18-006799 Department Of Children And Families vs. Reid's Educational Child Care Centre, Llc, D/B/A Reid's Educational Child Care Center Status: Closed Recommended Order on Wednesday, June 5, 2019.

Summary: Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent should be fined, and Respondent's child care license, should be revoked, due to violations of child care licensing standards.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND

FAMILIES,

Petitioner,

vs. Case Nos. 18 - 6799

19 - 0698

REID'S EDUCATIONAL CHILD CARE

CENTRE, LLC, d/b/a REID'S

EDUCATIONAL CHILD CARE CENTER,

Respondent.

_______________________________/

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, a final hearing was conducted in this

case on April 10, 2019, via video teleconference in Tallahassee

and Jacksonville, Florida, before Administrative Law Judge

Suzanne Van Wyk of the Division of Administrative Hearings.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Roger L.D. Williams, Esquire

Department of Children and Families

5920 Arlington Expressway

Jacksonville, Florida 32231 - 0083

For Respondent: Ni c kesha Reid, pro se

ReidÓs Educational Child Care Center

10658 Biscayne Boulevard

Jacksonville, Florida 32218

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE S

Whether Respondent committed the child care licensing

violations alleged in the Administrative Complaints; and, if so,

what penalty should be imposed.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

The Department of Children and Families (ÐDepartmentÑ)

issued an Administrative Complaint dated November 16, 2018,

charging Respondent with a Class II violation of child care

facility licensing standard s, imposing a monetary fine of $2,925

against Respondent, and seeking revocation of RespondentÓs child

care license. Respondent timely filed a request for formal

administrative hearing to contest the DepartmentÓs decision.

The case was referred to the Div ision of Administrative

Hearings (Ðthe DivisionÑ) on December 28, 2018, assigned Case

No. 18 - 6799, and scheduled for final hearing on April 10, 2019.

The Department issued a second Administrative Complaint

against Respondent on January 11, 2019, charging Respondent with

Class I, II, and III violations of child care licensing

standards, imposing a monetary fine of $335 against Respondent,

and seeking revocation of RespondentÓs child care license.

The case was referred to the Division on February 8, 2019,

a nd assigned Case No. 19 - 0698. The two cases were consolidated

on February 25, 2019.

The final hearing commenced as scheduled on April 10, 2019.

At the final hearing, the Department offered the testimony of

the following witnesses: Carl Smith, Child Car e Supervisor;

Hannah McGlothlin, Family Services Counselor; Cassandro Virgo,

Licensing Counselor; Virginia Ritter ; Palecia Crawford - Maddox ;

and Carrie Gaouette. Pe titioner introduced Exhibits P1

through P3, P5, P6, P9 through P11, and P13 through P15, whi ch

were admitted in evidence.

Respondent offered the testimony of its Director, Nickesha

Reid ; Grady Dixon, Jr. ; and Child Care Protective Investigator

Roberto Garcia. Respondent offered Exhibits R2(a) and (b), R3

through R5, and R11, which were admitted in evidence.

The two - volume Transcript of the hearing was filed with the

Division on May 8, 2019. 1/ The Department timely filed a

Proposed Recommended Order on May 13, 2019, which was considered

in the preparation of this Recommended Order. On May 30, 20 19,

Respondent filed a Motion for Extension of Time to file a

proposed recom mended order, which was denied.

Except as otherwise noted, all references herein to Florida

Statutes are to the 2018 codification.

FINDING S OF FACT

1. The Department is responsibl e for licensing and

monitoring Ðchild care facilities,Ñ as that term is defined in

section 402.302(2), Florida Statutes.

2. ReidÓs Educational Child Care Centr e, LLC, d/b/a ReidÓs

Educational Child Care Center (ÐReidÓs Ñ or Ðthe facilityÑ) is a

child car e facility licensed by the Department. ReidÓs is owned

and operated by Nickesha Reid and is located at 10658 Biscayne

Boulevard in Jacksonville, Florida.

