The Issue Is it appropriate for Respondent, Department of Revenue, Child Support Enforcement Program, to garnish funds for past due child support reduced to judgment from a joint account pursuant to Section 409.25656, Florida Statutes (2001)?1
Findings Of Fact On December 20, 1985, an Order of Support was issued in Derrick v. Wright in the Hillsborough County Circuit Court; pursuant to this Order, Petitioner was ordered to pay $25.00 per week for the current support of his minor child, Mesheal Lee Wright, born on April 20, 1983, commencing December 16, 1985. On February 10, 1995, a Recommendation of Hearing Officer and a Findings of Fact and Order on Motion for Contempt in Derrick v. Wright were filed in the Hillsborough County Circuit Court, which adjudicated Petitioner’s child support arrearage in the case to be $10,639.02 as of October 7, 1994. On May 11, 1995, a General Findings and Order of Arrest Instanter in Derrick v. Wright was filed in the Hillsborough County Circuit Court, which adjudicated Petitioner’s child support arrearage in the case to be $9,463.02 as of December 31, 1994. On or about May 13, 2002, a Recommendation of Hearing Officer and a Findings and Establishing Arrears in Derrick v. Wright were filed in the Hillsborough County Circuit Court, which adjudicated Petitioner’s child support arrearage in the case to be $16,121.06 as of April 9, 2002, and ordered Petitioner to pay $167.00 per month in liquidation of his arrearage, commencing May 1, 2002. All the arrearage was owed by Petitioner to the custodial parent of the minor child; none of the arrearage was owed to the state. On October 15, 2001, Respondent mailed a Notice of Freeze in an amount up to $16,121.06 to Suncoast by certified mail, return receipt requested, regarding any accounts of Petitioner with the credit union; Suncoast received the Notice of Freeze on October 18, 2001. Suncoast confirmed a freeze on Petitioner’s joint account in the amount of $5,573.95 as of October 18, 2001. The signature card, produced as an exhibit by the Respondent, stipulated that the account was owned as a joint tenancy with right of survivorship by Petitioner and a non- obligor joint account holder, Petitioner's sister. On October 22, 2001, Respondent mailed a Notice of Intent to Levy in an amount up to $16,121.06 to Petitioner by certified mail, return receipt requested; the Notice of Intent to Levy was received and signed for at the Florida State Hospital, Chattahoochee, Florida, on October 23, 2001. The Notice of Intent to Levy advised that a non- obligor joint owner, who claimed to have an equal right to all of the money levied upon in a joint account, had a right to contest Respondent’s action. The non-obligor joint account holder did not file a petition to contest the levy nor did she appear at the final hearing. On or about November 5, 2001, Petitioner filed a Petition-Disputed Issues of Material Fact with Respondent. Respondent sent a Notice of Extension of Freeze in an amount up to $16,121.06 to Suncoast on November 9, 2001. Pursuant to the official records of the Hillsborough County Circuit Court in Derrick v. Wright, Petitioner’s child support arrearage was $16,121.06 as of November 21, 2003. Petitioner and his sister, Sandra W. Russaw, opened a joint account with survivorship rights at Suncoast on November 21, 1997. The Suncoast account had balances of less than $100.00 for 12 of the first 25 months it was open including the five months immediately preceding January 20, 2000, when $3,900.00 was deposited in the account. On December 27, 1999, Petitioner had $3,655.00 deposited in a Resident Trust Account he maintained at the Florida State Hospital, Chattahoochee, Florida. These funds, which were deposited by the U.S. Treasury, were followed by a deposit of $749.00 from the same source. These funds were initial payments to Petitioner for Veteran's Administration benefits. On January 14, 2000, $4,200.00 was withdrawn in the form of a check from Petitioner's Resident Trust Account at the Florida State Hospital. On January 20, 2000, $3,900.00 was deposited in the Suncoast account. Over the next 23 months, from January 20, 2000, to November 31, 2001, $20,538.00 directly attributable to Petitioner was deposited in the Suncoast account. The money was from Veteran's Administration benefits paid to Petitioner by direct deposit. Not surprisingly, upon notification of the Notice of Freeze the monthly checks from the Veteran's Administration stopped being deposited in Petitioner's Suncoast account. On March 8, 2000, $5,000.00 was withdrawn from the Suncoast account, and on July 10 and 20, 2000, $4,990.00 was deposited in the same account. With the exception of the July 2000 deposits, only $1,490.00 in deposits to the Suncoast account are not directly attributable to Petitioner.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order that: (1) levies upon the funds in Petitioner’s credit union account with Suncoast Schools Federal Credit Union, Tampa, Florida, up to the amount of unpaid child support as of November 21, 2003, i.e., $16,121.06, or to the full amount frozen, whichever is less; (2) applies the funds levied to satisfy all or part of Petitioner’s past due child support obligation; and (3) credits Petitioner for the amount so applied. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of January, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JEFF B. CLARK 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 22nd day of January, 2004.
