Link to Final Agency Decision

 

OAH 4-1800-19866-2

 

STATE OF MINNESOTA

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

 

FOR THE COMMISSIONER OF HUMAN SERVICES

 

In the Matter of the Order of Conditional License and Order to Forfeit a Fine Against the License of Lora Palokangas

FINDINGS OF FACT,

CONCLUSIONS AND

RECOMMENDATION

         

This matter came on for hearing before Administrative Law Judge Bruce H. Johnson (the ALJ) at 10:00 a.m. on Friday, October 17, 2008, at the St. Louis County Public Health and Human Service office at 307 First Street South, Virginia, Minnesota.  Joseph M. Fischer, Assistant St. Louis County Attorney, appeared on behalf of the St. Louis County Public Health and Human Service (“County”) and the Minnesota Department of Human Services (“Department”).  The Respondent Lora Palokangas appeared on her own behalf.  The OAH hearing record closed when the hearing ended on October 17, 2008.

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1.       Should the Commissioner impose fines totaling $600 on the Licensee for failure to comply with statutes and rules governing her family child care license?

2.       Should the Commissioner also place the operation of the Licensee’s family child care program under a conditional license?

The evidence only established that the Licensee and her daughter provided care to one or more infant, without having first received required training on sudden infant death syndrome and shaken baby syndrome (SIDS/SBS training).  However, the evidence failed to establish that her adult son provided care to an infant in care.  The ALJ therefore concludes that imposing a $400 fine, in addition to a conditional license, is appropriate.

Based upon all of the proceedings herein, the Administrative Law Judge makes the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT

Prior Proceedings

1.               By letter dated May 22, 2008, the County requested the Department to impose sanctions on the Licensee’s family child care license and to place that license on conditional status because of alleged violations of applicable statutes and rules that occurred on May 13, 2008.[1]

2.               On July 22, 2008, the Department issued an Order to Forfeit Fine imposing a $600 fine on the Licensee’s license.  That fine was based on three violations of Minn. Stat. § 245A.50, subd. 5, which requires that licensees, caregivers, and helpers complete SIDS/SBS training within five years before assisting in the care of infants.[2]

3.               The Department also issued an order placing the Licensee’s family child care license on conditional status for a period of one year.  In addition to the violations set forth in Finding No. 2, the Order of Conditional License was based on some other program rule violations.  That Order imposed the following conditions on the Licensee’s license:

1.       You follow and comply with all applicable of (sic) Minnesota Rules and Laws.

2.       No variances to age distribution or capacity will be granted during the conditional period.

3.       You, and any other individuals providing care to infants in your family child care home, may not provide care to infants until you have provided documentation to St. Louis County Public Health and Human Services of you and your helpers’ completing the required SIDS/SBS training.  The documentation of completion must be received and approved by St. Louis County Public Health and Human Services.

4.       You obtain a minimum of 10 hours of additional training by December 31, 2008.  The training is in addition to the annual training requirements as listed in Minnesota Statutes Chapter 245A.  A portion of this training must be in the area of child development.  Prior to attending training, your must obtain approval from St. Louis County Public Health and Human Services that the training is appropriate.  You must submit documentation of your attendance to St. Louis County Public Health and Human Services.

5.       You must submit daily attendance records to St. Louis County Public Health and Human Services on a monthly basis.  The records must be submitted by the 5th of each month for the previous month beginning August 5, 2008.  The record must show the name and date of birth of each child, the days and hours they are in your care, in addition to the names of caregivers present each day.

6.       You must provide a copy of the Order of Conditional License to parents of children in care or documents that all parents have been given an opportunity to review the Order of Conditional License.  You must obtain parent signatures for each currently enrolled child, verifying that they have either received a copy of the conditional order or had an opportunity to review the conditional order.  You must provide this documentation to St. Louis County Public Health and Human Services by August 8, 2008.  For new families, you must submit documentation of compliance with this term to St. Louis County Public Health and Human Services within 5 days of any child’s admission to your child care program.

St. Louis County Public Health and Human Services will monitor your compliance with these terms and with all of Minnesota Rules and Laws.  This may include unannounced visits.  Failure to comply with the stipulations of your conditional license or any other provisions of Minnesota Laws and Rules may result in revocation of your license.

