11-000916 Department Of Children And Families vs. Davis Family Day Care Home
 Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Tuesday, October 25, 2011.


View Dockets  
Summary: Child care facility was guilty of a Class I violation and, a monetary penalty was imposed with adequate time to pay. The renewal license and the large family day care license are to be issued subject to terms and conditions.

1STATE OF FLORIDA

4DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

8DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND )

13FAMILIES , )

15)

16Petitioner , )

18)

19vs. ) Case No. 11 - 0916

26)

27DAVIS FAMILY DAY CARE HOME , )

33)

34Respondent . )

37)

38DAVIS FAMILY DA Y CARE HOME, )

45)

46Petitioner, )

48)

49vs. ) Case No. 11 - 2242

56)

57DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND )

62FAMILIES, )

64)

65Respondent. )

67)

68RECOMMENDED ORDER

70Pursuant to notice, a final hearing was conducted by video

80tele conference in th e s e case s on July 28, 2011, in Lakeland and

96Tallahassee, Florida, before Administrative Law Judge Lynne A.

104Quimby - Pennock of the Division of Administrative Hearings

113(Division).

114APPEARANCES

115For the Department of Children and Families:

122Stacy N. Robinson, Esquire

126Department of Children and Families

1311055 Highway 17, North

135Bartow, Florida 33830

138For Davis Family Day Care Home:

144Charlann Jackson Sanders, Esquire

148Charlann Jackson Sanders, P.A.

152Post Office Box 7752

156Lakeland, Florida 33807

159STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE S

164The issues in th e s e case s are: whether the Davis Family

178Day Care Home violated provisions of c hapter 402, Florida

188Statutes , 1/ and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 65C - 20 , 2/ and,

200if so, what penalty should be imposed; whether the Davis Family

211Day Care Home ' s renewal application for a license to operate a

224regular family day care center should be approved or denied; and

235whether the Davis Family Day Care Home ' s initial application for

247a license to operate as a large family child care hom e should be

261approved or denied.

264PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

266The Department o f Children and Families (hereinafter the

"275Department " or " DCF " ) issued a " Proposed Fine of Family Day

286Care Home License No. F10PO0720 " (hereinafter " AC 1 " ) on

296October 29, 2010, to the Davis Family Day Care Home (hereinafter

307the " Davis Day Care " or the " fac ility " ). AC 1 alleged a single

321violation (August 3, 2010) of the regulations governing the

330operation of a family day care home and imposed an

340administrative fine of $500.00. The Davis Day Care filed a

350response to AC 1 , which was accepted by the Departmen t as a

363petition for a formal administrative hearing. On February 2 1,

3732011, AC 1 and the facility ' s response were forwarded to the

386Division , assigned Case No. 11 - 0916, and assigned to

396Administr ative Law Judge J. D. Parrish.

403On March 23, 2011, the Departmen t issued a " Proposed Denial

414Application to Operate a Family Day Care Home " ( hereinafter

" 424AC 2 " ) to the Davis Day Care. AC 2 alleged five violations of

438the regulations governing the operation of a family day care

448home and denied the facility ' s renewal app lication.

458On April 11, 2011, the Department issued a " Proposed Denial

468Application to Operate a Large Family Day Care Home "

477( hereinafter " AC 3 " ) to the Davis Day Care. AC 3 also alleged

491the same five allegations as set forth in AC 2 for the renewal

504denial. On April 19, 2011, the Davis Day Care filed a " Petition

516for Administrative Hearing " (hereinafter the " P etition " ) ,

524disputing all the allegations in the Department ' s AC 2 and

536AC 3. On May 4, 2011, the Department forwarded the facility ' s

549request for a hear ing to the Division . 3/ Administrative Law

561Judge William F. Quattlebaum was assigned to hear the P etition

572under one Division case number , Case No. 11 - 2242 . On May 11,

5862011, the Davis Day Care filed a " Motion for Consolidation of

597Related Cases " involving A C 1, AC 2 and AC 3. By Order dated

611May 18, 2011, the Division consolidated both Division cases

620involving the Davis Day Care. Pursuant to notice , the

629consolidated cases were noticed for video teleconference hearing

637for July 28, 2011. The consolidated cas es were transferred to

648Administrative Law Judge Lynne A. Quimby - Pennock for the final

659hearing.

660At the beginning of the hearing, the Department announced

669that with respect to AC 2 and AC 3, it was not presenting

682evidence on either of the alleged abuse inves tigations that

692occurred in 2007 and 2008 as outlined in each administrative

702complaint.

703At the final hearing, the Department called seven

711witnesses: Marva Brooks, program manager for a child care food

721program; Natalie Barton (mother of E.B.); Connie Flemin g, nurse

731practitioner with the child protection team; Deanna McCain,

739child protection investigator; Vicki Richmond, children and

746family counselor; Sheila Nobles, child care licensing

753administrator; and Donald M. Giorgano, child care licensing

761counselor , wh o was called as a rebuttal witness. The Department

772offered 14 exhibits into evidence , and all were admitted. 4/

782The Davis Day Care called five witnesses including:

790LaShandra Davis; Sarah Stafford; Suzanne Williams; Alexis Webb;

798and LaToya Wilson. The fac ility offered 19 exhibits into

808evidence. As the exhibits had been pre - numbered, the following

819facility exhibits were admitted: 1 through 16, 18, 19 and 21.

830At the conclusion of the hearing , the parties requested and

840were granted leave to file their propo sed recommended orders

850(PROs) by the close of business on the 30 th day after the

863transcript was filed. The two - volume T ranscript of the hearing

875was filed on August 15, 2011. The parties filed a " Joint

886Request for Extension of Time to File Proposed Recomm ended

896Orders " before the filing deadline. The request was granted ,

905and the parties were directed to file their PROs no later than

917the close of business on September 30, 2011. Both parties

927timely filed their PROs, and each has been considered in the

938prepa ration of this Recommended Order.

944FINDINGS OF FACT

947A. The Parties

9501. The Department is responsible for inspecting, licensing

958and monitoring child care facilities such as the one operated by

969the Davis Day Care. It is also the Department ' s responsibility

981to e nsure that all such facilities are safe and secure for the

994protection of the children utilizing those facilities.