License Violation History

3. ReidÓs has a dizzying history of violating Department

child care licen sing standards. At final hearing, Department

investigators testified that they had to rely upon the

DepartmentÓs matrix, which documents a facilityÓs history of

violations by date and class, as well as the penalties imposed,

and whether monetary penalties have been paid. The matrix

allows Department staff to cross - reference prior cases to

identify repeated violations of the same standard. For purposes

of this Recommended Order, the undersigned has included only the

violations documented within the two - ye ar period preceding the

consolidated administrative complaints at issue in this case.

4. On December 14, 2017, ReidÓs was cited for lack of a

Level II background screening (Ðbackground screeningÑ) for

Ms. Reid. 2/

5. During a renewal inspection on July 1 1, 2018,

Petitioner cited ReidÓs for the following violations of child

care licensing standards: (1) the child - to - teacher ratio for

mixed age ranges including a child under the age of one,

(2) direct supervision of children in its care, and

(3) background screening for Ms. Reid. Each of these violations

is a Class II violation of child care licensing standards.

6. One of the most egregious violations cited during the

July 11, 2018 inspection was a 10 - year - old child in charge of

the infant classroom. Mor eover, the infant classroom was out of

ratio, with the 10 - year - old ÐteacherÑ in charge of five infants,

rather than the required ratio of 1:4.

7. While Department staff was on - site at the facility,

Ms. Reid responded to the DepartmentÓs calls, appeared at the

facility, and attempted to address the ratio violation by

personally covering the infant room. However, Ms. Reid still

had no background screening documentation, which led to the

citation for violation of the background screening requirement.

8. Th e Department filed an Administrative Complaint

against ReidÓs on July 25, 2018, solely on the background

screening violation. In the complaint, the Department imposed a

fine of $50 for this Class II violation, the second violation of

the same child care l icensing standard within a two - year period.

9. On July 23, 2018, during a complaint investi gation , 3/

Petitioner cited ReidÓs for the following violations of child

care licensing standards: (1) teacher - to - child ratios,

(2) inadequate supervision, (3) pot entially harmful items

accessible to children in care, and (4) background screening for

child care personnel, all of which are Class II violations. In

addition, the Department cited ReidÓs with a Class I violation

for serious health hazard conditions.

10. Pursuant to the administrative complaint issued

August 20, 2018 (based on the July 23, 2018 complaint

inspection), ReidÓs was placed on a probationary status for six

months. The terms of the probation were as follows:

a. The facility shall incur no Cla ss I

violations during the probationary period.

b. The facility shall incur no Ratio,

Background Screening or Supervision

violations during the probationary period.

c. The facility shall incur no Facility

Environment violations during the

probationary period. The facility must

always maintain a safe and clean

environment.

d. Non - active individuals listed in the

Corporation cannot be involved in the day -

to - day operation or present around children

at any time.

11. The administrative complaint provide d, Ð Failure to

comply with these conditions may result in revocation of

RespondentÓs license. Ñ

12. The DepartmentÓs findings in the administrative

complaint became final on October 24, 2018, when ReidÓs request

for hearing on the administrative complaint was dismissed as

untimely. The DepartmentÓs final order was not appealed.

13. ReidÓs probationary status was effective October 24,

2018, through April 22, 2019, and required monthly Department

inspections.

14. In addition, on August 20, 2018, Petitione r issued

ReidÓs a provisional license , effective August 21, 2018, through

February 16, 2019, because ReidÓs then - director, Delaria Blake,

did not have the director credentials required by section

402.305(2)(f) .

15. Failure to maintain a credentialed dire ctor is a

Class II violation of the DepartmentÓs child care licensing

standards.

16. The provisional license was resolved shortly after

issuance when ReidÓs hired Tracee Creighton, a properly

credentialed director, who served as ReidÓs interim director

th rough September 2018.

November 16, 2018 Administrative Complaint

17. The November 16, 2018 Administrative Complaint was

initiated pursuant to another complaint investigation, 4/

conducted by Child Care Supervisor, Hannah McGlothlin, on

September 13, 2018.

Background Screening

18. When Ms. McGlothlin arrived at ReidÓs, she was greeted

by Grady Dixon, the staff member in charge. Mr. Dixon is also

Ms. ReidÓs husband and RespondentÓs registered agent.

