The issues are (1) the amount of attorney’s fees and costs that Respondent must pay to Petitioner for the appeal in French v. Department of Children and Families, 920 So. 2d 671 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006), and (2) Petitioner’s entitlement to an award of attorney’s fees and costs in the proceeding that gave rise to the appeal.The record reflects that the parties reached an agreement to settle this case. The case is closed pursuant to Section 120.57(4), Florida Statutes.

The parties stipulated that a concise statement of the nature of the controversy is: "Petitioner revoked Respondent's license to operate as a child-placing agency under 409.175, Fla. Stat." The issues in the case are delineated with specificity in the Administrative Complaint dated February 20, 2006. Petitioner alleges that Respondent's license is revoked for the following reasons: Failure to properly close the agency as required by F.A.C. 65C-15.035. Repeated failure to provide the Department with the agency's 2004 financial audit as required by F.A.C. 65C-15.010 and failure to provide the Department with the agency's 2005 financial audit; Multiple code violations documented on February 10, 2005 in the Child Placing Agency Inspection Sheet attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference; Multiple code violations documented on September 14, 2005 in the Child Placing Agency Inspection sheet attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference; Multiple code violations documented on October 18, 2005 in the Child Placing Agency Inspection Sheet attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference; Multiple code violations documented on January 19, 2006 in the Child Placing Agency Inspection Sheet attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference; Multiple code violations documented on February 17, 2006 in the Child Placing Agency Inspection Sheet attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference; Entering into contracts with a prospective adoptive parent for the placement and adoption of a child, taking the prospective adoptive parent's money and not placing a child in their home for adoption, and, thereafter failing to return money paid for fees, costs and expenses advanced by the prospective adoptive parent which were refundable. In short, the agency charged the prospective adoptive parent for fees, costs and expenses, and, when the agency failed to deliver on the contract it did not return the advanced money required to be refunded. This is in violation of sections 63.097 and/or 409.175, Florida Statutes, and F.A.C. 65C-15.010; Entering into contracts with a prospective adoptive parent for the placement and adoption of a child, taking the prospective adoptive parent's money, placing a child in their home for adoption, and, thereafter failing to return money advanced to pay for fees, costs and expenses associated with the adoption which were not expended. In short, the agency charged the prospective adoptive parent for fees, costs and expenses, and, when the funds were not actually needed to cover the allowable fees, costs or expenses the agency failed return the advanced money. This is in violation of sections 63.097 and/or 409.175, Florida Statutes, and F.A.C. 65C-15.010. In its response to the Administrative Complaint, Respondent, Homecoming Adoptions, Inc., has denied each of the nine listed reasons for Petitioner's decision to revoke its license.Respondent having voluntarily submitted herself to licensure, must comply with all applicable Florida Statutes and Florida Administrative Code rules.

The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Department should deny the Petitioner's pending application for a new one-year license effective June 8, 2005, because of an alleged violation that occurred on June 7, 2005, where a three-year-old child was left in a van, suffering purportedly life-threatening injuries (heat stroke). See § 402.305(10), Fla. Stat. and Fla. Admin. Code R. 65C-22.001(5). If the violation occurred, it must also be determined whether denial of license renewal or some other authorized penalty should be imposed.Petitioner committed a serious violation which endangered the life of a child, without permanent injury, and, under the circumstances, effective denial of annual relicensure for one year is proper.

The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the application submitted by the Petitioner for a new one-year license for Small Fries Day Care, Inc., should be granted, or denied based upon violations of specified statutes and rules referenced below as alleged by the Respondent. It must also be resolved whether the application to operate a new facility known as the Growing Tree Learning Center and Nursery should be denied because of the same alleged instances of non- compliance with the relevant statutes and rules.Respondent showed that Petitioners had committed a number of repeated violations of rule standards which protect children. Some violations were major, others were uncorrected or undocumented. Recommend provisional license with 1-year`s close monitoring.

The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the application submitted by the Petitioner for a new one-year license for Small Fries Day Care, Inc., should be granted, or denied based upon violations of specified statutes and rules referenced below as alleged by the Respondent. It must also be resolved whether the application to operate a new facility known as the Growing Tree Learning Center and Nursery should be denied because of the same alleged instances of non- compliance with the relevant statutes and rules.Respondent showed that Petitioners had committed a number of repeated violations of rule standards which protect children. Some violations were major, others were uncorrected or undocumented. Recommend provisional license with 1-year`s close monitoring.

The issue in this proceeding is whether the Respondent committed the offenses described in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what is the appropriate penalty.In applying statutory factors to the staff-to-children ratio, the imposition of a fine is not warranted.

The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner's child care license should be renewed based upon a purported violation of rules contained in Florida Administrative Code Chapter 65C-20, concerning adequate supervision of children left in the Petitioner's care and custody.Petitioner failed to properly supervise the day care children, one of which escaped twice in one day, and to keep dogs out of the play area. Recommend a $500 fine, that the plenary license be denied, and that a six-month provisional license be granted.

Whether the Petitioner's application for renewal of her license to operate a child care facility should be approved.Respondent failed to show that the licensee`s husband and son failed to meet screening requirements. The case hinges on this demonstration.