10012. The Department routinely conducts inspections of

1008licensed family day care homes to determine whether the home is

1019in compliance with th e applicable statutes and rules. Following

1029such inspections , a report is provided to the operator which

1039provides a time frame to correct any outstanding deficiencies.

10483. The Department also conducts inspections or

1055investigations of child care facilities in response to

1063complaints it receives.

10664. LaShandra Davis (Ms. Davis) owns and operates the Davis

1076Day Care, a family day care facility licensed by the Department.

1087The Davis Day Care was initially licensed in April 2007 and was

1099in continuous operation at all times material to these issues.

1109No testimony was offered that the facility had prior

1118disciplinary actions against it.

11225. Ms. Davis is a nurse, has an associate of science

1133(A.S.) degree in nursing from Polk Community College, and is

1143attending college to obtain an A.S. degree in e arly c hildhood

1155e ducation. Additionally, Ms. Davis has five sons and one

1165daughter. Their names include (from youngest to oldest): Layla

1174Davis, Steven Davis, Devondrae Davis, Deshawn Williams, Daniel

1182Williams, and Rafael Davis . No testimony was received regarding

1192Ms. Davis using any other name or names from August 3, 2010,

1204through December 2, 2010. 5/

12096. On February 23, 2011, Ms. Davis submitted an

1218application to obtain a license to operate a large family day

1229care home at her current location.

12357. On March 15, 2011, Ms. Davis submitted her renewal

1245application to retain her license to operate a family day care

1256home at her current location.

1261B. October 29, 2010, AC 1 (August 3, 2010 , Inspection)

12718. On August 3, 2010, the Davis Day Care was subjected to

1283an inspection based on a complaint that it was " over - ratio. "

1295This over - ratio issue involves the number of children in the

1307care of a family day care operation to the number of adults

1319providing that care. The Department received a complaint that

1328the facility was seeking meal reimbursements for more children

1337than were allowed for the type of child care license it held.

1349Vicki Richmond (Ms. Richmond) testified that she conducted the

1358inspection on August 3, 2010, and cited the facilit y for being

1370over the licensed capacity ratio by more than two children.

1380Because the facility was over ratio by more than two children,

1391it was a Class I violation.

13979. At that August inspection, Ms. Davis explained to

1406Ms. Richmond that she (Ms. Davis) had a license to provide child

1418care for ten children, and she had ten children in her care.

1430Ms. Richmond explained the ratio requirement to Ms. Davis.

1439Based on the age of the children, Ms. Davis was authorized to

1451have a maximum of ten children provided no mo re than five were

1464preschool age, and , of those five, no more than two were under

147612 months of age. At this August inspection, Ms. Davis was

1487over - ratio by two children. Ms. Davis executed and received a

1499copy of the complaint report prepared on August 3, 2 010, that

1511discussed the over - ratio limitations. Three other technical

1520violations were brought to Ms. Davis ' s attention during that

1531inspection, and two of those violations were corrected

1539immediately. Ms. Davis was given a two - week extension to

1550correct the third violation involving an expired fire

1558extinguisher. 6/

156010. Additionally, Ms. Richmond testified that Ms. Davis ' s

1570mother ( " Ms. Jones " ) 7/ was visiting the facility while

1581Ms. Richmond was conducting this August inspection. According

1589to Ms. Richmond, Ms. Jones had been previously screened, but did

1600not meet the Department ' s standards to be in a child care

1613facility. Ms. Jones should not have been present either for a

1624visit or to be preparing lunches as the testimony revealed.

1634Ms. Richmond recommended to Ms . Davis that it was important to

1646check into getting an exemption for Ms. Jones to be at the

1658facility. Ms. Davis later testified that Ms. Jones had cleared

1668up the screening issue, and both had been told Ms. Jones was

1680allowed to be present at the facility.

168711. At hearing, Ms. Davis admitted that she was over - ratio

1699on August 3, 2010. Further, she stated that she " just flat out

1711misunderstood " the adult - child ratio requirement issue until

1720Ms. Richmond explained it to her in August 2010.

172912. Ms. Brooks and Mr . Giordano testified that they had

1740each individually explained the ratio requirement to Ms. Davis

1749during prior inspections or discussions at the facility.

1757Although there is some discrepancy between Ms. Davis ' s

1767recollection and the two witnesses on this po int, Ms. Davis

1778admitted this violation and was quite candid about her lack of

1789knowledge with respect to it.

179413. Credible testimony from both Ms. Richmond and Shelia

1803Nobles (Ms. Nobles) established that having two or more children

1813over - ratio was a Class I violation, which would subject any

1825child care facility to discipline by the Department.

183314. When Ms. Davis received the Department ' s three - page

1845October 29, 2010, AC 1 advising her of the Class I violation

1857(over - ratio by two or more children) and assessing a $500 fine,

1870she was " shocked. " Ms. Davis testified that , at the time of the

1882inspection (August 3, 2010), Ms. Richmond had stated the fine

1892might be $50 or maybe more, leading Ms. Davis to believe the

1904fine would not be that high.

191015. AC 1 advised Ms. Dav is that the over - ratio issue was a

1925Class I violation of section 402.302(7). AC 1 provided one

1935Department address for two reasons , to pay the $500 fine or to

1947request an administrative hearing. There is no language within

1956AC 1 that advised Ms. Davis of an optional payment plan.

1967Ms. Davis testified she was unaware of a payment plan option ,

1978and her only option was to appeal the decision, which she did.

199016. Ms. Richmond confirmed that the Department would

1998accept payments as long as the total fine amount was p aid in

2011full prior to the next renewal. However, that information was

2021not shared with Ms. Davis until the hearing.

2029C. Department ' s March 23, 2011, Proposed Denial

2038Application to Operate a Family Day Care Home (AC 2) and

2049Department ' s April 11, 2011, Propos ed Denial Application to

2060Operate a Large Family Day Care Home (AC 3).

