The Issue The issue is whether Respondent should revoke Petitioner's license to operate a child care facility for failure to comply with the Director Credential requirements in Subsection 402.305(2)(f), Florida Statutes (2003), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C-22.003(7).
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the state agency responsible for registering family day care homes in Florida. Petitioner is licensed as a child care facility and has operated as a child care facility since October 4, 1990. It is undisputed that Petitioner has satisfied all of the Director Credential requirements, except one. Respondent alleges that Petitioner has not provided Respondent with written verification that Petitioner successfully completed 20 hours of courses required to be certified as a Child Development Associate (CDA). Petitioner completed the courses required to be a CDA in September 1988, but the record of completion is no longer available from the former state agency responsible for administering the program and maintaining those records. Respondent admits that routine licensing inspection reports by Respondent document that Petitioner completed the courses necessary for the CDA certificate in September 1988, and subsequent inspections never cited Petitioner for failure to comply with the CDA requirement. The testimony of Ms. Terry DeLong, Petitioner's director, was credible and persuasive. Petitioner has satisfied all of the Director Credential requirements. Respondent should not revoke Petitioner's license because another state agency failed to maintain its records. It would be unreasonable to require Ms. Delong to repeat the courses she has already completed in order to keep operating the child care facility. The statutory requirement for a CDA certificate is intended to ensure minimal standards of competence. The legislature did not intend to put competent child care facilities out of business because state agencies are unable to maintain records of completion.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order finding that Petitioner has satisfied the statutory Director Credential requirements. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of November, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of November, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Beryl Thompson-McClary, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 400 West Robinson Street, Suite S-1106 Orlando, Florida 32801 Terry DeLong Tuskawilla Montessori School 1625 Montessori Point Oviedo, Florida 32765 Paul F. Flounlacker, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204B 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Josie Tomayo, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding is whether Petitioner should be denied continued licensure for her child care facility.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is Idella Newell-Robinson. She was issued a child care license for Robinson's Christian Academy in February of 2003. Respondent is the State of Florida agency charged with the regulation of child care facilities and licensure issuance for those facilities. Respondent's representative advised Petitioner on numerous occasions of the need for Petitioner's facility to have someone on staff with “director's credentials.” Petitioner said she was going to attend classes, preparatory to receiving the required license, in October of 2003. By letter dated January 17, 2004, Respondent's representative advised Petitioner that a provisional license had been issued to Petitioner's facility because of the failure to comply with the requirement that a staff member have director's credentials no later than January 1, 2004. Petitioner was also advised that the provisional license would be amended to a regular license as soon as Respondent received documentation of Petitioner's receipt of the required director's credentials. A provisional license was issued to Petitioner on February 14, 2004, to extend through July 2, 2004. Respondent's letter of January 17, 2004, also provided Petitioner with complete advice regarding how to obtain the required director's credentials, as well as the admonition that failure to obtain the necessary credentials before expiration of the provisional license would result in the revocation of Petitioner's license. By letter dated July 2, 2004, Petitioner was advised that Respondent intended to revoke her license. The director's credentials for child care facilities may be obtained through what is called “the foundational level.” Petitioner had complied with five of the six requirements for director's credentials at the time of final hearing through this method. Petitioner had not received, however, a passing score on part one of the mandated child care introductory course, despite two attempts to pass that examination.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered documenting the denial of licensure for Petitioner's child care facility as a consequence of Petitioner's failure to acquire legally mandated qualifications. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of December, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DON W. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of December, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Robin Whipple-Hunter, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services Post Office Box 2417 Jacksonville, Florida 32231-0083 Idella Newell-Robinson Robinson's Christian Academy 2550 Mayport Road, Suite 8 & 9 Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233 Josie Tomayo, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services Building Two, Box 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Paul Flounlacker, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services Building Two, Box 204B 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Should Respondent have her application to renew her child care facility license denied by Petitioner for reasons set forth in the Administrative Complaint brought by Petitioner? §§ 402.308 and 402.310, Fla. Stat. (2005).
