14-000945 Department Of Children And Families vs. My First School, Inc. Status: Closed Recommended Order on Wednesday, August 6, 2014.

Summary: Petitioner proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent committed misrepresentation and fraudulently provided information related to its child care facility license.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN

AND FAMILIES ,

Petitioner,

vs. Case No. 1 4 - 0945

MY FIRST SCHOOL , INC.

Respondent.

/

RECOMMENDED ORDER

A hearing was conducted in this case pursuant to sections

120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (2013), 1 / before Cathy M.

Sellers, an Administrative Law Judge of the Division of

Administrative Hearings ( " DOAH " ), on July 9 , 2014, by video

teleconference at sites in Miami and Tallahassee, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Karen A. Milia , Esquire

Department of Children and Families

Suite N - 1014

401 North west Seco nd Avenue

Miam i, Florida 3313 8

For Respondent: Leonardo A. Canton , Esquire

Suite 203

201 Sevilla Avenue

Coral Gables , Florida 33 134

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE S

The issue s in this case are: (1) w hether Respondent

misrepresented or fraudulent ly 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 r ule 65C - 22.010(1) (d)1. ; and (2)

if Respondent committed the alleged violations, the penalty that

should be imposed.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On or about December 20, 2013, Petitioner, Department of

Children and Families, served Respondent, My First School, Inc.,

with an Administrative Complaint alleging that Respondent

violated section 402.319(1)(a), rules 65C - 22.001(11) and 65C -

22.001(6)(c) , and Standard 63 of Petitioner ' s Child Care

Fa cility Standards Classification. Pursuant to section 402.310

and r ule s 65C - 2 0 . 0 12 2 / and 65C - 22.010 , Petitioner proposed to

impose a $200.00 fine, convert Respondent ƪ s child care facility

license to probationary s tatus, and terminate Respondent ƪ s Gold

Seal designation. On January 1 3 , 2014, Respondent filed a

request for administrative hearing.

On or about February 18, 2014 , Petitioner issued an Amended

Administrative Complaint, which sup erseded the Administrative

Complaint and alleged additional facts supporting the

misrepresentation charge s and fraudulent information provision

charges . The Amended Administrative Complaint charged

Respondent with violating the same statutes and rules as were

charged in the Administrative Complaint , and sought to impose

the same penalties . 3/

On March 3, 2014, Petitioner referred this proceeding to

DOAH to conduct an administrative hearing pursuant to sections

120.569 and 120.57(1). On March 17, 2014, Respondent filed a

response to the Amended Administrative Complaint, disputing the

allegations and requesting a hearing.

The final hearing initially was set for May 15, 2014, but

pursuant to Respondent ' s request for a continuance , was

re scheduled for July 9, 2014.

The final hearing was held on July 9, 2014. Petitioner

presented the testimony of Pauline Kinsey and Gloria Johnso n ,

and Petitioner ' s Exhibits 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 were

admitted into evidence. Respondent presen ted the testimony of

Lyan Barrus, Soraya Sanabria, and Francisco Perez , and

Respondent ' s Exhibits 1 through 15 were admitted into evidence. 4 /

A final hearing transcript was not filed with DOAH . The

parties were given until July 21, 2014, to file their proposed

recommended orde rs. Both parties timely filed proposed

recommended o rders, which were duly considered in preparing this

Recommended Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

I. The Parties

1. Petitioner is the state agency responsible for

licensing, inspecting, and monitoring child care facilities

pursuant to chapter 402, Florida Statutes.

2. Respondent is a child care facility licensed by

Petitioner , operating under License No. C11MD1476 . Respondent ' s

facility is located at 968 Southwest 82nd Ave nue, Miami,

Florida. Soraya Sanabria and Lyan Barrus are the Respondent ' s

owners, and Sanabria is its Director.

3. 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.

II. Events Giving Rise to this Proceeding

A. License Renewal Process

4 . Pursuant to section 402.308(1), Respondent applied for

the annual renewal of its child care facility license in mid - to

late 2013 .

5 . 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.

6 . 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.

7 . Gloria Johnson, an auditor with Petitioner ' s child care

facility regulation program, reviewed Respondent ' s 2013 license

renewal application. 5 /

B. The Vehicle Inspection and Health Examination Forms

8 . 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 201 1 license renew al application .

9 . Johnson notified Kinsey, who contacted Sanabria on

December 17, 2013 . Kinsey requested that Respondent submit a

current vehicle inspec tion form for inclusion in its 2 013

license renewal application.

