original video, within 30 days of the recording. Ms. Piovera's clear testimony on this point was as follows: "[W]hen I purchased the equipment, they told me they only keep it for 30 days because the memory is not that big. So after 30 days, everything is going to erase." (underlying action Tr. at 33) (emphasis added). Ms. Piovera thus admitted she knew on June 20, 2018, that she had nine more days to obtain the original video before it would be erased. Yet she told the investigators it was already too late to obtain the original video.8 Ms. Piovera added at the hearing in the underlying action, for good measure, a new excuse for not trying to obtain the original video, stating that "for the privacy and one of the main reasons why I didn't turn this video [sic] is because the parents were not okay with me showing their children in the video. That was one of the main reasons why. I had a letter for them to sign and they refused." (underlying action Tr. at 32). That would not explain why she told investigators the original video was no longer available, nor why she would hesitate to provide an original video to support her claim that the mother's copy of the video, which showed the children, was inaccurate. These special circumstances are far more than just a discovery matter. Ms. Piovera misrepresented to the MCSO child protective investigators that the original video was no longer available, and used her misrepresentation as 8 After admitting that she has known since she purchased the equipment, and, therefore, knew on June 20, 2018, that she could still obtain the original video, Ms. Piovera claimed at the hearing in the underlying action that she actually wanted to pull up the original video footage on her equipment right then and there, during the investigation, to show the MCSO investigators, but they told her not to, because the video copy showed no evidence of abuse. That claim is not credible; it does not square with her contrary statement that the investigators made a point of including in their report in the Overall Safety Assessment. a way to undermine the video provided by the mother without actually proving her claim that the mother's video was inaccurate, distorting her actions and making her look rougher than she said she actually was. Ms. Piovera employed the same strategy in the underlying action. That this was a strategic plan is evident from her attorney's billing records, which include the following entry four weeks before the hearing: "Notify Carina of need to demonstrate that phone video of incident is not accurate." See Pet. Ex. 5, billing entry for February 21, 2019. The strategy to undermine the perceived reliability of the video in evidence is both a concession by Petitioner that the video provides a reasonable basis for the allegations and charge of rough and harsh handling of A.M. in the Administrative Complaint, and a reason for finding special circumstances making the award of attorney's fees and costs unjust. In short, Ms. Piovera's inconsistent and false statements regarding the original video allowed her to play both sides of the issue, injecting doubt as to the reliability of the mother's video without having to actually prove it.9 Ms. Piovera could have obtained the original video had she really believed it would have helped her respond to the investigation. Instead, she lied and told the investigators she could no longer obtain it. That she succeeded in injecting the same doubt in the administrative hearing, despite the Sanction Order, requires a finding that these special circumstances went to the heart of the issue, and may well have tainted the outcome of the underlying action. Under these unique circumstances, an award of attorney's fees and costs would be unjust. 9 The undersigned does not suggest that counsel for Petitioner sponsored or was aware of his client's misrepresentations. Ms. Piovera's testimony at the final hearing in the underlying action that she knew since she purchased the surveillance equipment that she could obtain the original video within 30 days of the recording appeared to be the first time this statement was made. Conceivably, the statement could have been overlooked even after it slipped out.
The Issue Whether Respondent, Department of Children and Families (Department), should grant the application filed by Cynthia McGuire-Moore to obtain a license to operate a child care facility through an entity known as Funhouse Learning Academy, LLC (Funhouse), contrary to the Department’s Notice of Intent to Deny Application, dated March 17, 2020.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with regulating licensed child care providers in the State of Florida. On March 13, 2020, Ms. McGuire-Moore submitted an “Application for a License to Operate a Child Care Facility” (Application) with the Department. The Application identified Funhouse as the name of the facility to appear on the license. In the Application, Ms. McGuire-Moore disclosed that she had previously owned, and served as director of, a licensed child care facility named “First Steps Learning Academy.” The Application does not reflect Ms. McGuire-Moore’s ownership of another licensed child care facility named “A Step Above Christian Academy.” However, the testimony and evidence presented established that Ms. McGuire-Moore previously owned another licensed child care facility named “A Step Above Christian Academy.” On March 17, 2020, the Department issued a “Notice of Intent to Deny Application,” which denied the Application, and stated: The denial is based on the following: As Owner/Director of A Step Above Christian Academy April 16, 2018 the license to operate A Step Above Christian