Ms. McGlothlin observed that Mr. Dixon wa s supervising two

employees on - site.

19. Upon review of the employee files, Ms. McGlothlin

determined that Mr. Dixon became employed at ReidÓs on August 2,

2018, but that his required background screening was not

completed until August 3, 2018. When asked by Ms. M cGlothlin,

Mr. Dixon verified August 2, 2018, as his date of employment.

20. At final hearing, Mr. Dixon maintained there was an

error in his personnel file, and that he did not become employed

at ReidÓs until August 3, 2018. Mr. Dixon said he made a

mi stake in writing August 2, 2018 , on his personnel form.

Mr. DixonÓs testimony was not persuasive.

21. Mr. Dixon became employed by ReidÓs as Ðother

personnelÑ on August 2, 2018.

22. Mr. DixonÓs required background screening was not

complete and on fil e at the facility until August 3, 2018.

23. On July 25, 2018, Ms. Reid completed a Non - Active

Member Affidavit for the Department, in which she swore that she

had Ða non - active roleÑ at ReidÓs, meaning she is an Ðindividual

who does not interact with the children, does not go on - site of

the program operation during operating hours, and whose role

does not involve the day - to - day operation of the child care

program.Ñ

24. Further, the affidavit provided that Ms. Reid

understood she must immediately notify t he Department at any

time in the future her role changed to an active role and

Ðcomplete a background screeningÑ as provided by statute.

25. During Ms. McGlothlinÓs field visit on September 13,

2018, she determined that Ms. ReidÓs role had become that of an

active member because she was going on - site during operating

hours, had contact with children at ReidÓs, and was involved in

day - to - day business of ReidÓs.

26. As part of her investigation, Ms. McGlothlin spoke

with a parent who stated Ðit is always [M s. Reid] and

[Mr. Dixon] at the facilityÑ when she picks up her child in the

afternoons.

27. Virginia Ritter is the parent of a child formerly

enrolled at ReidÓs. Ms. Ritter testified that she met Ms. Reid

at the facility in June 2018 when she first enro lled her son at

ReidÓs. Ms. Ritter further testified that, although she paid

her monthly tuition online, she met with Ms. Reid at the

facility at least twice between June 2018 and December 2018 to

address billing issues -- once when she changed the number o f days

he r son was attending, and once when she withdrew him.

28. Ms. Reid denied meeting wi th Ms. Ritter at the

facility.

29. The Department alleged that Ms. Reid was further

involved in the day - to - day activities of the facility by

corresponding with p arents and the D epartment via electronic

mail.

30. Respondent introduced an undated email from

[e-mail] to Ms. Ritter and John

Kennedy 5/ which reads, as follows:

Good morning,

We are contacted Emmett parents because he

has not been at school for the last week and

no one has advised us of what is going on.

[sic] to his mother and no responded. Can

we please have an update.

31. Although the email was not signed by Ms. Reid, or any

employee of ReidÓs, Ms. Ritter testified, cre dibly, that she

knew the email was from Ms. Reid because it reads consistent ly

with Ms. ReidÓs speech patterns.

32. The email reads consistent ly with Ms. ReidÓs speech

patterns exhibited at final hearing.

33. On Monday, December 31, 2018, Ms. Ritter repl ied to

[e-mail], informing ReidÓs that her

son would not be returning to the facility and the reasons

therefor.

34. Ms. Ritter further testified that Ms. Reid was often

on - site when she picked up her son from the center on Frida ys

prior to her withdrawal of him in December 2018.

35. Ms. Reid prepares meals at home and delivers them to

the facility to be served to the children. She testified that

she does not enter the facility to deliver the meals, but rather

leaves them at the door outside the facility.

36. Ms. ReidÓs testimony was contradicted by Carrie

Gaouette, a former employee, who testified, credibly, that

Ms. Reid delivered meals to the front desk at the facility on a

daily basis.

37. In addition to the foregoing evid ence of Ms. ReidÓs

involvement in the day - to - day business of the facility, Ms. Reid

has entered the facility during operating hours, at times since

executing her Non - Active Member Affidavit, to check mail and

collect payments.