10 . That same day, Sanabria faxed a vehicle inspection

form , dated June 14, 2013 , to Petitioner.

1 1 . Johnson reviewed this vehicle inspection form and

determined that it was a copy of the June 1 4 , 2011 , form that

had been altered. Specifically, the date i n the top left space

on the form had been altered by writing a " 3 " over the last " 1 "

in " 2011. " In every other respect Ï Ï including handwriting,

vehicle mileage, name of inspector and busi ness (Goodyear), 6 / and

date of inspection written in the lower right - hand corner Ï Ï the

two forms were identical.

1 2 . 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 /

1 3 . 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.

1 4 . On December 18, 2013, Respondent submitted a vehicle

inspection form indicating that the vehicle had been inspected

at Tires Plus that same day .

1 5 . Petitioner refused to accept the December 18, 2013 ,

form . Kinsey informed Respondent that Petitioner had determined

th at 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.

1 6 . I n the course of reviewing Respondent ' s license

renewal application files, Johnson also discovered that a

" H ealth E xamination " form that Respondent had submitted in its

2012 license renewal application 8 / 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 ; h owever, t he

date on the form submitted in the 2012 application had been

changed from " 6/10/2011 " to " 6/10/ 20 12 " 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 /

C. Complaint Inspection and Administrative Complaints

1 7 . 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.

1 8 . 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.

1 9 . On January 13, 2014, Respondent filed a request for

administrative hearing challenging the Administrative Complai nt.

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 Fra ncisco

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.

20 . On February 18, 2014, Petitioner issued an Amended

Administrative Complaint, alleging in greater detail the facts

givi ng rise to its charges that Respondent misrepresent ed

information and fraudulently provided information to Petitioner

related to the chi ld 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.

D. Respondent ' s Defenses

2 1 . At the final hearing, Barrus and Sanabria testified

that Respondent inadvertently had submitted a copy of the

June 1 4 , 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 1 4 ,

201 3 , 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 ve hicle inspection. 11 /

2 2 . Barrus testified that the June 14, 2011 , vehicle

inspection form mistakenly had been included in the 2012 license

renewal application. Barrus and Sanabria both t estified 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 .

2 3 . Neither Barrus nor Sanabria dispute d 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 " 6/1 0/2012 . " Barrus testified that

she did not know how the altered form came to be part of

Resp ondent ' s 20 12 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 /

III . Findings of Ultimate Fact

2 4 . The undersigned find s the testimony of Barrus and

Sanabria regarding the vehicle inspection form issue in credible

and un persuasive.

2 5 . 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 w hen Petitioner

discovered the outdated form and contacted Respondent, on

December 17, 2013, Respondent inte ntionally submitted the

altered inspection form with the date changed from June 14,

2011 , to June 14, 2013. Petitioner discovered th is alteration

and contacted Respondent . Thereafter, i n an attempt to comply

with the annual inspection requirement, Respon dent had the

vehicle inspected by Tires Plus on December 18, 2013, and

submitt ed the vehicle inspection form to Petitioner that day.

The credible , persuasive evidence further gives rise to the

inference that w hen 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 th e form to

Petitioner as an exhibit to the request for hearing that it

filed on January 13, 2014. 1 3 /

2 6 . In committing this conduct , Respondent misrepresented

information and fraudulent ly 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 .

2 7 . The undersigned also finds the testimony of Barrus and

Sanabria regarding the " Health Examination " form in the 2012

application incredible and unpersuasive. 1 4 /

2 8 . The credible, persu asive 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.

29 . In committing this conduct , Respondent misre presented

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.

3 0 . In sum, Petitioner has proved, by clear and convincing

evidence, that Respondent committed the violations alleged in

the Amended Administrative Complaint.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

3 1 . DOAH has jurisdiction over the parties to, and subject

matter of, this proceeding pursuant to sections 120.569 and

120.57(1).

3 2 . This is a disciplinary proceeding against Respondent ' s

child care facility license, pursuant to section 402.310(1),

Florida Statutes. Petitioner bears the burden, by clear and

convincing evidence, to establish the grounds for discipline

against Respondent ' s license. Dep 't of Banking & Fin. v .

Osborne Stern & Co. , 670 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 1996); Ferris v.

Turlington , 510 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 1987); Coke v. Dep ' t of Child.

& Fam. Servs. , 704 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998).