206917. Both AC 2 and AC 3 set forth five allegations in

2081support of the Department ' s denial of the renewal application

2092and the large family child care home application. Two alleged

2102abuse allegations from 2007 and 2008 were included in these

2112administrative complaints ; however , as previously stated, no

2119testimony or evidence was offered, presented or substantiated at

2128hearing. Thus, any attempt to reference either the 2007 or 2008

2139allegations as fact is disregarded as unfounded and not

2148supported by credible testimony or evidence. AC 2 and AC 3 rest

2160on three allegations: the alleged abuse of child E.B. , the

2170alleged lying during the investigation of the alleged child

2179(E.B.) abuse , and the insp ection conducted on August 3, 2010,

2190regarding the facility being over ratio . 8/

219818. Natalie Barton (Ms. Barton), E.B. ' s mother , testified

2208that she saw marks on E.B. ' s bottom at the end of November 2010

2223(November 30, 2010) that " could only have occurred at the day

2234care. " Ms. Barton testified she picked E.B. up from the

2244facility prior to 5:30 p.m. and discovered the marks on E.B. ' s

2257bottom during bath time that evening.

226319. Both Ms. Barton and Ms. Davis testified that E.B. ' s

2275mother sent a picture of the inju ry to Ms. Davis via her cell

2289phone the evening the injury was first seen. At that point,

2300Ms. Davis told E.B. ' s mother that she (Ms. Davis) didn ' t know

2315what or how the injury occurred and recommended taking the child

2326to E.B. ' s doctor. Ms. Davis had no hes itation in making this

2340recommendation to Ms. Barton.

234420. Ms. Barton took E.B. to her (E.B. ' s) pediatrician the

2356morning after she discovered the injury (December 1, 2010).

2365However, E.B. ' s physician indicated he wanted to see the child

2377in two days, as he c ould not make a determination what, if

2390anything , had caused the injury as there was no bruising.

2400Ms. Barton also testified that she took E.B. back to the Davis

2412Day Care after she was seen by her pediatrician so she could see

2425how E.B. reacted. While at the facility , E.B. was " in her

2436routine, " that she (E.B.) walked in and sat on the couch like

2448she did every day. Ms. Barton did not return E.B. to her own

2461pediatrician for further evaluation. Ms. Barton testified E.B.

2469was seen by the child protective team th e day after she was seen

2483by the pediatrician (December 2, 2010).

248921. On December 2, 2010, after receiving information about

2498the possible physical abuse of a child ( E.B. ) (documented as

2510being received at 11:08 p.m. on December 1, 2010), Deanna McCain

2521(Inve stigator McCain) contacted Ms. Barton to obtain additional

2530information. Investigator McCain also spoke with E.B., who said

2539she had been hit by " Ms. Shawna. " After observing E.B. ' s

2551injuries and obtaining a photograph of E.B. ' s buttocks, an

2562appointment was made for E.B. to be seen by a member of the

2575child protection team, i.e. , the nurse practitioner.

258222. During the afternoon of December 2, 2010, N urse

2592P ractitioner Connie Fleming (Nurse Fleming) performed a medical

2601evaluation of E.B., a then two - year , nine - month old child.

2614During E.B. ' s evaluation, Nurse Fleming noticed bruising on

2624E.B. ' s buttocks. When Nurse Fleming asked E.B. what happened,

2635E.B. responded " Ms. Shawn spanked me. " Nurse Fleming stated the

2645bruising appeared to be consistent with an outlin e of a hand.

2657Pictures taken during the medical evaluation reflect red areas

2666on E.B. ' s buttocks.

267123. Based on her nine - plus years of training and

2682experience as a nurse practitioner, Nurse Fleming determined

2690that E.B. had suffered physical abuse ; however , she never state d

2701who caused the injury. Nurse Fleming contended that the

2710injuries were indicative of a rapid - force compression injury,

2720typical of a slap with a hand.

272724. Later on December 2 , 2010 , Investigator McCain went to

2737the facility to investigate t he alleged abuse report. Upon her

2748arrival at the location, Investigator McCain had to wait for a

2759local law enforcement officer (LEO) before she could enter the

2769facility.

277025. While Investigator McCain waited for the LEO to arrive

2780(between 3:30 p.m. and 4: 45 p.m.), she spoke with parents who

2792were picking up their children from the facility. Each parent

2802she spoke with had supportive comments about the facility

2811( " great day care provider, " their child had " no injuries, " had

2822never seen " inappropriate behavior, " " no concerns " ). Whether

2830all these comments came from one parent or multiple parents is

2841unclear. Investigator McCain did not observe any injuries to

2850any of the children leaving the facility.

285726. Ms. Richmond also went to the facility at

2866approximately t he same time as Investigator McCain ; however ,

2875Ms. Richmond could enter the home without a LEO, and she did so.

2888Ms. Richmond made contact with Ms. Davis and explained there was

2899a complaint. Ms. Richmond ' s task at the time was to obtain

2912information about t he number of children Ms. Davis had in the

2924facility. According to the sign in sheet, there were seven

2934children present, plus Ms. Davis ' s four - year - old son.

2947Ms. Richmond testified that Ms. Davis initially stated there

2956were four children present, but later a sleeping child was found

2967in a crib, and her (then) four - year - old son ran through the

2982home. 9/ Although Ms. Richmond asked for the attendance sheets

2992for the previous month (November 2010), Ms. Davis was only able

3003to provide the attendance sheets for Decem ber 1 and 2, 2010. 10/

3016According to Ms. Richmond, those two attendance sheets

3024documented that Ms. Davis ' s facility was again over - ratio for

3037those two days.

304027. When Investigator McCain entered the facility with the

3049LEO, she explained the reason for her pr esence to Ms. Davis.

3061Investigator McCain testified Ms. Davis was asked how many

3070children were present and together they conducted a " walk -

3080through " of the facility. Investigator McCain testified that ,

3088at the time of the walk - through, she was told there we re four

3103children present, three toddlers and a small child in Ms.

3113Davis ' s arms. Investigator McCain also testified that , during

3123the walk - through , they found an additional child sleeping in a

3135crib. She further testified that , at some later point, another

3145young child ran through the facility, and Ms. Davis identified

3155him as her son.

315928. On December 2, 2010, Investigator McCain questioned

3167Ms. Davis about the alleged physical abuse of E.B. During the

3178investigation discussion, Ms. Davis reported to Investiga tor

3186McCain that " she [ Ms. Davis ] had no idea how they [ E.B. ' s

3202injuries ] occurred. " Ms. Davis further reported E.B. was " fully

3212potty trained. " Ms. Davis reported that the child had a

3222toileting accident the day before and had cleaned herself.

3231Still , later in the investigation discussion , Ms. Davis told

3240Investigator McCain that she (Ms. Davis) had helped clean E.B.