38. During field visits b y Department staff on

September 13 and October 17, 2018, Ms. Reid contacted and spoke

to Department staff to address the pending citations.

39. Subsequent to signing the Non - Active Owner Affidavit,

Ms. Reid has been on - site at the facility during operating

hours, and has been actively involved in the day - to - day

operation of the center, including meal preparation, interacting

with parents for enrollment and changes thereto, addressing

billing issues, and intervening in licensing issues.

40. As an active owne r, Ms. Reid is required to undergo

background screening.

41. During the complaint investigation on September 13,

2019, Ms. McGlothlin placed ReidÓs on notice of the background

screening violation and set a due date for compliance by

November 7, 2018.

42. At a subsequent inspection on December 27, 2018,

Ms. McGlothlin determined that the background screening

violation for Ms. Reid had not been corrected.

43. The Department proved the August 20, 2018

Administrative Complaint allegations of background scree ning

violations with regard to both Mr. Dixon and Ms. Reid.

Penalties

44. The background screening requirement is a Class II

child care licensing standard.

45. ReidÓs was previously cited for failure to meet

background screening requirement on December 17, 2017, July 11,

2018, and July 23, 2018.

46. The August 20, 2018 Administrative Complaint is ReidÓs

fourth citation for background screening violations within a

two - year period.

47. According to Department rule, the monetary penalty for

the fourth violation of the same Class II child care licensing

standard is $75 per day for each such violation. See Fla.

Admin. Code R. 65C - 22.010.

48. The Department seeks to impose a fine of $2,925

against the facility for this violation, calculated at $75 per

day for 39 days -- from September 13, 2018 (the violation notice

date) , through November 7, 2018 (the corrective action date).

49. The Department correctly calculated the monetary

penalty to be imposed against ReidÓs for the background

screening violations .

50. The Department also seeks revocation of ReidÓs child

care license based on the background screening violation. In

the Administrative Complaint, the Department alleges, as

follows:

Provider is currently on Probation for

Facility Environment of whic h the terms were

not to incur any Background Screening and

Non - Active Individuals listed in the

Corporation cannot be involved in the day -

to - day operation or present around children

at any time. Provider has failed to comply

with the terms of the Probatio n therefor

their license is being Revoked.

51. The DepartmentÓs allegation is unfounded. ReidÓs

probationary status was effective October 24, 2018, but the

violation was cited on October 20, 2018. This violation of the

background screening requirement was not a violation of the

terms of the probation.

January 11, 2019 Administrative Complaint

52. Because ReidÓs was placed on probation, it was

required to undergo monthly inspections.

53. Ms. McGlothlin conducted a routine inspection of the

facility o n December 27, 2018.

Direct Supervision

54. Upon her arrival at the facility, Ms. McGlothlin was

greeted at the door by Carrie Gaouette, t he only child care

personnel on - site. When Ms. Gaouette opened the entry door, she

closed the door leading to the classrooms, effectively blocking

her view of the children and leaving them with no supervision.

55. Ms. Gaouette explained that she shut the door to the

classroom to prevent children from running out the front door

while it was open to allow Ms. McGlothl in to enter.

56. Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C - 22.001(5)(b)

provides, Ð[d]irect supervision means actively watching and

directing childrenÓs activities with the same room or outdoor

play area . . . and responding to the needs of each child while

in care.Ñ The rule requires child care personnel to Ðbe present

with [their assigned] group of children at all times.Ñ

57. For the brief time Ms. Gaouette opened the door to

greet and allow Ms. McGlothin entry to the facility,

Ms. Gaouette was not in the s ame room with, and not directly

supervising, the children in her care.

58. The direct supervision requirement is a Class II

standard.

59. ReidÓs was previously cited for violating the direct

supervision standard on July 11 and 23, 2018.

60. According to Department rule, the monetary penalty for

the third violation of the same Class II child care licensing

standard is $60 per day for each such violation. See Fla.

Admin. Code R. 65C - 22.010.

61. In the Administrative Complaint, Department seeks to

impose a monetary penalty of $60 for one day.

62. The Department correctly calculated the fine to be

imposed for this violation of the direct supervision standard.