Findings Of Fact The Department of Children and Family Services has jurisdiction over Respondent by virtue of the provisions set forth in Sections 402.301-402.319, Florida Statutes (2005). The Respondent, Sherlane Craig, is licensed to operate Sunniland Nursery and Preschool, as a child care facility in compliance with Chapter 402, Florida Statutes (2005), and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 65C-22. Petitioner is the administrative agency of the State of Florida, charged with the duty to enforce and administer the provisions of Chapter 402, Florida Statutes (2005). Petitioner issued a child care facility certificate of license to Respondent for the Sunniland Nursery and Preschool effective June 1, 2004, through June 1, 2005. Petitioner issued Respondent a child care facility certificate of license that was provisional for the period June 1, 2005, through August 1, 2005. The provisional license was sent to Respondent on June 7, 2005, and was received by Respondent later in June 2005. In addition to the license itself, the transmittal letter to Respondent stated: Enclosed is the provisional license from the Department of Children and Families to operate a childcare facility. A provisional license is being issued at this time based on the facility's continued non-compliance with the state's minimum standards. Specifically the facility was cited five times during the last licensing year for non-compliance regarding the maintenance of fall zone material on the playground. The Department has offered suggestions on creating a framing system to hold fall zone material in place. As of today the Department has been unable to verify compliance. This license is valid until August 1, 2005. An annual license will be issued when all of the above requirements have been met. The license is not transferable to another owner or any other location. If at some point in the future you discontinue operation of your facility, we would appreciate you notifying our childcare licensing office. * * * In advance of the decision to provide Respondent with a provisional license, Petitioner had performed inspections of the facility on May 2, 18, and 24, 2005. On June 8 and June 10, 2005, additional inspections were made at the facility. The May 18 and May 24, 2005 inspections revealed problems with the fall zone on the playground that was the subject of the letter informing Respondent that she had been issued a provisional license. The May 24, 2005, investigative report referred to as a reinspection checklist made mention of the citation for the fall zone during previous inspections. The June 8, 2005, inspection continued to note a problem with the playground area and the fact that Petitioner had issued Respondent a provisional license for continued non- compliance by the failure to maintain the proper cover or protective surface in the fall zone area on the playground. The June 10, 2005, report on the inspection did not mention the fall zone on the playground. More importantly, Respondent testified without being refuted that the fall zone area on the playground was corrected on a date beyond June 8, 2005, the more recent inspection date noting non-compliance for conditions on the playground. To that end, during a visit on June 29, 2005, Dinah Gallon and Kathy Schmitz Petitioner's employees found the conditions of the outdoor play area with the addition of the sand to be satisfactory. Dinah Gallon is a license counselor for Leon County, employed by Petitioner. Respondent also presented evidence in the form of an invoice from Esposito's Nursery concerning the purchase of "2/3 cu yd of coarse sand" and for its installation. That invoice was dated June 22, 2005. On July 8, 2005, Respondent wrote Joseph Alexander, Childcare Services Supervisor, District Two, Department of Children and Family Services, concerning the status of the playground called into question under the terms of the provisional license. That correspondence was received at District Two on July 11, 2005. It stated: Responding to previous instruction from your office to pad our playground with sand in an effort to add protection, in the way of ground cushioning, for our attendants; I have five loads of large gravel, beach sand delivered and spread through our outdoor play area. In the instruction I received it was suggested that barriers be placed around the areas where sand was necessary in an attempt to prevent its erosion. Upon purchasing the large gravel, beach sand from Esposito's, I was informed that barriers for this particular sand was not necessary due to the fact that the sand would absorb the water therefore would not wash away. * * * Although Respondent explained the difficulty experienced in providing resilient and proper cover for the fall areas near the playground equipment, she has not denied the lack of compliance over time with the requirement to maintain a safe fall zone by providing appropriate cover material in those areas. In response to the problem, the type of sand more recently placed has been less prone to erode. Aside from the lack of adequate maintenance of fall zone material on the playground, it is the failure to meet child ratio standards and the failure to provide adequate supervision as observed in the more recent inspections that has led Petitioner to bring the Administrative Complaint, which could lead to the denial of the annual license renewal. The Administrative Complaint is also drawn in recognition of the past history by the Respondent of violations of various kinds. In the category of what is described in the Administrative Complaint as "current violations," the May 2, 2005, inspection of the facility revealed non-compliance with Section 402.305(4), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C-22.001(4)(a) and (b). In particular, the one 1:4 ratio of staff to children for 0-to-12-month-old children required was not met, in that the ratio found was 1:6. The two- year-old category which called for a 1:11 ratio was not complied with, in that the ratio was 1:12 at the facility. Two of the three rooms in which the children were found were out of compliance with the ratio requirement. These problems were corrected on the date of inspection. On May 18, 2005, in a return visit to the facility, the inspection revealed continuing problems in relation to staff to children ratios under the statutory and rule provisions that have been previously described. In this visit, the 0-12 month category calling for a ratio of 1:4 was in actuality 1:5. The mixed group involving 1-to-5-year-olds was not in compliance in that it had a ratio 2:23. In a second observation involving the 0-to-12-months-age group, the ratio was then 1:6, instead of the called for 1:4. Every classroom was found out of compliance with the needed ratio upon this re-inspection. The problem was corrected when additional staff arrived to cover the classes. On May 24, 2005, when the facility was inspected there were continuing ratio problems contrary to the statute