3250after the toileting accident, but only from the front, and she

3261had not observed E.B. ' s buttocks. Ms. Davis also shared with

3273the investigator th at when Ms. Davis questioned E.B. about the

3284injury, E.B. said her mother (Ms. Barton) did it (the abuse).

329529. At hearing , Investigator McCain testified that

3302Ms. Davis was " very far along in " a pregnancy and that Ms. Davis

3315was upset, shocked, and surprised by the presence of the

3325investigators. Investigator McCain also confirmed that DCF ' s

3334presence tends to raise anxiety levels and that people feel like

3345they are being attac k ed. Further, Ms. Davis confirmed that she

3357was two weeks from her delivery due date when this investigation

3368started. Thus, under the circumstances , forgetfulness may be

3376perceived by some as lying, when in reality it is simply being

3388overwhelmed by the situation.

339230. As part of the investigation , it was Investigator

3401McCain ' s responsibilit y to also check for any hazards in the

3414facility and to ensure adequate supervision of the children.

3423Although Ms. Davis initially reported there were no other adults

3433to supervise the children, she later reported that her mother,

3443Ms. Jones , came each day ar ound 10:15 a.m. to make lunch for the

3457children. Ms. Barton confirmed that Ms. Jones was sometimes

3466present in the mornings when Ms. Barton brought E.B. to the

3477facility.

347831. Several technical violations were noted during the

3486December 2010 investigation; ho wever , they are n ot the subject

3497of this hearing.

350032. Ms. Davis testified she did not spank E.B. Ms. Davis

3511testified that she did not know how the injury occurred, and the

3523child ' s hearsay statement that her mother had spanked her is not

3536supported by other testimony.

354033. However, the time lapses between when the injury was

3550alleged to have occurred (the " end of November, " or

3559November 30 , 2010 , according to the mother), when the injury was

" 3570discovered " (the night of November 30 , 2010 , according to the

3580mother ), when the alleged abuse was reported (December 1 , 2010,

3591at 11:08 p.m.), when the pediatrician ' s examination occurred on

3602December 1 , 2010 , and when the child protective team became

3612involved (December 2 , 2010 ), create confusion and doubt as to

3623when the inj ury actually occurred and by whom. Even taking the

3635thought process to try to find that the events happened a day

3647later does not relieve the doubt or confusion, nor is that

3658supported by the Department ' s documentation.

366534. Investigator McCain testified tha t this investigation

3673was closed with a verified finding of physical injury to E.B.

3684However, simply finding a " verified finding of physical injury

3693to E.B. " does not establish who perpetrated that physical

3702injury. No testimony was provided that any other p ossible

3712explanation for the injury was explained . Further, other than

3722indicating that E.B. had red marks on her bottom, no testimony

3733was provided that indicated the degree of harm to the child.

3744That being said, this not to say that logic has left the

3756bui lding with respect to some harm being caused to the child.

3768There were marks on E.B. ' s buttocks.

377635. Several current and former parents of children who

3785attend or attended the Davis Day Care testified on Ms. Davis ' s

3798behalf. Each testified that they did no t have any concerns with

3810their child attending Ms. Davis ' s facility.

381836. On March 11, 2011, after receipt of the facility ' s

3830application for the large family day care home license , 11/ the

3841Department conducted an inspection of the facility and found it

3851to b e in compliance with all the licensing standard requirements

3862(including those previously cited during the December 2010

3870inspection that were corrected).

387437. Upon completion of its investigation, the Department

3882determined to deny Ms. Davis ' s renewal applic ation and to deny

3895her application for a large family day care license, based on

" 3906numerous complaints to our office alleging physical abuse of

3915children in your care and Class I violations of licensing

3925standards. " There was one verified complaint of abuse, not

" 3934numerous complaints " as alleged. There was a Class I violation

3944regarding the over - ratio issue ; however , that could have been

3955resolved with better communication skills. The

3961misrepresentation could have been avoided. Neither notification

3968includes any indication that the March 11, 2011, inspection was

3978taken into consideration prior to making the denial decision.

398738. The Department presented testimony indicating that

3994there had been past complaints regarding Ms. Davis and/or the

4004facility. However, no d ocumented prior complaints or final

4013orders were submitted with respect to any prior actions.

4022CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

402539. The Division of Administrative Hearings has

4032jurisdiction over the parties to and the subject matter of this

4043proceeding pursuant to s ections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Fl orida

4053Stat utes (2011) .

4057D. AC 1 October 29, 2010 (August 3, 2010 , Inspection )

406840. Where the Department makes allegations that the

4076applicant engaged in wrongdoing, the burden is on the Department

4086to prove wrongdoing. Dep ' t of Ba nking & Fin. v. Osborne Stern &

4101Co. , 670 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 1996). Factual findings based on

4112record evidence must be made indicating how the conduct alleged

4122violates the statutes or rules or otherwise justifies the

4131proposed sanctions. Mayes v. Dep ' t of Chi ld . & Fam . Servs . ,

4147801 So. 2d 980, 982 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001).

415641. The standard of proof with respect to the alleged

4166wrongdoing issue (over - ratio) is clear and convincing evidence

4176because the Department is seeking to discipline the license of

4186Respondent. Fe rris v. Turlington , 510 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 1987).

419742. The " clear and convincing standard " is well settled in

4207the law . E vidence has been described as follows:

4217[T]he evidence must be found to be credible;

4225the facts to which the witnesses testify

4232must be dis tinctly remembered; the testimony

4239must be precise and explicit and the

4246witnesses must be lacking in confusion as to

4254the facts in issue. The evidence must be of

4263such weight that it produces in the mind of

4272the trier of fact a firm belief or

4280conviction, with out hesitancy, as to the

4287truth of the allegations sought to be

4294established.

4295In re: Davey , 645 So. 2d 398, 404 (Fla. 1994), quoting Slomowitz

4307v. Walker , 429 So. 2d 797, 800 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983).

431843. Ms. Davis admitted the allegation of being over - ratio

4329on August 3, 2010. The Department met its burden of proof with

4341respect to the over - ratio allegation.

4348E. Department ' s March 23, 2011, Proposed Denial

4357Application to Operate a Family Day Care Home (AC 2) and

4368Department ' s April 11, 2011, Proposed Denial Applic ation to

4379Operate a Large Family Day Care Home (AC 3).