Child Health Examination Forms

63. During her inspection, Ms. McGlothlin reviewed the

records o f all 11 children enrolled at the facility on that

date. Ms. McGlothlin found that ReidÓs did not have a current

Student Health Examination form DH 3040 (Ðhealth examination

formÑ) on file for child M.S.

64. Pursuant to r ule 65C - 22.001(7)(q), ReidÓs is

r esponsible for obtaining a complete and properly executed

health examination form for each child in its care.

65. ReidÓs violated the child care licensing standard when

it failed to maintain a current health examination form for

child M.S.

66. The requir ement to maintain child health examination

forms is a Class III standard.

67. ReidÓs was previously cited for violation of this

standard on July 11 and November 20, 2018. This violation is

the third violation of the same Class III standard within a two -

y ear period.

68. According to Department rule, the monetary penalty for

the third violation of the same Class III child care licensing

standard is $25 per day for each such violation. See Fla.

Admin. Code R. 65C - 22.010.

69. In the Administrative Complai nt, the Department seeks

to impose a monetary fine of $25 against ReidÓs for this

violation of child care licensing standards.

70. The Department correctly calculated the fine to be

imposed on Respondent for this violation of the child health

examination form standard.

False Statement/Information

71 . Pursuant to Department rule, ReidÓs is required to

ha ve at least one staff member on - site at all hours of operation

with First Aid/CPR training, verified by a current, valid First

Aid/CPR card. See Fla. Admi n. Code R. 65C - 22.001(6).

72 . Ms. Gaouette was a new employee, and the only child

care provider on - site, during Ms. McGlothlinÓs inspection on

December 27, 2018.

73 . When Ms. McGlothlin returned to the office on

December 27, 201 8 , she reviewed her insp ection report and

realized that she had not check ed the files to ensure that

Ms. Gaouette had a valid First Aid/CPR card.

74 . Ms. McGlothlin both called and emailed ReidÓs on the

afternoon of December 27, 2018, to obtain a First Aid/CPR card

for Ms. Gao uette; however, she was unable to reach anyone at the

facility. No one from the facility either returned her calls or

responded to her emails on December 27, 2018.

75 . On the morning of December 28, 2018, Mr. Dixon, who

was the staff member in charge, re ad Ms. McGlothlinÓs emails and

reviewed her telephone messages requesting a First Aid/CPR

certificate for Ms. Gaouette. Mr. Dixon reviewed Ms. GaouetteÓs

personnel file and found no First Aid/CPR certificate.

76 . Ms. McGlothlin returned to ReidÓs on De cember 28,

2018, and requested Ms. GaouetteÓs First Aid/CPR card from

Mr. Dixon.

77 . Mr. Dixon provided Ms. McGlothlin with a First Aid/CPR

card purporting to certify that Ms. Gaouette completed the

required training on November 6, 2018, from instructor P alecia

Crawford.

78 . The space on the card for the traineeÓs name had been

Ðwhited outÑ and Ms. GaouetteÓs name written in. The spaces for

the date of the training and date of expiration were also

Ðwhited outÑ and the date ÐNov/6/2018Ñ written in for the date

of training, and ÐNov/6/2020Ñ written in for the date of

expiration.

79 . Ms. Crawford did not train Ms. Gauoette on November 6,

2018, or on any other date prior to December 28, 2018.

80 . Ms. Gaouette had not received First Aid/CPR training

from any entity prior to December 28, 2018.

81 . Mr. Dixon, on behalf of ReidÓs, presented

Ms. McGlothlin with falsified documentation of Ms. GauoetteÓs

First Aid/CPR training.

82 . At final hearing, Mr. Dixon denied that the First

Aid/CPR certificate provided to Ms. McGlothlin was

Ms. GaouetteÓs certification. Instead, he testified that, on

December 28, 2018, he was unable to locate a certificate in

Ms. GaouetteÓs personnel file, so he provided Ms. McGlothlin

with a First Aid/CPR card from the facilityÓs Ðdemo fi le,Ñ a

file set up as an example of what a complete employee file

should contain.