and rule. Among the observations, there was one in the initial contact calling for a 1:4 ratio for infants. The ratio found was 1:5. A mixed group of one to five-year-olds calling for a ratio of 1:6, in fact had a ratio of 2:21. All rooms observed were out of compliance with the ratio standards during the first observation. Upon the last observation of the rooms, corrections had been made and the rooms were in compliance. On that same visit, the facility was not compliant with Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C-22.001(5)(a), (b), and (d). It was noted that there was "A classroom of two-year-old children that had no direct supervision. There were three napping in a room and no adult was present." These conditions related to supervision were corrected at the time of the inspection. On June 8, 2005, when an inspection was made at the facility there was a problem found in relation to Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C-22.001(5)(a), (b), and (d). It was observed that the children had gone to Levy Park with one adult present, when an additional adult was needed to supervise the outing. On June 10, 2005, at the next inspection of the facility continuing problems with ratios were found contrary to the statute and rule. On this occasion, two of the three classrooms observed were out of compliance during the initial observation. During a second observation, the infant room remained out of compliance with the ratio standards. The initial observation for the 0-to-12-month-old infants showed a ratio of 1:5, when the ratio called for was 1:4. On the second observation for that age group, the ratio found was 1:4. There was also a problem related to non-compliance with Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C-22.001(5)(a), (b), and (d), in that "Direct supervision of children in the [2 year old] group was inadequate in that [while the provider of the two year old group assisted children in the bathroom, the remainder of her [sic] was left unattended]." By way of history, as far back as July 31, 2000, problems were observed at the facility in relation to non- compliance with standards pertaining to direct supervision. Over time, problems of compliance with ratio standards were also found. A similar pattern was found on August 4, 2000, December 8, 2000, August 7, 2001, April 2, 2002, August 6, 2002, January 30, 2004, and April 27, 2005. Other forms of violation were also found on those dates and additional dates as well. Significantly, in the past, formal discipline has been imposed against Respondent. On April 8, 2002, a $100.00 fine was imposed against Respondent by the Leon County Health Department, predecessor to Petitioner. The basis for that administrative fine was "Your center was found operating over capacity with 46 children (19 children at the center and 26 children at Levy Park). Your current capacity is 45." That was as of August 10, 2001. On April 2, 2002, a visit had also been made in which it was discovered that the number of children present was 48 as opposed to the capacity of 45. On June 3, 2002, the Leon County Health Department imposed a $50.00 fine associated with the May 28, 2002, inspection in which it was found that one of the rooms had children in which the ratio of staff to children was not in compliance. On October 31, 2002, the Leon County Health Department imposed a $100.00 fine premised upon non-compliance with ratio standards on September 30, 2002. On February 6, 2004, Petitioner brought an Administrative Complaint against Respondent. This was premised upon non-compliance with ratio standards on January 30, 2004, and February 6, 2004. A $1,000.00 fine was imposed, consistent with the proposed administrative fine suggested in the Administrative Complaint. In each instance recounted, the administrative fines were paid by the Respondent. Petitioner's Composite Exhibit numbered 1, which sets out the inspection reports during the period contemplated by the overall Administrative Complaint, demonstrates that Petitioner through its employees explained the nature of the problems to Respondent and provided her copies of the inspection reports. By these arrangements, Respondent was reminded of the need to comply with the requirements related to the license. Given the findings made during the inspections, those reminders were frequently stated, to the extent that Respondent could not reasonably contend that she was unaware of her obligation to comply with the law. Concerning the internal process within the Petitioner Agency as to the classification of violations, there is no formal rule. The response to the violations from the policy perspective is to perceive the staff ratio and supervision issues as being more serious than other forms of violations. Class 1 violations are those posing a more immediate threat to safety and harm to the children in a facility. Under Petitioner's internal policy staff ratio and supervision, violations fall within Class 1.
Recommendation Upon the consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered denying Respondent's child care facility license. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of February, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CHARLES C. ADAMS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of February, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Lee Dougherty, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 2639 North Monroe Street, Suite 104 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Deveron Brown, Esquire Brown and Associates, LLC 223 East Virginia Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gregory Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204B 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Slye, Acting General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact In August, 1980, the home of Jacob and Donna Vermeulen was licensed by Petitioner as a pre-school foster home. Under that licensure, the Vermeulens were able to care for children from birth to four years of age. The subject of this proceeding, hereinafter referred to as S.L., was born on May 26, 1976. When S.L. was four years old he and his younger sister were removed from the custody of his natural mother (after he witnessed the homicide by bludgeoning of his father by his mother) because S.L. and his sister had been physically abused by both natural parents. Petitioner placed S.L. and his sister into the Vermeu1en foster home. After S.L. and his sister had been living with the Vermeulens for approximately six months, Petitioner