438844. The standard of proof with respect to a contested

4398denial of the family day care renewal application and the denial

4409of the large family day care application is by clear and

4420convincing evidence . Se e Dorothy Coke v. Dep't of Child. & Fam.

4433Servs. , 704 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) . Generally, a

4445license applicant has the burden to prove that he or she is

4457entitled to the license. See Dep ' t of Banking & Fin. v. Osborne

4471Stern & Co. , 670 So. 2d at 934. However, where the licensing

4483agency proposed to deny the renewal of a license based on

4494specific statutory and rule violations, it has the burden to

4504prove those violations.

45074 5 . Section 402.302(8) provides the definition for a

" 4517family day care home " as:

4522[a ]n occupied residence in which child care

4530is regularly provided for children from at

4537least two unrelated families and which

4543receives a payment, fee, or grant for any of

4552the children receiving care, whether or not

4559operated for profit. A family day care hom e

4568shall be allowed to provide care for one of

4577the following groups of children, which

4583shall include those children under 13 years

4590of age who are related to the caregiver:

4598(a) A maximum of four children from birth to

460712 months of age.

4611(b) A maximum of t hree children from birth to

462112 months of age, and other children, for a

4630maximum total of six children.

4635(c) A maximum of six preschool children if all

4644are older than 12 months of age.

4651(d) A maximum of 10 children if no more than 5

4662are preschool age and, of those 5, no more than 2

4673are under 12 months of age.

46794 6 . S ection 402.302(9) provides the definition for a

" 4690large family child care home " as:

4696[a]n occupied residence in which child care

4703is regularly provided for children from at

4710least two unrelated fam ilies, which receives

4717a payment, fee, or grant for any of the

4726children receiving care, whether or not

4732operated for profit, and which has at least

4740two full - time child care personnel on the

4749premises during the hours of operation. One

4756of the two full - time ch ild care personnel

4766must be the owner or occupant of the

4774residence. A large family child care home

4781must first have operated as a licensed

4788family day care home for 2 years, with an

4797operator who has had a child development

4804associate credential or its equival ent for

48111 year, before seeking licensure as a large

4819family child care home. A large family

4826child care home shall be allowed to provide

4834care for one of the following groups of

4842children, which shall include those children

4848under 13 years of age who are relat ed to the

4859caregiver:

4860(a) A maximum of 8 children from birth to

486924 months of age.

4873(b) A maximum of 12 children, with no more

4882than 4 children under 24 months of age.

48904 7 . Section 402.305(4) provides for the staff to children

4901ratio that may be used at ch ild care locations as:

4912(a) Minimum standards for the care of

4919children in a licensed child care facility

4926as established by rule of the department

4933must include:

49351. For children from birth through 1 year

4943of age, there must be one child care

4951personnel for every four children.

49562. For children 1 year of age or older, but

4966under 2 years of age, there must be one

4975child care personnel for every six children.

49823. For children 2 years of age or older,

4991but under 3 years of age, there must be one

5001child care person nel for every 11 children.

50094. For children 3 years of age or older,

5018but under 4 years of age, there must be one

5028child care personnel for every 15 children.

50355. For children 4 years of age or older,

5044but under 5 years of age, there must be one

5054child care personnel for every 20 children.

50616. For children 5 years of age or older,

5070there must be one child care personnel for

5078every 25 children.

50817. When children 2 years of age and older

5090are in care, the staff - to - children ratio

5100shall be based on the age group w ith the

5110largest number of children within the group.

51174 8 . Section 402.309 provides for provisional licenses or

5127registration as follows:

5130(1) The . . . department, whichever is

5138authorized to license child care facilities

5144in a county, may issue a provisiona l license

5153for . . . or large family child care homes,

5163. . . to applicants for an initial license

5172or registration or to licensees or

5178registrants seeking a renewal who are unable

5185to meet all the standards provided for in

5193ss. 402.301 - 402.319.

5197(2) A provisio nal license . . . may not be

5208issued unless the operator or owner makes

5215adequate provisions for the health and safety of

5223the child. A provisional license may be issued

5231for a child care facility if all of the screening

5241materials have been timely submitted. A

5247provisional license or registration may not be

5254issued unless the child care facility, family day

5262care home, or large family child care home is in

5272compliance with the requirements for screening of

5279child care personnel in ss. 402.305, 402.3055,

5286402.313, a nd 402.3131, respectively.

5291(3) The provisional license . . . may not be

5301issued for a period that exceeds 6 months;

5309however, it may be renewed one time for a period

5319that may not exceed 6 months under unusual

5327circumstances beyond the control of the

5333applica nt.

5335(4) The provisional license or registration may

5342be suspended or revoked if periodic inspection or

5350review by the local licensing agency or the

5358department indicates that insufficient progress

5363has been made toward compliance.

5368(5) The department shall adopt rules specifying

5375the conditions and procedures under which a

5382provisional license or registration may be

5388issued, suspended, or revoked.

539249 . Section 402.310 addresses discipline for failure to

5401conform with licensing requirements and states , in pertin ent

5410part:

5411(1)(a) The department or local licensing

5417agency may administer any of the following

5424disciplinary sanctions for a violation of

5430any provision of ss. 402.301 - 402.319, or the

5439rules adopted thereunder:

54421. Impose an administrative fine not to

5449exceed $100 per violation, per day.

5455However, if the violation could or does

5462cause death or serious harm, the department

5469or local licensing agency may impose an

5476administrative fine, not to exceed $500 per

5483violation per day in addition to or in lieu

5492of any other disciplinary action imposed

5498under this section.

55012. Convert a license or registration to

5508probation status and require the licensee or

5515registrant to comply with the terms of

5522probation. A probation - status license or

5529registration may not be issued for a per iod

5538that exceeds 6 months and the probation -

5546status license or registration may not be

5553renewed. A probation - status license or

5560registration may be suspended or revoked if

5567periodic inspection by the department or

5573local licensing agency finds that the

5579probati on - status licensee or registrant is

5587not in compliance with the terms of

5594probation or that the probation - status

5601licensee or registrant is not making

5607sufficient progress toward compliance with

5612ss. 402.301 - 402.319.

56163. Deny, suspend, or revoke a license or

5624r egistration.

