STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND ) FAMILY SERVICES, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

) BONNIE V. NORLING, d/b/a BONNIE ) NORLING FAMILY CHILD CARE HOME, ) a/k/a BONNIE'S PLACE FOR KIDS, ) a/k/a NORLING FAMILY CHILD ) CARE, )

)

Respondent. )

Case No. 01-2606

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, a final hearing was conducted in this case on October 10, 2001, in Vero Beach, Florida, before Administrative Law Judge Michael M. Parrish, of the Division of

Administrative Hearings.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Diana Tual, Esquire

Department of Children and Family Services

337 North Fourth Street Fort Pierce, Florida 34950

For Respondent: Bonnie Norling, pro se

Bonnie's Place for Kids 1346 14th Avenue

Vero Beach, Florida 32960

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

This is a case in which the Petitioner seeks to revoke the Respondent's license to operate a family child care home on the basis of allegations set forth in an Administrative Complaint.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On or about May 31, 2001, the Petitioner, Department of Children and Family Services ("Department"), served a two-count Administrative Complaint on the Respondent, Bonnie V. Norling ("Norling"). Norling timely requested an evidentiary hearing. In due course, the Department referred the matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings for an evidentiary hearing. Following several continuances requested by the parties, a final hearing was conducted on October 10, 2001.

At the final hearing on October 10, 2001, the only witness called to testify was Norling. In addition to the testimony of Norling, the Department also offered five exhibits, all of which were received in evidence. Norling offered one exhibit. The Department's objection to that exhibit was sustained.1 The parties also agreed to the late-filing of a joint exhibit.2

At the conclusion of the final hearing, the deadline for filing proposed recommended orders was established as ten days after the filing of the late joint exhibit.

The joint exhibit was filed on November 14, 2001.

Thereafter, both parties filed a timely Proposed Recommended

Order. The parties' proposals have been carefully considered during the preparation of this Recommended Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. At all times material to this case, Norling has been licensed to operate as a family child care home in compliance with Chapter 402, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 65C-20, Florida Administrative Code.

2. On or about July 19, 2000, Norling was arrested for burglary and theft of personal property from another day care facility. On that occasion, Norling was found inside the fenced playground area of the other day care facility late at night. Playground equipment that had been removed from the other day care facility was found inside Norling's van. Norling was not trying to steal anything from the other day care facility. Rather, she was trying to do something to annoy the owner of the other day care facility, because Norling did not like some of the things the owner of the other facility had done to small children.

3. On the advice of her legal counsel, on September 13, 2000, Norling entered into a plea agreement, pursuant to which she pled nolo contendere to two misdemeanor charges and the felony burglary charge was dismissed. Adjudication was withheld, Norling was placed on two years of probation, and the court required Norling to pay fines, perform community service,

   and undergo an evaluation of her mental health status. Norling was also ordered by the court to have no contact with the owner of the other child care facility.

4. On or about January 25, 2001, Norling was arrested for making an obscene or harassing telephone call in violation of Section 365.16, Florida Statutes. The victim of the telephone call for which Norling was arrested was the owner of the child care facility where Norling was arrested for burglary and theft.

5. On February 17, 2001, Norling was arrested for violation of probation. This arrest was occasioned by the fact that one of the conditions of Norling's probation was that she have no contact with the owner of the other child care facility. Bond was not immediately set on the violation of probation charge, and Norling remained incarcerated for several days. On or about March 1, 2001, bond was set for Norling. The bond was conditioned on Norling not having contact with the victim and not being permitted to use a telephone except for the purpose of seeking emergency police, fire, or medical services for herself or for the children in her care.

6. Norling denies making the harassing telephone call on January 25, 2001, and there is a lack of persuasive evidence to support a finding of fact inconsistent with her denial. However, Norling is responsible for the harassing telephone call

   on January 25, 2001, because the call was made by one of Norling's employees at the request or direction of Norling.3

7. Eventually, Norling entered a plea of no contest on the charges related to the telephone call. Norling was ordered to serve thirty days of house arrest, to undergo a mental health evaluation, and to have no contact with the victim.

8. On or about December 27, 1999, Norling left eight children in her facility with an unlicensed parent of one of the children while Norling went to a pharmacy to obtain medicine for one of the children. When an inspector explained that children could not be left in the care of unlicensed people, Norling apologized and agreed it would not be done again.