removed them from the Vermeulen home and returned them to the custody of their natural mother. After approximately six months, the two children were again removed from their natural mother since she again physically abused them. Petitioner requested the Vermeulens to again take custody of S.L. and his sister. The Vermeulens were reluctant to do so since both S.L, and his sister were now older than was allowed under the Vermeulens' license, and because S.L. had problems relating with the other foster children living in that home during his first stay there. However, Petitioner's social workers begged the Vermeulens to take the children back since Petitioner was unable to find any other placement for S.L. The Vermeulens agreed to make their home available to S.L. and his sister, and the two children thereafter lived in the Vermeulen home for approximately two and one-half years prior to April 16, 1984. S.L. is a difficult child to care for; he is very emotional, developmentally immature, fearful, and fidgety. He has difficulty sleeping or listening, has a very low self-esteem, and is unable to complete tasks since he becomes emotionally frustrated. Not only is S.L. a clumsy child (most probably due to medication), he also throws himself onto the floor and onto his toys, both as part of his aggressive play behavior and also in conjunction with throwing temper tantrums. S.L. initiates fights in school, on the school bus and at home with the other children in the Vermeulen home to such an extent that fighting somewhere would have been almost a daily occurrence. His excessive demands for attention were often accompanied by negative behavior, such as hitting other children and throwing temper tantrums. On December 21, 1983, S.L. was evaluated by psychiatrist Josephine Perez. Perez diagnosed S.L. as suffering from Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity. Perez determined that the high dosages of anti-psychoic medication that S.L. had been taking were inappropriate, and she prescribed different medication for him. Perez recalls that during S.L.'s initial evaluation in December she noticed that his legs and arms were filled with bruises. S.L. began treating weekly with Perez from January 16, 1984, until April 16, 1984. On each visit at least one of the Vermeulens was present, and each visit contained a seasion between Perez and the foster parent discussing the child's progress and training the foster parent in the use of behavioral modification techniques. During those several months S.L. appeared at Perez's office on one occasion with a black eye and on another occasion with a bruising above his eye. One injury resulted from a fall in the bath tub, and another resulted from a fall out of bed; both falls were probably attributable to changes Perez made in S.L.'s medication. The Vermeulens discussed both incidents with Perez since they were concerned that S.L,'s medication was still not in the proper dosage. The Vermeulens testified that sometimes when S.L.'s medication was changed, he was unable to control even his arms and was unable to sit still long enough to eat. In January, 1984, when S.L. began treating with Dr. Perez there were six children living in the Vermeulen home: four foster children, one adopted child, and one natural child. The Vermeulens and Dr. Perez discussed the number of children living in the Vermeulen home, which prohibited giving S.L. the excessive amount of time required by him to satisfy his need for attention. Perez told the Vermeulens that in her professional opinion S.L. should be in a home with no more than one other child. In turn, the Vermeulens told Perez that they had been requesting Petitioner to remove S.L. from their home out of their concern (1) for S.L. since he needed so much more attention than was available to him and (2) for the other children not only because S.L. would kick and hit them but also because the Vermeulens had discovered S.L. in his sister's bedroom standing over her with a knife in his hand on two occasions. Although Perez agreed that S.L. should be placed a different foster setting, she did nothing to assist in obtaining a different placement and did not discuss with any employee of the Petitioner ("HRS") her recommendation and the Vermeulens' desire that S.L. be placed in a setting, preferably, where he was the only child. The Vermeulens, however, continued to request of HRS employees, including the visiting social workers and medical personnel, that S.L. be removed from their home, with visitation rights being given to the Vermeulens if possible. During this time period the Vermeulens determined that they wished to adopt Michelle, a foster child in their care. On Friday, April 13, 1984, an HRS employee went to the Vermeulen home to discuss that petition for adoption and to advise the Vermeulens that HRS would not allow them to adopt Michelle. Mr. and Mrs. Vermeulen S.L., and the rest of the children living in the home were present during that discussion. The Vermeulens were advised that they would not be permitted to adopt Michelle so long as S.L. was living in their home since he is a "therapeutic foster child" and Petitioner's rules would prohibit the adoption while a "therapeutic child" was in the home. Mrs. Vermeulen was unable to understand Petitioner's position: its refusal to remove S.L. from her home after repeated requests and its refusal to allow her to adopt Michelle for the reason that S.L. was in her home. Mrs. Vermeulen became upset, and S.L. told her and Petitioner's employee to put him in a foster home indicating he would rather be sent away than prevent Michelle from being adopted by the Vermeulens. Since the HRS employee was having a difficult time discussing HRS's position, she left the Vermeulen home. On Friday, April 13, 1984, or on Monday, April 16, 1984, S.L. became involved in a fight on the school bus on the way home from school. The bus driver told Mrs. Vermeulen about the fight. On Monday April 16, 1984, Mrs. Vermeulen took S.L. to his weekly therapy session with Dr. Perez. During that session, S.L. indicated to Perez that he had been bad and had been "paddled" on the legs. He would give her no details, but Perez believed it was Donna Vermeulen who paddled S.L. Rather than discuss it with Mrs. Vermeulen, Perez acted as though nothing had been said. Further, although a medical doctor, she did not examine S.L. Instead, Perez discussed with Mrs. Vermeulen behavioral modification techniques to be utilized with S.L. and sent them home. She then telephoned HRS, and a child abuse