5626(b) In determining the appropriate

5631disciplinary action to be taken for a

5638violation as provided in paragraph (a), the

5645following factors shall be considered:

56501. The severity of the violation, including

5657the probability that death or serious h arm

5665to the health or safety of any person will

5674result or has resulted, the severity of the

5682actual or potential harm, and the extent to

5690which the provisions of ss. 402.301 - 402.319

5698have been violated.

57012. Actions taken by the licensee or

5708registrant to corre ct the violation or to

5716remedy complaints.

57183. Any previous violations of the licensee

5725or registrant.

5727(c) The department shall adopt rules to:

57341. Establish the grounds under which the

5741department may deny, suspend, or revoke a

5748license or registration or place a licensee

5755or registrant on probation status for

5761violations of ss. 402.301 - 402.319.

57672. Establish a uniform system of procedures

5774to impose disciplinary sanctions for

5779violations of ss. 402.301 - 402.319. The

5786uniform system of procedures must provide

5792for the consistent application of

5797disciplinary actions across districts and a

5803progressively increasing level of penalties

5808from predisciplinary actions, such as

5813efforts to assist licensees or registrants

5819to correct the statutory or regulatory

5825violations, an d to severe disciplinary

5831sanctions for actions that jeopardize the

5837health and safety of children, such as for

5845the deliberate misuse of medications. The

5851department shall implement this subparagraph

5856on January 1, 2007, and the implementation

5863is not contingen t upon a specific

5870appropriation.

5871(d) The disciplinary sanctions set forth in

5878this section apply to licensed child care

5885facilities, licensed large family child care

5891homes, and licensed or registered family day

5898care homes.

5900(2) When the department has rea sonable

5907cause to believe that grounds exist for the

5915denial, suspension, or revocation of a

5921license or registration; the conversion of

5927a license or registration to probation

5933status; or the imposition of an

5939administrative fine, it shall determine the

5945matter in accordance with procedures

5950prescribed in chapter 120 . . . .

595850 . Section 402.305(12)(a) provides for the child

5966discipline that may be used at child care locations as:

5976(a) Minimum standards for child discipline

5982practices shall ensure that age - appropria te,

5990constructive disciplinary practices are used

5995for children in care. Such standards shall

6002include at least the following requirements:

60081. Children shall not be subjected to

6015discipline which is severe, humiliating, or

6021frightening.

60222. Discipline shall not be associated with

6029food, rest, or toileting.

60333. Spanking or any other form of physical

6041punishment is prohibited.

60445 1 . Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C - 20.010(6) and (7)

6056state , in pertinent part:

6060(6) Child Discipline.

6063(a) Family day care home s shall adopt a

6072discipline policy consistent with Section

6077402.305(12), F.S., including standards that

6082prohibit children from being subjected to

6088discipline which is severe, humiliating,

6093frightening, or associated with food, rest,

6099or toileting. Spanking or any other form of

6107physical punishment is prohibited.

6111(b) All family day care home operators,

6118employees, substitutes, and volunteers must

6123comply with the family day care home ' s

6132written discipline policy.

6135(c) A copy of the written discipline policy

6143must be available for review by the parents

6151or legal guardian and the licensing

6157authority.

6158(7) Child Abuse or Neglect.

6163(a) Acts or omissions that meet the

6170definition of child abuse or neglect

6176provided in Chapter 39, F.S., constitute

6182a violation of the stand ards in

6189Sections 402.301 - .319, F.S.

6194(b) Failure to perform the duties of

6201a mandatory reporter pursuant to

6206Section 39.201, F.S., constitutes a

6211violation of the standards in Sections

6217402.301 - .319, F.S.

62215 2 . Rule 65C - 20.012 identifies the Department ' s trea tment

6235of Class I violations of its licensing rules for child care

6246facilities. The rule states in pertinent part:

6253(1) Definitions.

6255* * *

6258(b) " Probation " is a licensing status

6264indicating the license is in jeopardy of

6271being revoked or not renewe d due to

6279violations within the control of the

6285provider. Probation may require the

6290licensee to comply with specific conditions

6296intended to ensure that the licensee comes

6303into and maintains compliance with licensing

6309standards. Examples of such conditions a re:

6316a deadline to remedy an existing violation,

6323a specified period during which compliance

6329with licensing standards must be strictly

6335maintained; and, specified conditions under

6340which the home must operate during the

6347probationary period.

6349(c) " Standards " a re requirements for the

6356operation of a licensed family day care home

6364or large family child care home provided in

6372statute or in rule.

6376(d) " Violation " means a finding of

6382noncompliance by the department or local

6388licensing authority of a licensing standard.

63941. " Class I Violation " is an incident of

6402noncompliance with a Class I standard as

6409described on CF - FSP Form 5318 March 2009

6418Family Day Care Home Standards

6423Classifications Summary and CF - FSP

6429Form 5317, March 2009 Large Family Child

6436Care Home Standards Clas sification Summary,

6442which is incorporated. A copy of CF - FSP

6451Form 5318 and 5317 may be obtained

6458from the department ' s website

6464www.myflorida.com/childcare. Class I

6467violations are the most serious in nature,

6474pose an imminent threat to a child including

6482abus e or neglect and which could or do

6491result in death or serious harm to the

6499health, safety or well - being of a child.

6508* * *

65114. " Technical Support Violations " are the

6517first or second occurrence of noncompliance

6523of an individual Class III standard or the

6531first occurrence of noncompliance of an

6537individual Class II standard.

6541* * *

6544(3) Disciplinary Sanctions.

6547(a) Enforcement of disciplinary sanctions

6552shall be applied progressively for each

6558standard violation . In addition, providers

6564will be o ffered technical assistance in

6571conjunction with any disciplinary sanction.

6576The department shall take into consideration

6582the actions taken by the home to correct the

6591violation when determining the app ropriate

6597disciplinary sanction.

6599(b) Each standard viol ation has an assigned

6607classification based on the nature or

6613severity of the violation(s) as identified

6619within CF - FSP Form 5318 and CF - FSP Form

66305317.

6631* * *

6634(d) Failure to submit a completed CF - FSP

6643Form 5133, Application for a License to

6650Operate a Family Day Care Home, which is

6658incorporated by reference in subsection 65C -

666520.008(1), F.A.C. or CF - FSP Form 5238,

6673Application for a License to Operate a Large

6681Family Child Care Home, which is

6687incorporated by reference in paragraph 65C -

669420.013(3)(a), F.A.C. , for renewal of an

6700annual license at least 45 days prior to the

6709expiration date of the current license

6715constitutes a licensing violation. The

6720department shall issue an administrative

6725complaint imposing a fine of $50.00 for the

6733first occurrence, $100.00 f or the second

6740occurrence, and $200.00 for each subsequent

6746occurrence within a five year period.