3 3 . In Evans Packing Co. v. Dep artment of Agriculture and

Consumer Services , 550 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), the Court

defined clear and convincing evidence as follows :

Clear and convincing evidence requires that

the evidence must be found to be credible;

the facts to which the witnesses testify

must be distinctly remembered ; the evidence

must be precise and explicit and the

witnesses must be lacking in confusion as to

the facts in issue. The evidence must be of

such weight that it produces in the mind of

the trier of fact the firm belief of

conviction, without hesitancy, as to the

truth of the allegations sought to be

established.

Id. at 116 n.5, citing Slomowitz v. Walker , 429 So. 2d 797, 800

(Fla. 4th DCA 1983).

3 4 . Whether Respondent committed the charged offenses is a

question of ultimate fact to be determined by the trier of fact

in the con text of each alleged violation. See McKinney v.

Castor , 667 So. 2d 387, 389 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Goin v. Comm ' n

on Ethics , 658 So. 2d 1131, 1138 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Langston

v. Jamerson , 653 So. 2d 489, 491 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995).

A . Applicable Statutes

3 5 . Respondent is a child care facility as defined in

section 402.302(2), which states in pertinent part :

" Child care facility " includes any child

care center or child care arrangement which

provides child care for more than five

children unrelated to the operator and which

receives a payment, fee, or grant for any of

the children receiving care, wherever

operated, and whether or not operated for

profit.

3 6 . Section 402.308(1) requires a child care facility

license to be renewed annually.

3 7 . Pursuant to sections 402 .305(2)(e) and (10),

P etitioner has adopted rules establishing child care facility

licensure requirements . A mong these are that drivers of child

care facility vehicles used to transport children must undergo

periodic health examinations , and that such vehicles must be

inspected on an annual basis .

3 8 . Section 402.319(1) authorizes Petitioner to take

disciplinary action and impose penalties against child care

facility licenses for specified violations of child care

facility statutes and rules. The statute provides in pertinent

part:

(1) It is a misdemeanor of the first

degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082

or s. 775.083, for any person knowingly to:

(a) Fail, by false statement,

misrepresentation, impersonation, or other

fraudulent means, to disclose in any

application for voluntary or paid employment

or licensure regulated under ss. 402.301 -

402.318 all information required under those

sections or a material fact used in making a

determination as to such person ' s

qualifications to be child care personnel,

as defined in s. 402.302, in a child care

facility . . . .

3 9 . Section 402.310 also authorizes Petitioner to take

disciplinary action and impose penalties against child care

facility licenses for violation of applicable statutes and

rules . Th is statute states in pertinent part:

(1)(a) The department or local licensing

agency may adminis ter any of the following

disciplinary sanctions for a violation of

any provision of ss. 402.301 - 402.319, or the

rules adopted thereunder:

1. Impose an administrative fine not to

exceed $100 per violation, per day.

However, if the violation could or does

cause death or serious harm, the department

or local licensing agency may impose an

administrative fine, not to exceed $500 per

violation per day in addition to or in lieu

of any other disciplinary action imposed

under this section.

2. Convert a licens e or registration to

probation status and require the licensee or

registrant to comply with the terms of

probation. A probation - status license or

registration may not be issued for a period

that exceeds 6 months and the probation -

status license or regist ration may not be

renewed.

3. Deny, suspend, or revoke a license or

registration.

4 0 . Section 402.281 establishes the Gold Seal Quality Care

Program. Under this program, child care facilities may apply

for and receive a " Gold Seal Quality Care " designation.

Pursuant to s ection 402.281(4 ), commission of a Class I

violation of child care facility statutes and rules constitutes

grounds for termination of the Gold Seal Quality Care

designation, and the facility is not again eligible for such

design ation until it has had no Class I violations for a two -

year period.

B. Applicable Rules

4 1 . Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C - 22.001(6)

provides in pertinent part:

(6) Transportation. For the purpose of

this section, vehicles refer to those that

are owned, operated or regularly used by the

child care facility and vehicles that

provide transportation through a contract or

agreement with an outside entity.

* * *

(a) When any vehicle is regularly used by a

child care facility to provide

transportation, the driver shall have the

following:

* * *

2. An annual physical examination which

grants medical approval to drive . . . .

* * *

(c) All vehicles regularly used to

transport chi ldren shall be inspected

annually by a mechanic to ensure proper

working order. Documentation by the

mechanic shall be maintained in the vehicle.

4 2 . Rule 65C - 2 2 .01 0 (1) specifies conduct that constitutes

a particular class of violation of child care facility statutes

and rules. Th e rule provides in pertinent part:

(d) " Violation " means a finding of

noncompliance by the department or local

licensing authority of a licensing standard.