report was completed. On April 18, 1984, an HRS employee went to S.L.'s school, removed the child from his class, and took the child to be examined by the Child Protection Team. S.L. was first examined by the nurse. When S.L. was unable to explain to the nurse from where each mark on his body originated (or refused to), she interrogated him with questions such as "Did your mommy hit you?" The nurse made notations on a chart indicating numerous marks or bruises on S.L.'s body. However, an HRS employee saw S.L. disrobed when he was being examined by the doctor on the team and saw only two marks on his lower back. Other HRS employees went to the Vermeulen home and removed all the children. No one discussed the incident or accusation with either Mr. or Mrs. Vermeulen until the following day. Until he was removed from her class on April 18, 1984, S.L. was taught by Debbie Froug an Exceptional Education teacher for emotionally disturbed children. Although Froug describes S.L. as a basically honest child, she testified that he sometimes gets very confused. A careful review of the videotaped testimony of S.L. and of the conflicting testimony of the witnesses in this case indicates that Froug's latter description is probably an understatement. No witness in this case heard the same explanation (or accusation) as any other witness. S.L's videotaped testimony illustrates why: there is no statement made by S.L. that is not contradicted by him a few seconds later. For example the videotaped deposition contains on page 27 the following: O. Did you ever have a black eye? A. No. O. Didn't you talk to Dr. Perez about having a black eye once? A. Yes, but I didn't. How did you get the black eye? One of the kids on the bus. Things stated in the affirmative by S.L. in his deposition are also stated in the negative in that same deposition. Further, it is sometimes impossible to ascertain if S.L. is describing being hit by his real father, by his real mother, or by his foster mother. Although no accusation appears to ever have been made, including in the Administrative Complaint, that Jacob Vermeulen ever struck S.L., by the time of S.L.'s deposition eight months after the alleged incident when S.L. was asked if Jacob ever hit him, that question was answered in the affirmative. In short, the evidence is clear that S.L. had some bruises or marks on his body on April 18, 1984; that those bruises or marks were both received accidentally and intentionally inflicted, and that the bruises or marks on S.L.'s body were received as a result of S.L. falling from being uncoordinated or overmedicated, from S.L. flinging himself onto the floor or onto or against objects, and from being hit or kicked by other children with whom S.L. engaged in almost-daily physical combat. Donna and Jacob Vermeulen used only approved behavior modification techniques with S.L. and did not hit S.L. with or without any object, spank S.L., or otherwise inflict physical abuse upon him. Although the Vermeulens' license as a foster home was in effect at all times material hereto, it has lapsed. A foster home license is not automatically renewed but rather requires an annual licensing study. Other than "the incident" charged herein the Vermeulens have received no prior complaints from HRS.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is REC0MENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing with prejudice the Administrative Complaint filed herein and directing that any licensure study performed regarding the renewal or extension of Respondents' license be made omitting therefrom consideration of any of the matters set forth herein. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 19th day of July, 1985 at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of July,1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Leonard Helfand, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 401 N.W. 2nd Avenue, Suite 1070 Miami, Florida 33128 Thomas J. Walsh, Esquire 590 English Avenue Homestead, Florida 33030 David Pingree, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Did Respondent, Department of Children and Families (Department), correctly deny the application of Petitioner, Laura's Learning and Enrichment Center (Laura's Learning), for licensure renewal for failure to meet the minimum licensing standards for child care facilities?
Findings Of Fact The Legislature has charged the Department with regulating and licensing child care facilities. Laura Smith owns and operates Laura's Learning in Lake Wales, Florida. Since 2009, the Department has licensed Laura's Learning as a child care facility. The charges involved in this proceeding are the first time that the Department has acted against Laura's Learning's license. Ms. Smith submitted an amended application to renew her license on November 21, 2019. The Department proposes to deny renewal of the license because Ms. Smith failed, the Department asserts, to protect her adopted son, B.S., from bizarre punishment and resulting physical and emotional harm. It also alleges that Ms. Smith failed to provide a required update to her renewal application. In its case number 2019-197752-01, the Department made a verified finding of abuse by Ms. Smith of B.S., her adopted son, by failing to protect him from bizarre punishment and physical injury. Because of this, the Department revoked Ms. Smith's license to operate a family foster home. However, Ms. Smith did not oppose revocation and wished to surrender her license. Ms. Smith did not amend her application to advise the Department that it had revoked her foster home license. Ms. Nancy Ebrahimi learned of the verified finding and license revocation during her routine review of Department registries during the license renewal process. August 7, 2019, after a shelter hearing in which Ms. Smith said that she did not want B.S. in her home any longer, the court ordered that B.S. be placed in the shelter custody of the Department. An August 8, 2019, Shelter Order at Review continued this placement. On September 18, 2019, the court granted the Department's Petition for Termination of Parental Rights of B.S. This decision included consideration of the fact that Ms. Smith signed an Affidavit and Acknowledgment of Surrender, Consent to Termination of Parental Rights, and Waiver of Notice form before the Department filed its Termination of Parental Rights Petition. Ms. Smith's relationship with B.S. began when she served as his foster parent. She adopted him when he was about seven (born March 11, 2005). B.S. lived in