4.               On July 30, 2008, the Licensee submitted a timely appeal of the Department’s Order to Forfeit Fine and Order of Conditional License.[3]

5.               On August 7, 2008, the Department issued a Notice of and Order for Hearing in this matter, and this contested case proceeding ensued.[4]

6.               The ALJ conducted the hearing on October 17, 2008.

Underlying Facts

7.               The Licensee has been licensed by the Department to provide family child care at her home in Virginia, Minnesota, for twenty-one years.  She holds a Class C(2) license that allows her to provide care for up to 12 children.  No more than 10 of those children may be under school age; no more than two may be infants and toddlers, and no more than one may be an infant.[5]

8.               The Licensee has two children.  An adult son, Preston, is nineteen years old, and during the school year is a full time student at a college in St. Cloud.  On May 13, 2008, Preston, on break from his schooling, was living at his parents’ home in Virginia, and was working full time at a bank in that city.  The Licensee’s daughter, S.P., is sixteen years old, lives at home year round, attends high school in Virginia, Minnesota, and worked at an automobile dealership during the summer.[6]

9.               During late morning on May 13, 2008, County Licensing Social Worker Helen Jamnick and Social Service Specialist Naomi Ranisate made an unannounced, relicensing inspection of the Licensee’s child care home.  At the time of their visit, the Licensee had five children under two years of age under care, including two infants and three toddlers.[7]

10.           As of May 13, 2008, the Licensee had not completed SIDS/SBS training at least once during the previous five years; the Licensee’s son and daughter had never completed that training.

11.           During the May 13th inspection, Ms. Jamnick heard Preston talking to a child in care in an adjacent room.[8]  Ms. Ranisate also observed Preston playing with children in care.[9]

12.           During the inspection, Ms. Ranisate observed S.P. on the floor playing with children in care when a child in a crib in a back bedroom began to cry.  S.P. then went to the bedroom, picked up the crying child in care from its crib, and held and comforted the child until the child stopped crying.[10]

13.           While Ms. Jamnick and Ms. Ranisate were at the Licensee’s home on May 13th, they asked the Licensee how she was able to provide care for so many small children.  The Licensee replied, “My children are a big help to me.”[11]

Other Findings

14.           The Licensee stipulated that on the morning of May 13, 2008, her family child care program was over capacity and in violation of Minn. R. 9205.0365 and 9205.0367.[12]

15.           The Licensee did not dispute that on the morning of May 13, 2008:

a.      Her license to provide family child care was not posted in a prominent place in her home;

b.      She failed to have documentation of completion of required training hours; and

c.       She failed to have a gate at the top of the basement stairs when children between 6 and 18 months were in care.


16.           The Licensee testified that she is not challenging the Department’s issuance of a conditional license.  As a consequence, she has, in effect, withdrawn her appeal of the Department’s Order of Conditional License.[13]

17.           These Findings are based on all of the evidence in the record.  Citations to portions of the record are not intended to be exclusive references.

18.           To the extent that the Memorandum that follows explains the reasons for these Findings of Fact and contains additional findings of fact, including findings on credibility, the Administrative Law Judge incorporates them into these Findings.

19.           The Administrative Law Judge adopts as Findings any Conclusions that are more appropriately described as Findings.

Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact, the Administrative Law Judge makes the following:

CONCLUSIONS

1.               The Commissioner of Human Services and the Administrative Law Judge have jurisdiction to consider this matter.[14]

2.               The Department gave proper and timely notice of the hearing and has complied with all procedural requirements of law and rule.

3.               The Commissioner may impose a fine of $200 on a license holder for each occurrence of a violation of law or rule governing matters of health, safety, or supervision, $1,000 for each determination of maltreatment, and $100 for each occurrence of a violation that is not subject to a $200 or $1,000 fine.[15]

4.               When the Commissioner has ordered a license holder to pay a fine, the license holder may, upon timely proper notice, appeal the fine by requesting a contested case proceeding.  The Licensee in this matter made a timely and proper request for a contested case proceeding to appeal the fine imposed by the Commissioner.

5.               If the Commissioner finds that the applicant or license holder has failed to comply with an applicable law or rule and this failure does not imminently endanger the health, safety, or rights of the persons served by the program, the Commissioner may also issue an order of conditional license to a licensee.  When issuing a conditional license, the Commissioner must consider the nature, chronicity, or severity of the violation of law or rule and the effect of the violation on the health, safety, or rights of persons served by the program.[16]  When the Commissioner issues a dual order of both a fine and a conditional license, the scope of an ensuing contested case hearing includes both the fine and the conditional license.[17]

6.               Before staff persons, caregivers, and helpers may assist in the care of infants, License holders must document that they have been instructed on the standards set forth in Minn. Stat. § 245A.1435 and have receive SIDS/SBS training within the previous five years.[18]

7.               Violations of the statute requiring training on SIDS/SBS are violations of laws governing matters of health, safety or supervision and are therefore subject to a $200 fine for each occurrence.