1. " Class I Violation " is an incident of

noncompliance with a Class I standard as

described on CF - FSP Form 5316, July 2012.

Child Care Facility Standards Classification

Summary, which is incorporated by reference.

A copy of the CF - FSP Form 5316 may be

obtained from the departme nt ' s website at

www.myflorida.com/childcare or from the

following link http://www.flrules.org

/Gateway/reference.asp?No=Ref - 03034. The

effective date of a termination of a

provider ' s Gold Seal Quality Care

designation is the date of the department ' s

writte n notification to the provider. Class

I violations are the most serious in nature,

pose an imminent threat to a child including

abuse or neglect and which could or does

result in death or serious harm to the

health, safety or well - being of a child.

4 3 . P ursuant to rule 65C - 2 2 .01 0 , Petitioner has adopted

its Child Care Facility Standards by rule , and these Standards

are incorporated by reference into rule 65C - 2 2 .01 0 (1)(d) .

Standard No. 63 of the Child Care Facility Standards is titled

" Access/Child Abuse or Neglect/Misrepresentation ss. 402.311,

402.319, F.S. & rule 65C - 22.001(9), (11), F.A.C. " This S tandard

makes misrepresentation and the fraudulent provision of

information related to the child care facility , by child care

facility personnel 1 5 / to the licensing authority , a Class I

violation .

C. Respondent Guilty of the Alleged Violations

4 4 . For the reasons addressed above, it is concluded that

Petitioner has proved , by clear and convincing evidence , that

Resp ondent committed the violations alleged in the Amended

Administrative Complaint.

4 5 . Specifically, Petitioner proved that Respondent

intentionally submitt ed an altered vehicle inspection form as

part of its 2013 license renewal application. T his act

constituted misrepresentation and the fraudulent provision of

information regarding the licensure of Respondent ' s child care

facility , in violat ion of section 402.319 (1)(a) and Standard 63

of Petitioner ' s Child Care Facility Standards.

4 6 . Petitioner al so proved that Respondent intentionally

submitted an altered H ealth E xamination form as part of its 201 2

license renewal application. T his act constituted

misrepresentation and fraudulent provision of information

regarding the licensure of Respondent ' s child care facility and

regarding Sanabria ' s qualification to serve as driver of the

facility ' s child transportation vehicle. These acts violat ed

section 402.319 (1)(a) and Standard 63 of Petitioner ' s Child Care

Facility Standards.

4 7 . Respondent asserts that in any event, it should not be

subject to discipline because it has complied with the

requirements in rule 65C - 22.001(6)(a) and (c), in that Sanabria

recently has undergone a physical examination and Respondent has

had the facility vehicle inspected within the past year.

H owever, Respondent ' s position misses the point. Petitioner has

not charged Respondent with failing to meet th o se substantive

rule requirements; rather, it has charged Respondent with

misrepresentation and fraudulent provision of in formation in

attempting to show th at it met th o se r equirements.

4 8 . In sum , the clear and convincing evidence establishes

t hat Respondent intentionally submitted altered forms regarding

these licensure requirements in its 2012 and 2013 license

renewal applications , and in doing so, committed

misrepresent ation and f raudul ently provi ded information to

Petitioner regarding its license , in violation of section

402.319(1)(a) and Standard 63 of Petitioner ' s Child Care

Fac ility Standards.

D. Penalties

49 . As discussed above, section 402 .310(1) authorizes

Petitioner to impose disc iplinary sanctions for violations of

applicable child care facility statutes and rules. Among the

sanctions authorized are imposition of an administrative fine

not to exceed $100.00 per day per violation, and conversion of a

child care facility license to probation - status.

5 0 . Here, the evidence supports imposition of a $200.00

administrative fine against Respondent and conver sion of its

child care facility license to probation - status for a six - month

period.

5 1 . As discussed above, Petitioner proved, by clear and

convincing evidence, that Respondent m isrepresent ed information

and fraudulently provid ed information to Petitioner regarding

its child care facility license and child care personnel.

Pursuant to Standard 63, t his conduct constitutes a Class I

violation . Section 402.281(4) requires termination of a child

care facility ' s G old Seal Quality Car e designation for

commission of a Class I violation. Accordingly, Respondent ' s

Gold Seal Quality Care designation must be terminated.

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; a nd

terminating Respondent ' s Gold Seal Quality Care designation.

DONE AND ENTERED this 6 th 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

t his 6th day of August , 2014.