6752(e) Disciplinary sanctions for licensing

6757violations that occur within a two year

6764period shall be progressively enforced as

6770follows:

67711. Class I Violations.

6775a. For the first and second violation of a

6784Class I standard, the department shall, upon

6791applying the factors in Section 402.310(1),

6797F.S., issue an administrative complaint

6802imposing a fine not less than $100 nor more

6811than $500 per day for each violation, and

6819may impose other disciplinary sanctions in

6825addition to the fine.

6829b. For the third and subsequent violation

6836of a Class I standard, the department shall

6844issue an administrative complaint to

6849suspend, deny or revoke the license. The

6856department, upon appl ying the factors in

6863Section 402.310(1), F.S., may also levy a

6870fine not less than $100 nor more than $500

6879per day for each violation in addition to

6887any other disciplinary sanction.

6891* * *

6894(4) Access. The family day care operator

6901must allow access to the entire premises of

6909the family day care home to inspect for

6917compliance with family day care home minimum

6924standards. Access to the family day care

6931home also includes access by the parent,

6938legal guardian, and/or custodian, to their

6944child(ren) while i n care. (emphasis added) .

69525 3 . The Department did not sustain its burden with respect

6964to the denial notification letters. The Department failed to

6973provide the facility with the option to pay the October 29,

69842010, proposed fine in a manner that clearly t he Department has

6996utilized in the past. Further, its own witnesses stated that

7006Ms. Davis was shocked , overwhelmed , or stunned that the

7015investigation was on - going and that they pushed her with respect

7027to answering questions in a stressful situation. That ' s not to

7039say that the investigation was conducted inappropriately.

7046However, under the circumstances once , it was determined that no

7056children were in immediate danger (which was determined by

7065Investigator McCain ' s inquiries on December 2 , 2010 ), a more

7077met hodical approach to seek the requisite answers to the inquiry

7088could have been undertaken. That systematic methodology may

7096have ensured that the documentation of the events was accurately

7106recorded as opposed to various discrepancies in the Department 's

7116exh ibits.

71185 4 . Any final order denying renewal of the applicant ' s

7131license must be based solely on the grounds asserted in the

7142notice of intent to deny given the applicant. See M. H. v.

7154Dep ' t of Child . & Fam . Servs . , Case No. 2D07 - 1006, 2008 Fla.

7172App. LEXIS 4 391 *6 (Fla. 2d DCA March 28, 2008)("[T]he notice ' s

7187exclusive focus on ' significant pulling force ' as causing a

7198nonaccidental injury precluded DCF from urging negligence as an

7207alternative ground for denying the renewal of the license at the

7218administrative proceeding.") 12/

72225 5 . There was a verified abuse finding; however , the

7233perpetrator of the abuse is unknown to the undersigned. No

7243testimony was provided as to what a verified abuse finding

7253entailed.

7254RECOMMENDATION

7255Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact a nd Conclusions of

7266Law, it is RECOMMENDED:

7270a. W ith respect to the October 29, 2010 , administrative

7280c omplaint , that a final order be entered by the Department of

7292Children and Families finding that the facility was over - ratio

7303on August 3, 2010, and imposing an administrative fine of $500

7314with no less than ten months to pay the fine. It is further

7327RECOMMENDED that Ms. Davis be ordered to attend remedial classes

7337on the financial operations and management of a child care

7347facility;

7348b. W ith respect to the March 23, 2011, administrative

7358complaint , that a final order be entered by the Department of

7369Children and Families renewing the family day care home license

7379on probation status for six months with periodic inspections to

7389ensure the continued safe operation of th e facility; and

7399c. W ith respect to the April 11, 2011, administrative

7409complaint , that a final order be entered by the Department of

7420Children and Families finding that the large family child care

7430home application be issued a provisional license for a minim um

7441of six months with periodic inspections to ensure the continued

7451safe operation of the facility, with the ability for an

7461additional six - month provisional period. In the event the large

7472family child care home provisional license is not activated

7481within t wo months of the issuance of the final order in this

7494matter, a new application shall be required, subject to all the

7505applicable statutory requirements.

7508DONE AND ENTERED this 2 5 th day of October, 2011 , in

7520Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

7524S

7525LYNNE A. QUIMBY - PENNOCK

7530Administrative Law Judge

7533Division of Administrative Hearings

7537The DeSoto Building

75401230 Apalachee Parkway

7543Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

7548(850) 488 - 9675

7552Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6847

7558www.doah.state.fl.us

7559Filed with t he Clerk of the

7566Division of Administrative Hearings

7570this 2 5 th day of October , 2011 .

7579ENDNOTES

75801/ References to Florida Statutes are to Florida Statutes

7589(2010), unless otherwise indicated.

75932/ References to Florida Administrative Code rules are to the

7603c urrent version, unless otherwise indicated.

76093/ Although electronically filed on May 4, 2011, the

7618Department ' s n otice to the Division references the " DCF Case

7630Action ( A dministrative C omplaint imposing $500 fine) " and is

7641executed on February 17, 2011, befo re the facility was notified

7652of these two administrative complaints.

76574/ The Department ' s E xhibit 1, the October 29, 2010, letter to

" 7671Davis Family Day Care Home, Attention: LaShandra Davis "

7679contained three pages ; however , page two and page three were

7689ide ntical. The Davis Day Care ' s E xhibit 9 contained the same

7703October 29, 2010, letter with three distinct separate pages.

77125/ In both the Department ' s E xhibit 5 and the Davis Day Care ' s

7729E xhibit 10, the reference to the day care owner and provider

7741(Ms. Davis ) as " Ms. Shawn " is hearsay and was not corroborated

7753with any testimony at hearing.

77586/ These three technical violations and the expired fire

7767extinguisher are not the subject of this case.

77757/ Ms. Davis ' s mother ' s name was never provided during the

7789heari ng. However, in both the Department ' s E xhibit 5 and the

7803Davis Day Care ' s E xhibit 10, the mother ' s name is given as

7819Velma Jones. However this name is hearsay and was not

7829corroborated with any testimony at hearing. This name is being

7839used simply for ease of reference.