8.               At a hearing appealing a fine, the burden of proof is on the Commissioner to demonstrate reasonable cause for its action.  The Commissioner may demonstrate reasonable cause by submitting statements, reports or affidavits to substantiate the allegations.  If the Commissioner demonstrates that reasonable cause existed, the burden of proof shifts to the license holder to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the license holder was in full compliance with those laws or rules that the Commissioner alleges were violated.[19]

9.               The Department demonstrated that there was reasonable cause for imposing $600 in fines on the Licensee based on three apparent violations by the Licensee of Minn. Stat. § 245A.50, subd. 5, which requires licensees to document that staff persons, caregivers, and helpers have received SIDS/SBS training before assisting in the care of infants.

10.           On May 13, 2008, the Licensee and her daughter, S.P., provided care to infants in care without having received SIDS/SBS training during the previous five years.  The Licensee therefore failed to establish by a preponderance of evidence that she was in full compliance with Minn. Stat. § 245A.50, subd. 5, in those two respects.

11.           However, although the Licensee’s son, Preston, interacted socially with one or more daycare children on May 13, 2008, he did not provide care to an infant in care.  The Licensee therefore established by a preponderance of evidence that she was in full compliance with Minn. Stat. § 245A.50, subd. 5, in that respect.

12.           In determining appropriate sanctions, the Commissioner must consider the nature, chronicity, or severity of the violation of law or rule and the effect of the violation on the health, safety, or rights of persons served by the program.[20]  

13.           The Department has demonstrated that it considered the nature, chronicity and severity of the violations the Licensee committed on May 13, 2008, when it issued the Order of Conditional License.

14.           The Administrative Law Judge adopts as Conclusions any Findings that are more appropriately described as Conclusions.

15.           The Memorandum that follows explains the reasons for these Conclusions, and the Administrative Law Judge therefore incorporates that Memorandum into these Conclusions.

Based upon the foregoing Conclusions, and for the reasons set forth in the attached memorandum, the Administrative Law Judge makes the following:

RECOMMENDATION

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the Department’s Order of Conditional License be AFFIRMED and that its Order to Forfeit a Fine be MODIFIED to specify a fine of no more than $400.

 

Dated:  October 24, 2008

s/Bruce H. Johnson

BRUCE H. JOHNSON

Administrative Law Judge

Reported: Digitally Recorded

 

 

NOTICES

This report is a recommendation, not a final decision.  The Commissioner of Human Services will make the final decision after a review of the record.  The Commissioner may adopt, reject or modify the Findings of Fact, Conclusions, and Recommendations.  Under Minn. Stat. § 14.61, the final decision of the Commissioner shall not be made until this Report has been made available to the parties to the proceeding for at least ten days.  An opportunity must be afforded to each party adversely affected by this Report to file exceptions and present argument to the Commissioner.  Parties should contact the office of Cal Ludeman, Commissioner, Department of Human Services, P.O. Box 64998, St. Paul, MN  55164-0998, 651-296-2701, to learn the procedure for filing exceptions or presenting argument.

If the Commissioner fails to issue a final decision within 90 days of the close of the record, this report will constitute the final agency decision under Minn. Stat. § 14.62, subd. 2a.  In order to comply with this statute, the Commissioner must then return the record to the Administrative Law Judge within 10 working days to allow the Judge to determine the negative licensing action, if any, to be imposed.  The record closes upon the filing of exceptions to the report and the presentation of argument to the Commissioner, or upon the expiration of the deadline for doing so.  The Commissioner must notify the parties and the Administrative Law Judge of the date on which the record closes.

Pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 14.62, subd. 1 (2006), the Commissioner is required to serve his final decision upon each party and the Administrative Law Judge by first class mail.

MEMORANDUM

The Licensee admitted to being overcapacity on May 13, 2008, and did not present evidence disputing the allegations that she failed to post her license in a prominent place, that she failed to document completion of required training hours, and that she failed to have a gate at the top of her basement stairs while caring for children between 6 and 18 months old.  Furthermore, Licensee also expressly admitted that she herself had not received SIDS/SBS training during the previous five years.  The Licensee further agreed that those were all violations that supported imposition of a conditional license and a $200 fine.