Ms. Smith's home in Lake Wales, Florida. He occasionally helped with chores, such as yardwork, at Laura's Learning. He was also responsible for chores at home. Ms. Smith had other children, including an adult biological daughter, Jayda Miles, who, at the times involved here, lived in Cocoa Beach, Florida, and visited Ms. Smith's home regularly, often with her husband, Antonio Miles. Mr. and Ms. Miles lived on Patrick Air Force Base because of his service in the Air Force. Another adult sibling, Chaundi Parham, lived at Ms. Smith's home and worked sometimes at Laura's Learning. Young twins who were Ms. Smith's foster children lived in the home with a third foster child. On June 17, 2019, B.S. was doing yardwork at Laura's Learning. Ms. Parham was overseeing him. B.S. could not complete mowing because the mower was flooding. Ms. Parham directed him to sit on a bench and wait for Ms. Smith to arrive. B.S. removed a bag of Cheetos from the back pack of the twins, who were also at Laura's Learning. Ms. Parham caught him eating the Cheetos in the bathroom. She scolded him and called Ms. Smith. Ms. Parham was unable to reach Ms. Smith, so she called her older sister, Ms. Miles. Ms. Parham then told B.S. to sit on a bench to await Ms. Smith. B.S. jumped the fence surrounding the child care center and ran away. B.S. was 14 years old at the time. Ms. Parham reported B.S. as a runaway. During the preceding year, B.S. had started regularly having trouble at school. He frequently got in fights. Lake Wales police officer, Edgar Claros, responded to the report of B.S. running away. On June 18, 2019, Ms. Smith reported to the police that B.S. had returned home. She also reported that he said he wanted to live on the streets and left home again. B.S. had run away two or three times before. The Department assigned Ms. McConnell-Bailey to investigate. On June 18, 2021, Ms. McConnell-Bailey visited Ms. Smith to question her about the runaway report. She also questioned Ms. Smith about reports from an unidentified source, possibly a caller to the Department's abuse line, about maltreatment of B.S. including use of a "taser1", striking him with various 1 "Taser" is a brand name for a stun gun and likely not the brand involved here. The device was a stun gun that required contact of its electrode prongs with the subject's skin, called "drive tasing." There is no evidence that any of the tasing involved darts. "Taser" and "tase" are used in this Order because that is the description the witnesses used. objects including a wooden spoon, and making him sleep in the garage and laundry room. Ms. Smith was visibly angry. She denied the allegations and said B.S. was not going to ruin her business and take everything she had worked so hard for. She said B.S. was lying and that she had no idea where he was, except that some people told her he was somewhere in the neighborhood of a Publix. Ms. Smith did not express concern for B.S.'s well-being. She did tell Ms. McConnell-Bailey that she had removed all pictures of B.S. from displays of family photographs because they upset her. Ms. Smith began crying during the interview. She said the situation upset her and was causing her to get sick. She said she felt she was too old for the troubles B.S. caused and she did not want to deal with him anymore. On June 21, 2019, Ms. Smith called Detective James Lewis and advised him she had heard that B.S. was near the area of G. Street and Lincoln Avenue. Ms. Smith told Detective Lewis that she hoped the officers did not find B.S. and that he keeps running. Ms. Smith also said B.S. had been lying about her family, specifically her daughter, Jayda, falsely claiming abuse. And she said she wanted to file for an injunction against him. Ms. Smith did not express or display any concern for B.S. Ms. Smith, however, told Detective Lewis that she was going to the area where B.S. might be, but that he would run from her. Detective Lewis passed the information about B.S.'s location on to Officer Eric Ricks, who located B.S. in the area. Officer Ricks located B.S., picked him up, and spoke with him. Officer Ricks asked B.S. why he ran away and did not want to return home. B.S. told Officer Ricks that his sister, Ms. Miles, tased him and pepper sprayed him on June 16 in the presence of Ms. Smith, Mr. Miles, and Ms. Parham. B.S. indicated that it was because he had tried to steal something to eat. B.S. was apprehensive about returning to Ms. Smith's home. B.S. appeared to be on the verge of tears. B.S. did not say anything about being tased earlier in the year, around Memorial Day, on the patio. Officer Ricks transported B.S. to the police station where Detective Lewis assumed responsibility for the investigation. Detective Lewis interviewed B.S. with Child Protective Investigator Ruth McConnell-Bailey, for forty-five minutes to an hour, the night of June 21, 2019. B.S. told Detective Lewis that Ms. Miles had repeatedly tased him on his left chest area and on his upper left arm and sprayed him with pepper spray on June 16, 2019. He said this was because he had been caught preparing to steal a honeybun. This, he said, was the reason he ran away and did not want to return. B.S. did not say anything about being tased earlier in the year, around Memorial Day, on the patio. Detective Lewis inspected B.S.'s chest and left arm. He found injuries and scabs that he thought were consistent with the injuries made by a taser. The pain from tasing that B.S. described was consistent with the pain Detective Lewis experienced when he was tased during training. Detective Lewis did not measure the distance between scabs or other injuries to determine if they corresponded with the typical separation of the prongs of a taser. B.S. also told Detective Lewis that he was wearing snowman pajamas the night of June 16. After the interview, Detective Lewis and Ms. McConnell-Bailey transported B.S. to the home of Cheryl Jennings who had agreed to provide him lodging. B.S. was happy to be taken there instead of Ms. Smith's home. B.S. said that he felt unsafe at Ms. Smith's home. Detective Lewis and Ms. McConnell-Bailey then went to Ms. Smith's home to obtain clothes for B.S. and to obtain the snowman pajamas. The pajamas had been washed, dried, and folded. Detective Lewis examined the pajamas. He identified one small burn hole on the chest area of the pajamas. He thought the hole was consistent with use of a taser with its prongs placed directly on the person being tased. Although B.S. claimed he had been repeatedly tased on his left chest and left arm, the