78458/ Ms. Davis admitted she was over - ratio on August 3, 2010, and

7859there will be no further discussion of that allegation in this

7870section.

78719/ In both the Department ' s E xhibit 6 and the Davis Day Care ' s

7888E xhibit 13, the number " 6 " is beside th e phrase " Children

7900Present:, " yet on page 3 of 5 of both exhibits, it ' s reported

" 7914The number of children observed in this age group was 8 per the

7927sign in sheets and the operator statement. " The Department ' s

7938E xhibit 6 (Bate - stamped page 22) lists six child ren " [p] resent

7952at time of inspection. "

795610/ In the Department ' s E xhibit 6 (Bate - stamped page 22) and the

7972Davis Day Care ' s E xhibit 11 (page 1 of 2), the dates for the

" 7988sign in sheets " listed are Thursday, December 2, 2011, and

7998Wednesday, December 2, 2011. This is i naccurate

8006reporting/recording.

800711/ The Davis Day Care submitted its renewal application on

8017March 15, 2011, four days after this inspection. Thus, this

8027inspection had to be in response to the Davis Day Care ' s large

8041family child care home applic ation that was submitted on

8051February 23, 2011.

805412/ The Department did not allege a lack of timeliness in the

8066filing of the facilit y's renewal application and should not be

8077allowed to allege that as a grounds for further sanctions.

8087COPIES FURNISHED :

8090St acy N. Robinson, Esquire

8095Department of Children and Families

81001055 Highway 17, North

8104Bartow, Florida 33830

8107Charlann Jackson Sanders, Esquire

8111Charlann Jackson Sanders, P.A.

8115Post Office Box 7752

8119Lakeland, Florida 33807

8122Gregory Venz, Agency Clerk

8126Departmen t of Children and Families

8132Building 2, Room 204B

81361317 Winewood Boulevard

8139Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0700

8144Drew Parker, General Counsel

8148Department of Children and Families

8153Building 2, Room 204

81571317 Winewood Boulevard

8160Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0700

8165David Wilkins, Secretary

8168Department of Children and Families

8173Building 1, Room 202

81771317 Winewood Boulevard

8180Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0700

8185NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

8191All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

820115 days from the da te of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions

8213to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that

8224will issue the Final Order in th e s e case s .

Select the PDF icon to view the document.
PDF
Date
Proceedings
PDF:
Date: 06/15/2015
Proceedings: Transmittal letter from Claudia Llado forwarding the two-volume Transcript, along with Respondent's Exhibits, which were returned by the Second District Court of Appeal to the agency.
PDF:
Date: 08/19/2013
Proceedings: Petitioner/Appellant's Motion to Tax Costs (filed in Case No. 11-002242).
PDF:
Date: 02/10/2012
Proceedings: (Agency) Final Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/08/2012
Proceedings: Agency Final Order
PDF:
Date: 10/25/2011
Proceedings: Recommended Order
PDF:
Date: 10/25/2011
Proceedings: Recommended Order (hearing held June 28, 2011). CASE CLOSED.
PDF:
Date: 10/25/2011
Proceedings: Recommended Order cover letter identifying the hearing record referred to the Agency.
PDF:
Date: 09/30/2011
Proceedings: Petitioner`s Department of Children and Family Services' Proposed Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/30/2011
Proceedings: Davis Day Care Home's Notice of Filing Proposed Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/14/2011
Proceedings: Order Granting Extension of Time.
PDF:
Date: 09/14/2011
Proceedings: Joint Request for Extension of Time to File Proposed Recommended Orders (filed in Case No. 11-002242).
Date: 08/15/2011
Proceedings: Transcript (not available for viewing) filed.
Date: 07/28/2011
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Held.
PDF:
Date: 07/27/2011
Proceedings: Notice of Ex-parte Communication.
Date: 07/27/2011
Proceedings: Davis Family Day Care Home Exhibits (exhibits not available for viewing)
PDF:
Date: 07/27/2011
Proceedings: Notice of Change of Address filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/25/2011
Proceedings: Davis Family Day Care Home Witness List filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/25/2011
Proceedings: Davis Family Day Care Home Exhibit List filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/25/2011
Proceedings: Transmittal Letter on Submission of Exhibits filed.
Date: 07/21/2011
Proceedings: Respondent, Department of Children and Families' List of Exhibits (exhibits not available for viewing)
PDF:
Date: 07/01/2011
Proceedings: Notice of Transfer.
PDF:
Date: 05/20/2011
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (filed by C. Sanders).
PDF:
Date: 05/18/2011
Proceedings: Order Granting Continuance and Re-scheduling Hearing by Video Teleconference (hearing set for July 28, 2011; 9:00 a.m.; Lakeland and Tallahassee, FL).
PDF:
Date: 05/18/2011
Proceedings: Order of Consolidation (DOAH Case Nos. 11-0916 and 11-2242).
Date: 05/18/2011
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Motion Hearing Held.
PDF:
Date: 05/13/2011
Proceedings: Notice of Transfer.
PDF:
Date: 05/11/2011
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (filed by C. Sanders).
PDF:
Date: 05/11/2011
Proceedings: Petitioner's Motion for Consolidation of Related Cases filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/14/2011
Proceedings: Order Granting Continuance and Re-scheduling Hearing (hearing set for May 25, 2011; 9:00 a.m.; Lakeland, FL).
PDF:
Date: 04/12/2011
Proceedings: Petitioner, Department of Children and Families' Motion to Reschedule Hearing Date filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/17/2011
Proceedings: Notice of Hearing (hearing set for April 21, 2011; 1:30 p.m.; Lakeland, FL).
PDF:
Date: 02/28/2011
Proceedings: Joint Response to Initial Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/21/2011
Proceedings: Initial Order.
PDF:
Date: 02/21/2011
Proceedings: Notice (of Agency referral) filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/21/2011
Proceedings: Request for Administrative Hearing filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/21/2011
Proceedings: Agency action letter filed.

Case Information

Judge:
LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK
Date Filed:
02/21/2011
Date Assignment:
06/30/2011
Last Docket Entry:
06/15/2015
Location:
Lakeland, Florida
District:
Middle
Agency:
ADOPTED IN PART OR MODIFIED
 

Related Florida Statute(s) (11):