Academy was revoked following the sixth Class II Violation for standard #3 Sufficient Ratio, in a two-year period. April 3, 2018 (Complaint Investigation) It was reported to the licensing office that Ms. McGuire- Moore had been providing childcare in her home but had asked parents to take their children back to the facility located at 1122 Dr. Mary McLeod Bethune Blvd this week as she would be on vacation. Upon responding to the facility address counselor did not find children in care. They were being cared for by an unscreened individual. Parents were contacted and children were sent home. December 22, 2017 A Cease and Desist letter was provided to Ms. McGuire-Moore while awaiting the final hearing as the facility was again found out of ratio for the sixth time on December 15, 2017 (Routine Inspection). The facility was [sic] also received a fine levied in the amount of $100.00. September 21, 2017 (Routine Inspection) They [sic] facility was found out of ratio for the fifth time and the revocation proceedings were initiated. July 21, 2016 (Complaint Investigation) The facility was found out of ratio for the fourth time and placed on a six-month probationary license and was fined $150.00 (two days out of ratio at $75.00 per day). June 16, 2016 (Complaint Investigation) The facility was found out of ratio for the third time and fined $60.00. Technical Assistance was provided. March 30, 2016 (Routine Inspection) The facility was found out of ratio for the second time and fined $50.00. Technical assistance was provided. December 17, 2015 (Routine Inspection) The facility was found out of ratio for the first time and counselor provided technical assistance. Due to the circumstances noted above we are unable to approve your application to obtain a Child Care Facility license. In Department of Children and Families v. A Step Above Christian Academy, LLC, d/b/a A Step Above Christian Academy, LLC, Case No. 17- 6871 (Fla. DOAH Mar. 21, 2018; Fla. DCF Apr. 16, 2018), ALJ Lawrence P. Stevenson recommended, after conducting a final hearing, that the Department revoke the license for A Step Above Christian Academy, LLC, based on the incidents (i.e., numerous ratio violations) referred to in the Department’s “Notice of Intent to Deny Application” and paragraph 4 above.1 The Department approved ALJ Stevenson’s recommendation in its Final Order. Ms. McGuire-Moore testified that A Step Above Christian Academy had been open for approximately three years before the revocation. She provided child care for infants through kindergarten. Prior to owning and operating A Step Above Christian Academy, she provided home daycare for eight years, and was also the interim director of and VPK teacher at Friendship Academy; another child care facility. Ms. McGuire-Moore testified that she made a “mistake” when operating A Step Above Christian Academy, and took responsibility for the ratio violations detailed in DOAH Case No. 17-6871 and the Notice of Intent to Deny Application. In the approximately two-and-a-half years since the revocation of the license of A Step Above Christian Academy, LLC, Ms. McGuire-Moore has worked for the Daytona Beach News Journal, delivering newspapers. Ms. McGuire-Moore testified that if granted another license, she would maintain the required ratio of children to staff by “do[ing] a better screening of my teachers that I hire ... Also, if teachers can’t be on time, then, I would just have to let them go and hire someone that can be on time.” Ms. Overly was the Department counselor assigned to investigate A Step Above Christian Academy from 2016-2017, and, in her current position as supervisor, reviewed the Application. Ms. Overly confirmed that the basis for the Notice of Intent to Deny Application was the numerous ratio violations involving A Step Above Christian Academy that led to its revocation. She also stated that, when assigned to investigate A Step Above Christian Academy, she found 52 total 1 A ratio violation occurs when the prescribed ratio of staff to children has not been met. Fla. Admin. Code R. 65C-22.001(4). violations—21 of which were Class II violations that included the ratio violations.2 Ms. Overly testified about various violations—other than ratio violations—that she found when investigating A Step Above Christian Academy, which included: Employing individuals who had not completed required background screening; Failing to maintain a clean environment, noting that during the final inspection before revocation, she discovered that five of the six toilets at A Step Above Christian Academy were backed up and not functioning, that a sink was backed up and had mold, that the ceiling was in disrepair, and that a fence in the back of the yard was “down” several months after a previous inspection; and Receiving a complaint from a parent with a child attending A Step Above Christian Academy who was informed by Ms. McGuire-Moore that she was going on vacation, but that a person named Ms. Lex would fill in for her; when Ms. Overly investigated the day after receiving this complaint, she learned that Ms. Lex had not completed required background screening or the required training to care for children. Ms. Overly also testified that she reviewed the history of another child care facility Ms. McGuire-Moore previously owned—Moore’s Christian Academy—and found that between 2006 through 2008, the Department conducted eight inspections and found five ratio violations. Ms. Overly stated that Ms. McGuire-Moore’s history of owning and operating child care facilities indicates a long and consistent pattern of ratio violations. 