pajamas had only one possible burn hole. A few days later, Detective Lewis interviewed Ms. Miles. She denied the claims of B.S. She also allowed Detective Lewis to search her car. He did not find a taser or pepper spray. On June 25, 2019, Thia Lomax, Children's Home Society Children's Advocacy Center Case Coordinator, Child Protection Team, interviewed B.S. Ms. Lomax is a trained and experienced forensic interviewer. Ms. Lomax noticed marks on B.S.'s neck. He told her they were from a recent fight. Ms. Lomax interviewed B.S. for about an hour. The record contains a video recording of the interview. The interview is neutral and undirected. Ms. Lomax does not suggest or imply responses by her questions or body language. However, Ms. Lomax also does not test or challenge B.S.'s statements. B.S. basically made the same report about events the night of June 16 as he made earlier to Detective Lewis. He also made a new claim that Ms. Miles tased him on the patio earlier in the year, around Memorial Day, in the presence of Ms. Smith and Ms. Parham. His description did not identify a number of tasings or how long the experience lasted. B.S. also made claims about being struck by a broom and a spoon and made to "work like a slave." On August 6, 2020, the parties deposed B.S. A transcript of the deposition is also part of the record. B.S. did not testify at the hearing. B.S.'s deposition testimony differed from the interviews. B.S. demonstrated confusion and changed the details of his reports. The evidence about the initial events of the night of Sunday, June 16, 2019, is consistent. Mr. and Ms. Miles were spending that night at Ms. Smith's home. On June 16 Ms. Smith took B.S. to Walmart sometime after midnight to buy a Sprite. Antonio Miles was at the Walmart, having arrived separately. He observed B.S. preparing to steal a honey bun. When B.S. saw Mr. Miles watching him, he abandoned his plan to steal a honey bun. Afterwards B.S. returned home with Ms. Smith and went to bed, wearing pajamas with snowmen on them. When Mr. Miles returned to the home, he told Ms. Smith about the honey bun. Ms. Smith called B.S. into the family room. From this point forward, the evidence and the testimony of the witnesses differs significantly. According to Ms. Smith, Ms. Miles, and Mr. Miles, Ms. Smith called B.S. into the family room and asked him about the honey bun incident. He told her he was just looking at the pastry. They further testified that Ms. Smith talked to B.S. about "making bad choices" and sent him back to bed. Ms. Smith, Ms. Miles, Ms. Parham, and Mr. Miles all testified that Ms. Parham was not present because she was with friends in Orlando. Mr. Miles, Ms. Miles, and Ms. Smith are adamant that Ms. Miles did not tase or pepper spray B.S. They also agree that Ms. Parham was not present during the conversation with B.S. about the honey bun because she was in Orlando. And they agree he was not made to sleep in the laundry room. According to B.S., when Ms. Smith called him from his room, all the adults, including Ms. Parham, were present in the family room. He says that when he denied preparing to steal the honey bun, Ms. Smith stated, "No you are lying." In his interviews, B.S. stated that Ms. Miles went to her car and returned with a pink can of pepper spray and a pink "taser" and began tasing him. He said that Ms. Miles tased him five or six times on his upper left arm and the left side of his chest. The taser got tangled in his pajamas he said. Then Ms. Miles began spraying him with pepper spray. According to B.S.'s statements, the adults sent him outside to wash the pepper spray from his face. He then went to bed in the laundry room. He said that Ms. Smith did not intervene. In deposition, subject to cross examination, B.S. amplified and expanded his claims to the point of incredulity. For instance, in his interviews he said Ms. Miles had tased him five or six times the night of June 16. In his deposition testimony, B.S. testified "they were tasing me all over the house." (R. Ex. K, p. 52). He also testified that the tasing went on for two or three hours. He volunteered that Ms. Miles tased him 50 times. He also said that it could have been 100 times. He said his pajamas had 50, maybe 100 holes from the tasing. (R. Ex. K, p. 52). These claims differ significantly from those made in his interviews. Detective Lewis found only one hole that he thought could have been caused by a taser. According to B.S., Ms. Smith did not attempt to intervene to stop Ms. Miles. She also did not report the alleged incident to law enforcement. Ms. Miles, Mr. Miles, and Ms. Smith all firmly denied the allegations of tasing and pepper spraying the night of June 16. During the videotaped interview, B.S. first claimed that Ms. Miles tased him three or four times when on the patio Memorial Day. He did not mention this in his earlier interviews. His deposition testimony about tasing on the patio was very different from his interview statements. He testified that Ms. Miles tased his entire chest and stomach up to his neck Memorial Day. He said Ms. Smith was on the patio and Ms. Parham was sitting on a couch inside looking out. At first, he said Ms. Miles tased him 20 times. He went on to say it was more than 20, maybe 50 or 100 times. He said the Memorial Day tasing lasted from about 6:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. He also testified that Ms. Smith and Ms. Miles stayed on the patio the entire time. Ms. Parham, he said, stayed sitting on the couch watching the entire time. Nobody took a break, went to the restroom, or got something to drink, according to B.S.'s testimony. Ms. Miles, Ms. Smith, and Ms. Parham all credibly deny this account. In addition, the claims are implausible because of the varying numbers of tasings claimed and the length of time B.S. said the tasings went on, as well as nobody leaving the patio for five hours. In the course of the interviews and his deposition, B.S. made claims of being hit by a broom, hit by a spoon, made to sleep in the garage, and made to sleep in the laundry room. Ms. Smith denied these allegations. They are not corroborated. The evidence to support these claims is not clear and convincing. B.S.'s shifting version of events, the firm, convincing denials of all other witnesses, and the inconsistency of only one burn on the pajamas from four to six tasings, let alone 50 to 100, keep the evidence of the tasing and pepper spraying from being clear and convincing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that Respondent, Department of Children and Families, enter a Final Order granting the license renewal application of Petitioner, Laura's Learning and Enrichment Center. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of April, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN D. C. NEWTON, II 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 19th day of April, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: Lacey Kantor, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Families Building 2, Room 204Z 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Hannah George, Esquire Law Firm of Gil Colon, Jr. 325 East Davidson Street Bartow, Florida 33830 Raquel Ramos, Esquire Department of Children and Families 1055 U.S. Highway 17 North Bartow, Florida 33830 Javier A. Enriquez, Esquire Department of Children and Families Building 2, Room 204F 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