ENDNOTES

1 / All references are to 2013 Florida Statutes.

2/ This rule has been superseded by the version of rule 65C -

22.010 that went into effect on August 1, 2013.

3 / The Amended Administrative Complaint does not specifically

cite to rule 65C - 22.001(6)(a), which imposes the requirement

that the driver of a child care facility vehicle have an annual

physical examination that grants medical approval to drive.

However, the Amended Administrative Complaint alleges, in great

factual detail, that Respondent intentionally submitted

falsified information regarding its compliance with rules 65C -

22.001(6)(a) and (c), in violation of Standard No. 63 of

Petitioner ' s Child Care Fa cility Standards. This standard makes

misrepresentation and fraudulent provision of information

related to a child care facility a violation of rule 65C - 2 2 .01 0 ,

which is specifically cited in the Amended Administrative

Complaint. The Amended Administrati ve Complaint more than

adequately places Respondent on notice regarding the factual

allegations and legal charges against which it must defend. See

Seminole Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm ' rs v. Long , 422 So. 2d 938

(Fla. 5th DCA 1982)(administrative complaint mu st be specific

enough to inform the accused with reasonable certainty of the

nature of the charge).

4 / Respondent ' s Exhibit 16 was not formally proffered or

admitted into evidence.

5 / References to years in connection with an annual license

renewal a pplication refers to the year in which the application

was submitted to Petitioner for renewal of the license.

6 / Kinsey confirmed that this particular Goodyear dealer no

longer conducted vehicle inspections.

7 / Petitioner apparently failed to catch t he outdated form in

its license renewal audit conducted in 2012.

8 / This form was submitted to document compliance with the rule

requirement that the person driving the child care facility

transport vehicle have an annual physical examination.

9 / Petitioner apparently failed to catch the altered health

examination form in its license renewal audit conducted in 2012.

10 / Francisco Perez testified that he filled out an invoice

dated June 14, 2013, and signed a vehicle inspection form

containing that same date. The undersigned did not find Perez '

testimony sufficiently persuasive to support a finding that

Respondent did, in fact, have the vehicle inspected on June 14,

2013.

1 1 / Respondent offered no credible explanation why, if it had

the vehicle inspected on June 14, 2013 , and thus would have had

the vehicle inspection form signed by Perez in its possession

when Petitioner conducted the inspections in late 2013, it did

not provide the form to Petitioner at that time.

1 2 / Nonetheless, Sanabria apparently did have a physical

examination in February 2012 to satisfy that requirement for her

Florida Department of Transportation chauffer ' s license, as

evidenced by the Medical Examination Report for Commercial

Driver Fitness Determination dat ed February 17, 2012, which was

admitted into evidence. For reasons not explained in the

record, Respondent did not submit this document to Petitioner as

part of its 2012 license renewal application.

1 3 / The undersigned notes that on the form dated Jun e 14, 2013,

with Perez ' name written on it, all of the information on the

form, other than Perez ' name and the business entity

information, was handwritten by someone other than Perez. This

undercuts the credibility of Barrus ' and Sanabria ' s testimony

tha t they had prepared a " draft " of the June 14, 2013 , form to

give to the mechanic to show him how to fill out the form.

1 4 / The Medical Examination Report for Commercial Driver Fitness

Determination dated February 17, 2012, showing that Sanabria

obt ained a medical examination on that date, undercuts the

credibility of Barrus ' and Sanabria ' s testimony that Respondent

did not transport children in its facility vehicle in 2012. Had

that been the case, Sanabria would not have needed to undergo a

medical examination for purposes of maintaining a current

chauffer ' s driver license.

1 5 / " Child care personnel " means all owners, operators,

employees, and volunteers working in a child care facility.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Gregory D. Venz, Esquire

Department of Children and Families

Building 2, Room 204B

1317 Winewood Boulevard

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

Leonardo A. Canton, Esquire

Attorney at Law, P.A.

Suite 203

201 Sevilla Avenue

Coral Gables, Florida 33134

Karen A. Milia, Esquire

Department of Children and Families

Suite N - 1014

401 Northwest Second Avenue

Miami, Florida 33128

R ebecca Kapusta, Interim General Counsel

Department of Children and Families

Building 2, Room 204

1317 Winewood Boulevard

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

Mike Carroll, Interim Secretary

Department of Children and Families

Building 1, Room 202

1317 Winewood Boulevard

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

15 days from the date of this Reco mmended Order. Any exceptions

to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that

will issue the Final Order in this case.