9. On or about April 14, 2000, Norling wrote and mailed a letter to a former client with whom she was having a dispute about payment for child care services. The letter is in poor taste, is intentionally demeaning to the addressee, and appears to be calculated to provoke hurt feelings or anger, rather than to resolve any problem about payment for services.

10. On or about November 20, 1999, Norling self-reported that a child was left in her care without an appropriate application or information about the child. This resulted from unusual circumstances largely beyond Norling's control. After the parents picked up the child, Norling used some peculiar

    methods to try to obtain information about the child's well- being.

11. On or about February 19, 2001, while Norling was incarcerated, an inspector visited Norling's facility and discovered that 11 children were being cared for. The facility was licensed to care for only ten children. On at least three other occasions, inspections of Norling's facility revealed that Norling was caring for a larger number of children than was permitted by her license.

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

12. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to and the subject matter of this proceeding. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.

13. Section 402.301(2), Florida Statutes, reads as follows: "It is the intent of the Legislature that all owners, operators, and child care personnel shall be of good moral character."

14. Section 402.310, Florida Statutes, authorizes the Department to take disciplinary action "for the violation of any provision of ss. 402.301-402.319 or rules adopted thereunder." The disciplinary action authorized by Section 402.310, Florida Statutes, includes the imposition of fines, as well as suspension or revocation of a license.

15. In the final analysis, both counts of the Administrative Complaint in this case seek revocation of Norling's license for the same basic reason, which is that Norling lacks the good moral character required by Section 402.301(2), Florida Statutes. The type of conduct encompassed by "good moral conduct" was described as follows in Florida

    Board of Bar Examiners, Re: G.W.L., 364 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 1978), at page 458:

    In our view, a finding of a lack of "good moral character" should not be restricted to those acts that reflect moral turpitude. A more appropriate definition of the phrase requires an inclusion of acts and conduct which would cause a reasonable man to have substantial doubts about an individual's honesty, fairness, and respect for the rights of others and for the laws of the state and nation.

    
    

    And to very similar effect, the court in Zemour, Inc. v. State

    
    

    Division of Beverage, 347 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), at page 1105, wrote:

    Moral character . . . means not only the ability to distinguish between right and wrong, but the character to observe the difference; the observance of the rules of right conduct, and conduct which indicates and establishes the qualities generally acceptable to the populace for positions of trust and confidence.

    
    

16. When the above-quoted descriptions of good moral character are applied to the facts in this case, it is appropriate to conclude that Norling lacks good moral character.

Not only is such lack of good moral character shown by Norling's criminal conduct, but it is also reflected in her apparent inability or unwillingness to comply with limitations on the number of children she is allowed to care for at one time. And these conclusions are reinforced when note is taken of Norling's apparent disregard for the rights of others.

RECOMMENDATION

On the basis of the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order in this case finding that the Respondent lacks the good moral character required by Section 402.301(2), Florida Statutes, and concluding that the Respondent's license should be revoked.

DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of January, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

MICHAEL M. PARRISH

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060

(850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675

Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of January, 2002.

ENDNOTES

1/ The Respondent's Exhibit Number 1 was a videotape of proceedings in criminal court. It was offered for the purpose of showing that the judge who presided over Norling's first criminal proceeding was of the view that the criminal proceedings would not have any impact on the license at issue here. The objection to the exhibit was sustained. Norling did not proffer the rejected exhibit for inclusion in the record.

2/ The joint exhibit was a written report of a psychological assessment of Norling, which was required by the judge in one of Norling's criminal proceedings. The assessment was conducted shortly after the final hearing in this case.

3/ This is the most logical inference that can be drawn from other evidence in the record including Norling's eventual plea of nolo contendere to the criminal charges flowing from the telephone call and Norling's admissions that she was aware that the call had been made, was aware of the substance of the call, and knew that one of her employees had made the call.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Bonnie Norling

Bonnie's Place for Kids 1346 14th Avenue

Vero Beach, Florida 32960

Diana Tual, Esquire Department of Children and

Family Services

337 North Fourth Street Fort Pierce, Florida 34950

Peggy Sanford, Agency Clerk Department of Children and

Family Services

1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204B Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700

Josie Tomayo, General Counsel Department of Children and

Family Services

1317 Winewood Boulevard

Building 2, Room 204

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700

Kathleen A. Kearney, Secretary Department of Children and

Family Services

1317 Winewood Boulevard

Building 1, Room 202

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700

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.

Docket for Case No: 01-002606

Orders for Case No: 01-002606