83 . Mr. DixonÓs testimony was not credible. Mr. Dixon did

not represent to Ms. McGlothlin when he provided the certificate

to her that it was just an example from a demo fi le. If it was

just an example, there was no reason to change the name and date

of the training on the original card. The original, or for that

matter, a copy of, the traineeÓs card would be sufficient for an

example in a Ðdemo file.Ñ

84 . Mr. Dixon had b oth motive and opportunity to falsify a

First Aid/CPR training card for Ms. Gaouette. Mr. Dixon

admitted on cross - examination that it would have been easier to

just tell Ms. McGlothlin that the facility did not have a valid

First Aid/CPR certificate on fi le for Ms. Gaouette.

85 . Child care personnel providing fraudulent information

related to the child care facility to a licensing authority,

that could result in the death or serious harm to the health,

safety, or well - being of a child is a violation of a Class I

licensing standard.

Penalties

86 . Class I violations of Department rules are described

as Ðthe most serious in nature, [which] pose an imminent threat

to a child including abuse or neglect and which could or does

result in death or serious harm t o the health, safety or well -

being of a child.Ñ Fla. Admin. Code R. 65C - 22.010(1)(d)1.

87 . Rule 65C - 22.010(2)(e) provides appropriate

disciplinary sanctions to be imposed for Class I violations, as

follows:

For the first and second violation of a

Class I standard, the department shall, upon

applying the factors in Section 402.310(1),

F.S., issue an administrative complaint

imposing a fine of not less than $100 nor

more than $500 per day for each violation,

and may impose other disciplinary sanctions

in ad dition to the fine.

88 . Section 402.310(1)(b) provides:

In determining the appropriate disciplinary

action to be taken for a violation as

provided in paragraph (a), the following

factors shall be considered:

1. The severity of the violation, including

the probability that death or serious harm

to the health or safety of any person will

result or has resulted, the severity of the

actual or potential harm, and the extent to

which the provisions of ss. 401.301 - 402.319

have been violated.

2. Actions taken by the licensee or

registrant to correct the violation or

remedy complaints.

3. Any previous violations of the licensee

or registrant.

89 . In the Administrative Complaint, the Department seeks

to impose a fine of $250 and to revoke ReidÓs child care

l icense.

90 . This violation is severe. Significant harm could

befall a child left under the care of personnel who have not had

basic CPR training.

91 . This violation is the facilityÓs second Class I

violation within a two - year period.

92 . This violation occurred during the facilityÓs

probationary period, which commenced on October 24, 2018. The

terms of probation prohibited the facility from incurring any

Class I violations during the probationary period.

93 . The Department has authority to revoke Reid Ós license

based on this violation of its probationary terms.

94 . Ms. Gaouette received First Aid/CPR training on

January 2, 2019.

95 . The facility has a lengthy and dizzying history of

violations. Many of the monetary penalties imposed for past

violati ons remain unpaid.

96 . Throughout the final hearing, Ms. Reid refused to

accept responsibility for the violations documented in the

subject, as well as previous, administrative complaints. She

attacked the credibility of Department witnesses and

demonstr ated a complete lack of respect for the DepartmentÓs

authority.

97 . Despite Ms. ReidÓs unwillingness, or inability, to

complete the required background screening, she has failed to

comply with the non - active owner requirements and place

competent, qualifi ed, employees in charge of the day - to - day

operations of the facility.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

98 . The Division of Administrative Hearings has

jurisdiction over this matter, pursuant to section 120.57,

Florida Statutes.

99 . In cases where a state agency allege s that a licensee

engaged in wrongdoing, the burden is on the Department to prove

the wrongdoing. DepÓt of Banking & Fin. v. Osborne Stern and

Co. , 670 So. 2d 932, 934 (Fla. 1996). Factual findings based on

record evidence must be made indicating how the alleged conduct

violates the statutes or rules or otherwise justifies the

proposed sanctions. Mayes v. DepÓt of Child. & Fam. Servs. ,

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

100 . The standard of proof in this case is clear and

convincing evidence beca use the Department is seeking to

discipline ReidÓs and take action detrimental to ReidÓs license,

thus making the matter penal in nature. Ferris v. Turlington ,

510 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 1987).