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 Whether Petitioners should be licensed as a family foster home.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioners are an Hispanic couple in their late fifties. At the time of application, B.A. (13 years old), and his sister S.A. (15 years old), lived with the Marriagas. Both were being raised by the Petitioners. At the time of hearing B.A. was living with the Petitioners. On August 25, 1999, Petitioners submitted their application/packet for licensure as a family foster home. Other than those raised at this hearing, Petitioners meet all requirements for becoming a foster home. They have completed the MAPP qualifications. They also understand and are able to handle problems peculiar to caring for foster children. They understand the obligations and responsibilities of foster parents. Indeed, Ms. Marriaga is not employed and is able to devote her time and attention to any children in her home. By statute, the Department is required to interview at least two neighbors of an applicant for foster care. In conducting the required interviews for the Marriaga application, a Department licensing counselor was informed that there were concerns among some of the neighbors interviewed about how the Marriagas cared for and/or supervised their 13-year-old grandson, B.A. Neighbors reported to Mr. Lewis that B.A. appeared at times to be unsupervised and locked out of the Marriagas' home. Neighbors also indicated that B.A. complained of being hungry. Other neighbors reported that the Marriagas were good parents and would make good foster parents. None of the neighbors testified at the hearing. No reliable evidence was submitted on the basis of these neighbors' assertions. Ms. Marriaga admitted that there were a few occasions when she would be out shopping for a short period when B.A. got home from school. These short periods were for no more than 5 or 10 minutes and were not frequent. She also stated that there was one occasion where B.A. was left unsupervised after school because Ms. Marriaga had to take her adult daughter to the hospital for emergency treatment for gangrene. She said she returned from the hospital within 30 minutes after B.A. got home. None of these absences were unreasonable, given B.A.'s age and level of responsibility. Neither incident supports a finding that the Marriagas are not qualified. B.A. did not have a key to the home to gain access on the occasions when Ms. Marriaga was not home when he got back from school. He could access the garage area and the backyard, but not the living areas of the home. The garage area was stocked with food and drinks. The fact B.A. does not have a key is not an unusual or unreasonable child-rearing practice. The lack of key does not support a finding that the Marriagas are not qualified especially since the Marriagas understand that foster child access requirements of the Department. Because of the concerns raised by the neighbors' reports, Mr. Lewis interviewed B.A. and his sister, re-contacted the neighbors to whom he had talked previously and interviewed two more neighbors in late October 1999. Some neighbors still had concerns about B.A.'s supervision, others did not. None of the neighbors testified at the hearing nor were sufficient facts introduced to conclude that these neighbors had any substantive basis for their opinion. The Licensing Evaluation submitted by John Lewis to the Family Services Counselor Supervisor recommended that the Marriaga's home be licensed for two children: Male or female, infant zero through eight years. This recommendation was submitted after Mr. Lewis went to the Petitioners' home to finalize the family profile report. At that time, Mr. Lewis the advised Petitioners that two of the four neighbors interviewed expressed reservations about the level of supervision a foster child would receive in their home. The Petitioners assured Mr. Lewis that their grandson B.A. is strictly supervised and well cared for. At hearing, B.A. concurred with his grandparents. Mr. Lewis did not ask the Petitioners for the name of an emergency back-up person or to provide him with an emergency care plan. The Petitioners have a strong family support group. At the hearing Ms. Marriaga stated that her plan was to either be present or a relative would provide the needed back-up supervision. The Marriagas believed handling such a scenario would not be difficult because Ms. Marriaga was always available to be home. They stated at the hearing that in the event of an emergency the great-grandfather would care for B.A. or the foster children. The Petitioners do have an adequate emergency care plan for their grandson and the foster children. Mr. Lewis informed Mr. Marriage by telephone in early December 1999, that their home would not be licensed. However, on March 15, 2000, Petitioner wrote a letter to the Department requesting action on their application. Formal, written notification of denial was provided on March 29, 2000.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Petitioners' application be granted. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of December, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of December, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Carlos A. Marriaga Evangelista Marriaga 4514 Southeast 10th Place Ocala, Florida 34471 Ralph J. McMurphy, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 1601 West Gulf Atlantic Highway Wildwood, Florida 34785 Josie Tomayo, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Virginia A. Daire, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204B 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