2 A Class II violation “is an incident of noncompliance with an individual Class II standard as described on CF-FSP Form 5316.” Fla. Admin. Code R. 65C-22.010(1)(e)2. “For the fifth and subsequent violation of the same Class II standard, the Department shall suspend, deny, or revoke the license, and shall also impose an administrative fine of $100.00 per day for each such violation.” Fla. Admin. Code R. 65C-22.010(2)(d)2.d. The undersigned finds that the Department established that Ms. McGuire-Moore’s history of owning and operating child care facilities includes repeated ratio violations, which culminated in the revocation of the license for A Step Above Christian Academy, as indicated in the Notice of Intent to Deny Application.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the undersigned hereby RECOMMENDS that the Department of Children and Families enter a final order denying the application for a child care facility license that Ms. McGuire-Moore submitted for Funhouse Learning Academy, LLC. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of October, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT J. TELFER III Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of October, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Jane Almy-Loewinger, Esquire Department of Children and Families Suite 412 210 North Palmetto Avenue Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 (eServed) Lacey Kantor, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Families Building 2, Room 204Z 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 (eServed) Steven R. Robinson, President Steven R. Robinson, P.A. Suite 300 533 Seabreeze Boulevard Daytona Beach, Florida 32118 (eServed) Javier Enriquez, General Counsel Department of Children and Families Building 2, Room 204F 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 (eServed) Chad Poppell, Secretary Department of Children and Families Building 1, Room 202 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 At issue is whether the Respondent committed the violation alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Department is authorized to regulate child care facilities pursuant to sections 402.301-402.319, Florida Statutes.2/ Section 402.310 authorizes the Department to take disciplinary action against child care facilities for violations of sections 402.301-402.319. Magellan is a child care facility operating pursuant to License Number C04DU0288. The facility is located at 10550 Deerwood Park Boulevard, #704, Jacksonville, Florida. Walter Giannone is a child care licensing counselor for the Department. He has worked for the Department for 24 years, all in the area of child care licensing. Mr. Giannone was the licensing counselor assigned to assist Magellan when the company was obtaining its first license to operate a day care roughly a decade ago. He is very familiar with Magellan and its facilities. For the past two years, Mr. Giannone has been assigned to inspect the Magellan daycare. He testified that Magellan's inspections have been uniformly satisfactory. On Friday, December 9, 2011, Mr. Giannone received a complaint that K.J., a two-year-old boy, was injured when he fell from a piece of play equipment at Magellan. The complaint was made by K.J.'s mother, who alleged that the child was alone in the classroom for around seven minutes, that no one came to his immediate assistance when he fell, that 911 was not called and the parents were not immediately notified. On Monday morning, December 12, 2011, Mr. Giannone conducted an on-site investigation of the incident at Magellan. He interviewed several people, including the facility's director, Marilyn Potts. Ms. Potts gave Mr. Giannone her report of the incident and assured him that it was not nearly as severe as the parent's complaint alleged. Mr. Giannone viewed Magellan's security camera video for December 9, 2011. The tape, which had no audio, showed a classroom designated for two-year-olds in which there were eight children and one teacher. The time was around 5:30 p.m., which was parent pick-up time preliminary to Magellan's 6:00 p.m. closure. Most of the children were "milling around the room." At around 5:37 p.m., the teacher placed a female child on the changing table and began changing the child's diaper. The mother of the child was visible in the video, talking to the teacher as the teacher changed her child's diaper. The teacher was facing the classroom and could see the other children in the room. At about 5:39 p.m., K.J. climbed up onto a play stove in the classroom. A few seconds later he was joined by a little girl, who quickly climbed down. Mr. Giannone stated that K.J. was dancing around on top of the stove and appeared to be having fun when he fell from the stove. Mr. Giannone testified that K.J. was on top of the stove for one minute and 19 seconds before he fell. The teacher immediately ran to K.J. The mother took over at the changing table. Mr. Giannone testified that K.J. did not move for a moment or two. The teacher carried K.J. out of the room. About four minutes later, K.J. was brought back into the room and appeared to be fine. K.J.'s mother later took him to the emergency room, where he was pronounced in good health save for a sinus infection. While agreeing that the incident was not nearly as serious as the parent's complaint made it seem, Mr. Giannone still found a violation of the supervision requirement. Because there was no audio on the tape, Mr. Giannone took the teacher's word that she told the child to get down, but he found this insufficient. The child was on top of the play stove for over one minute, yet the teacher did not physically intervene to take him down and did not call for assistance. Mr. Giannone concluded that this was