101 . The clear and convincing standard has been described

as foll ows:

[C]lear 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

testimony 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 a firm belief or

conviction, without hesitancy, as to the

truth of the allegations sought to be

established.

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

November 16, 2018 Administrative Complaint

10 2 . As to the November 2018 Administrative Complaint, the

Department proved, by clear and convincing evidence, the

background screening violations for both Ms. Reid and Mr. Dixon.

The Department correctly calculated a monetary fine of $2,925 to

be imposed for these Class II violations, pursuant to the

DepartmentÓs child care licensing standards and rul e 65C - 22.010.

103 . However, the Department did not prove by clear and

convincin g evidence that revocation was appropriate because

ReidÓs probationary status was not in effect at the time the

Class II violations were cited.

January 11, 2019 Administrative Complaint

104 . As to the January 11, 2019 Administrative Complaint,

Respondent proved by clear and convincing evidence that

Respondent violated Class I, II, and III child care licensing

standards -- providing falsified information related to the child

care facility to Department personnel, failing to directly

supervise children in Reid Ós care, and missing student health

examination forms, respectively.

105 . The Department correctly calculated the monetary

penalty of $335 for the violations, pursuant to rule 65C - 22.010.

106 . Finally, the Department proved by clear and

convincing eviden ce that revocation of ReidÓs license is

appropriate because ReidÓs violated the terms of its

probationary license by incurring a Class I violation and a

direct supervision violation during the probationary period.

Further, the fact that this violation was the facilityÓs second

Class I violation of child care licensing standards within a

two - year period, coupled with the severity of the Class I

violation, is sufficient grounds for revocation of the license,

pursuant to rule 65C - 22.010(2)(d).

RECOMMENDATION

Upon consideration of the evidence presented at final

hearing, and based on the foregoing F indings of Fact and

C onclusions of L aw , it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be

entered by Respondent, Department of Children and Families,

finding ReidÓs Educationa l Child Care Centr e , LLC, d/b/a Reids,

Educational Child Care Center , committed Class I, II, and III

violations of child care facility licensing standards, imposing

a monetary penalty in the amount of $3,260, and revoking ReidÓs

child care facility license .

DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of June , 2019 , in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

SUZANNE VAN WYK

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, F lorida 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 5th day of June , 2019 .

ENDNOTE S

1/ The Department filed a Notice of Filing Hearing Transcript on

Ma y 2, 2019, but the Transcript was not filed with the Division

until May 8, 2019. Based on the May 8, 2019 filing date, the

partiesÓ proposed recommended o rders were due on or before

May 20, 2019.

2/ Ms. Reid initially completed background screening on J uly 2,

2013, which would have been valid through July 2018, but a 2017

statutory change required new screening for individuals in her

position.

3/ A complaint investigation was initiated in response to an

anonymous complaint about the facility received b y the

Department.

4/ A complaint investigation was initiated in response to

another complaint received by the Department on September 12,

2018.

5/ Mr. Kennedy is the father of Ms. RitterÓs son, who was

previously enrolled at the facility.

COPIES FURN ISHED:

Nickesha Reid

Reid's Educational Child Care Center

10658 Biscayne Boulevard

Jacksonville, Florida 32218

(eServed)

Roger L. D. Williams, Esquire

Department of Children and Families

5920 Arlington Expressway

Jacksonville, Florida 32231 - 0083

(eServ ed)

Grady L. Dixon

Reid's Educational Child Care Center, LLC

10658 Biscayne Boulevard

Jacksonville, Florida 32218

Lacey Kantor, Agency Clerk

Department of Children and Families

Building 2, Room 20 4Z

1317 Winewood Boulevard

Tallahassee, Florida 3239 9 - 0700

(eServed)

Chad Poppell, Secretary

Department of Children and Families

Building 1, Room 202

1317 Winewood Boulevard

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0700

(eServed)

Javier Enriquez, General Counsel

Department of Children and Families

Building 2, Room 204 F

1317 Winewood Boulevard

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0700

(eServed)

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

15 days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions

to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that

will issue the Final Order in this case.