The only dispute here is whether on May 13, 2008, the Licensee’s son and daughter provided care to an infant in care without having received SIDS/SBS training during the previous five years.  The Licensee argues that what her son and daughter did on May 13th did not make them “caregivers” or “helpers.”  Neither term is defined in Chapter 245A.  However, both terms are defined in Minn. R. 9205.0315.  A “caregiver” is defined as “the provider, substitute, helper, or another adult giving care in the residence.”[21]  As an adult, the Licensee’s son Preston meets definition of caregiver if, in fact, he was “giving care” to daycare children within the meaning of the rule.  A “helper” is defined as “a person at least 13 years of age and less than 18 years of age who assists the provider with the care of children.”[22]  The Licensee’s daughter, S.P., meets the definition of helper if she was, in fact, assisting her mother with the care of children in the child care program.

The Licensee argues that, as members of her immediate family, her son and daughter occasionally have had impromptu social interactions with children in care, but that neither of them have assisted her in providing care to those children in any reasonable sense of the word “care.”  In a case note for May 13, 2008, Ms. Jamnick indicated that the Licensee had said “they [her children] are a big help with the day care children,”[23] but at the hearing she testified that Licensee’s statement was somewhat more ambiguous — “My children are a big help in the program.”  At the hearing, the Licensee testified that her children were “a big help to me.”  At best, what the Licensee admitted to is an ambiguous statement.  It could have meant that her children helped her care for children in care or that they helped with chores around the house, freeing their mother to provide child care.  Moreover, a violation of Minn. Stat. § 245A.50, subd. 5, requires that a caregiver or helper assist in providing care to an infant without first receiving SIDS/SBS training.  Even accepting Ms. Jamnick’s version of the statement as the correct version, it does not, by itself, support a finding that the Licensee’s own children assisted her with the care of infants.

Both Ms. Jamnick and Ms. Ranisate testified that on May 13, 2008, they had observed Preston and S.P. talking and playing with children in care.  Again, there is no evidence that the children with whom they were interacting were infants.  Moreover, casual, unsolicited social interaction between a member of a Licensee’s immediate family with a child in care does not, by itself, rise to the level of care giving.  The Licensee’s son Preston has been a full time college student in St. Cloud, and on May 13, 2008, he was home during a break in the academic year and was employed full time at a local bank.  His contact with children in care occurred around lunch time.  Ms. Ranisate testified that she first heard, but did not see, him talking with a child in care in another room.  Later, both she and Ms. Jamnick saw him playing with one or more children in care.  There is no evidence that any of those children were infants.  But even if they were, the evidence fails to establish anything more than casual social interaction between Preston and children in care, and it fails to establish that he assisted his mother in caring for any of them.  However, O.K.’s actions on May 13, 2008, do establish something more than casual social interaction with children in care.  While playing with some of the children, S.P. heard another child crying in a back bedroom.  She then went to the bedroom and picked up and comforted the child.  In other words, she responded directly to the child’s needs by caring for those needs.  Moreover, S.P. is a year round resident of the daycare home, and the spontaneity of her response to the child’s cries on May 13th, without a specific request from the Licensee, suggests that it was S.P.’s practice to respond to the needs of other children in care on other occasions.

In view of the foregoing, the ALJ concludes that Preston Palokangas did not assist his mother in providing care to children in care on May 13, 2008, but that his sister, S.P., did without first having received SIDS/SBS training.  The ALJ therefore recommends that the Commissioner reduce the fine imposed on the Licensee’s license to no more than $400.

B. H. J.

 



[1] Ex. 2.

[2] Ex. 3.

[3] Ex. 4.

[4] Ex. 6.

[5] Ex. 5.

[6] Testimony (test.) of Lora Palokangas.

[7] Ex. 1; test. of Helen Jamnick.

[8] Id.

[9] Test. of Naomi Ranisate,

[10] Id.

[11] Test. of L. Palokangas.

[12] Test. of L. Palokangas.

[13] Test. of L. Palokangas.

[14] Minn. Stat. §§ 245A.07, subds. 1 and 3; 14.50.

[15] Minn. Stat. § 245A.07, subd. 3.

[16] Minn. Stat. § 245A.06, subd. 1.

[17] Minn. Stat. § 245A.06, subd. 4.

[18] Minn. Stat. § 245A.50, subd. 5.

[19] Minn. Stat. § 245A.08, subd. 3.

[20] Minn. Stat. § 245A.07, subd. 1.

[21] Minn. R. 9205.0315, subp. 6.

[22] Minn. R. 9205.0315, subp. 14.

[23] Ex. 1.