a direct supervision violation. He determined that it was a Class 2 violation, meaning that it could be anticipated to pose a threat to the health, safety or well-being of a child, but that the threat was not imminent. The teacher, Sarah Rahman, testified that she was at the changing table when K.J. began climbing on the play stove. She called out to him to stop and he obeyed, but started climbing again as soon as she looked down to change the diaper of the child on the changing table. She called out again but K.J. would not come down. Ms. Rahman stated that she could not physically intervene because she could not leave the other child alone on the changing table. Ms. Rahman did not adequately explain why she could not have left the child with her mother. She testified that the mother was not present when K.J. began to climb on the stove, but conceded that the mother was present no later than when Ms. Rahman called out to K.J. for the second time. Ms. Rahman further conceded that she could have prevented K.J.'s fall if she had let the mother take care of her own child on the changing table. Ms. Rahman testified that K.J. had a history of climbing on this play equipment, and that it had occurred to her that the equipment might pose a fall risk. Magellan has an intercom system that allows teachers to call for assistance from the front office. After K.J. fell, Ms. Rahman used the intercom to call Teresa Sanchez, a fellow employee who was at the desk in the front lobby greeting parents as they arrived to pick up their children. Ms. Sanchez immediately went back to assist. Ms. Sanchez testified that the purpose of the intercom is to allow teachers to push a button and quickly get assistance in the classroom. However, Ms. Rahman failed to ask for assistance until after K.J. fell off the play stove. Magellan presented evidence establishing that K.J. was an unruly, disobedient child. He was very aggressive and was known to slap, kick and spit at his teachers. His mother told school personnel that K.J. climbed on the furniture at home and that she could not control him. At the time of the incident, Magellan was in the process of expelling K.J. for his behavior. Marilyn Potts, Magellan's director, testified that she could not assign a teacher to follow one child around to be sure he does not hurt himself. None of these factors serves to excuse Magellan for this incident. Ms. Rahman testified that whether a child is well behaved has no bearing on her responsibility to ensure the child's safety. The foreknowledge that K.J. was prone to climb on the equipment and was not inclined to obey verbal instructions was all the more reason for Ms. Rahman to intervene physically before the child fell. Magellan argued that Ms. Rahman could not be expected to rush over and pull K.J. off the play stove because Department rules require a 30-second hand wash after the changing of a diaper. This argument is unavailing. Ms. Rahman rushed to K.J. after he fell without bothering to wash her hands. Given the exigent circumstances, Ms. Rahman could as well have gone to K.J.'s assistance before he fell. Finally, Magellan argued that the matter should have been dropped when K.J.'s mother subsequently attempted to withdraw her complaint. Mr. Giannone credibly testified that dropping the matter was not an option. Once a complaint is filed, the Department is required to investigate and determine the facts of the situation regardless of whether the complainant has a subsequent change of heart. Though in this instance the complainant's change of heart was motivated by sincere regret at exaggerating the seriousness of the incident, in other cases a complaint might be withdrawn because the complainant has been intimidated. Mr. Giannone testified that it was important for child safety that the Department follow the facts of each case rather than the whims of the complainant.
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 Respondent provided inadequate supervision in violation of rule 65c-22.001 (5)(a), imposing a fine of $50.00 upon Magellan Christian Academies, LLC. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of August, 2012, 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 23rd day of August, 2012.
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether Petitioner's application for licensure as a child care facility should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, God's Little Blessings, applied for licensure as a child care facility on March 23, 2015. The application was completed and submitted by Leslie Fudge, the owner and proposed operator of the facility. The proposed director was Adrienne Wimas (spelling uncertain). After review of the application, the Department denied Petitioner a child care facility license on May 1, 2015. The sole reason for the denial was contained in the Department's denial letter dated May 1, 2015. The letter stated: This letter will serve to advise you that your Application . . . is hereby denied based on review of your background screening, including the Florida Central Abuse Hotline Record Search. No other reason for denial was stated in the Department's letter. While not stating the specific facts regarding the background screening and abuse record search, the evidence demonstrated that the denial was based on one confirmed report of neglect (Abuse Report 2003-031849-01) against Ms. Fudge for inadequate supervision of resident R.H., and medical neglect of residents R.G. and J.D. Both incidents occurred at about the same time on or about March 5, 2003, while Ms. Fudge was employed at Tallahassee Development Center (Center). The Center provided residential and direct care to developmentally disabled residents at its facility. At the time, Ms. Fudge was employed as care staff responsible for providing direct one-to-one care to R.H. She was not assigned to provide care to R.G. Other than Ms. Fudge, no witness with personal knowledge of these incidents testified at the hearing. Consequently, many of the statements contained in the 2003 abuse report remain hearsay which was not corroborated by any competent substantial evidence. Additionally, the age of the report, confusing allegations and lack of factual basis for its findings of inadequate supervision or medical neglect cause the abuse report to be unreliable and untrustworthy as evidence. As such, except as found below, the report by itself cannot form a basis for denial of Petitioner's application. Ms. Fudge was the only person who testified at the hearing with personal knowledge about the events of March 5, 2003. She testified, and such testimony is accepted, that on or around March 5, 2003, she was not a shift supervisor, but was assigned as a direct care aide with "one-to-one" supervision of R.H. The testimonial evidence from Ms. Fudge and other employees of the Center during 2003 demonstrated that Tallahassee Developmental Center employees were trained that one-to-one supervision meant that "the person had always to be watched" and "you could never leave [the person] alone." There was no credible evidence that the person could not be alone in the restroom, that the staff assigned to watch the person had to be within arm's length of the resident, or that such observation was not varied according to the behavior plan for an individual resident. Further, the testimonial evidence showed that staff and Ms. Fudge knew R.H. would run away usually to hide in a particular office, but occasionally with the police being called if R.H. were to leave the building and could not be found. The evidence did not demonstrate that R.H. behaviorally was aggressive or dangerous to others, but only that he would run away and hide. Finally, the testimonial evidence showed that the facility was in the process of trying to wean R.H. off of one-to-one supervision by implementing a plan of moving away from him and permitting him times of less supervision. On March 5, 2003, the testimonial evidence demonstrated that Ms. Fudge, R.H., and other residents were gathered in the living room of the house where they lived. The phone in the adjoining office rang and Ms. Fudge answered it. While on the phone she could observe R.H. through the window between the rooms. At some point, R.H. was sent to go to the restroom. It was unclear who sent him. After finishing in the restroom, he did not return to the living room, but "left out of the bathroom" to another office, locked the door and hid behind the desk. Ms. Fudge could see him in the office and called a nurse to bring the key so that the office could be unlocked. At the time, R.H. was not in danger and there was no evidence that demonstrated he was in danger. There was some evidence that another staff person mistakenly may have believed that R.H. had left the building. However, the better evidence showed that Ms. Fudge knew where R.H. was, could see R.H. in the room in which he was locked, and that he was not in danger at the time. Given R.H.'s behavior plan, none of these facts establish neglect by Ms. Fudge in the supervision of R.H. There was no credible, non-hearsay evidence presented at hearing as to the abuse report's allegations regarding resident R.G. or J.D. As such, the Department's evidence consisted only of an old unreliable abuse report consisting of uncorroborated hearsay about an incident involving R.G. and perhaps J.D. and the testimony of the investigator who had no personal knowledge of the facts regarding the incident or the supervisory policies of the Center. Given these facts, Respondent has failed to demonstrate that Ms. Fudge neglected, either in supervision or medically, residents who were in her care. In fact, the evidence showed that Petitioner has been caring for and/or supervising people for many years and has the character and capacity to continue to do so. Since the unproven abuse report was the only basis on which the Department based its decision to deny Petitioner's application, there was nothing in the record to support its determination that Petitioner lacked moral character or the ability to safely operate a child care facility. Therefore, Petitioner's application for such licensure should be granted.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's application for licensure as a child care facility is granted. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of November, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 November, 2015. COPIES FURNISHED: Paul Sexton, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Families 1317 Winewood Boulevard, Building 2, Suite 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 (eServed) Camille Larson, Esquire Department of Children and Families 2383 Phillips Road Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed) Leslie Fudge God's Little Blessings Apartment F-8 216 Dixie Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Michael Andrew Lee, Esquire Department of Children and Families 2383 Phillips Road, Room 231 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5333 (eServed) Rebecca Kapusta, General Counsel Department of Children and Families 1317 Winewood Boulevard, Building 2, Room 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 (eServed) Mike Carroll, Secretary Department of Children and Families 1317 Winewood Boulevard, Building 1, Room 202 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 (eServed)