The Issue The issues are whether Petitioner is delinquent in his child support payments; and if so, whether Respondent may levy the funds from Petitioner's bank account pursuant to Section 409.25656, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact It is undisputed that Petitioner's child support obligation is ongoing. He admits that his overall monthly obligation is $312.00. As of October 24, 2001, Petitioner's was in arrears on his child support obligation in excess of $53.03. Petitioner has not made any payments toward his child support obligation since September 2000. On March 20, 2001, Respondent issued a Notice of Freeze. This notice advised Tampa Bay Federal Credit Union that Petitioner had a past-due and/or overdue child support obligation and that any funds held by Tampa Bay Federal Credit Union in Petitioner's name were frozen pursuant to Section 409.25656, Florida Statutes. At that time, Petitioner had funds in the amount of $53.03 in an account at Tampa Bay Federal Credit Union. On March 27, 2001, Respondent issued a Notice of Intent to Levy. This notice advised Petitioner that Respondent intended to levy on the $53.03 in Petitioner's account with Tampa Bay Federal Credit Union. According to the notice, Respondent intended to take the funds due to Petitioner's non- payment of child support. During the hearing, Petitioner stated that he did not object to Respondent's action to levy on the funds held by Tampa Bay Federal Credit Union. Accordingly, there are no disputed issues of material fact.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is ORDERED: That Respondent enter a final order directing that $53.03 currently held at Tampa Bay Federal Credit Union be applied towards meeting the Petitioner's unpaid child support obligation. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of December, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 13th day of December, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael A. Chang, DC #T18277 Gulf Forestry Camp 699 Ike Steele Road Wewahitchka, Florida 32465 Scott Edmonds, Esquire Department of Revenue Post Office Box 8030 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 Bruce Hoffmann, General Counsel Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 James Zingale, Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100
Findings Of Fact The following are the facts to which the parties have stipulated: A Complaint to Determine Paternity was filed in Duval County, Florida, in May of 1984, alleging that Archie L. Atkins was the father of Jimmy Lemont Pickney. Jimmy Lemont Pickney was born on May 1, 1971, to Betty Ruth Pickney. The birth certificate of the child did not indicate the name of the father. In his Answer to Complaint, Archie L. Atkins denied any knowledge with regard to the paternity issue, and denied that he was, in fact, the father of the minor child who was thirteen years old at the time the petition was filed. A jury trial was held on the issue of paternity. At that time, Archie L. Atkins testified that although he had met Betty Ruth Pickney, he had not had sexual intercourse with her and was unaware that she had conceived a child which she claimed to be his. However, in March of 1985 the jury determined that Archie L. Atkins was, in fact, the father of Jimmy Lemont Pickney. A Final Judgment of Paternity was entered by The Honorable John S. Cox on March 21, 1985. (Copy attached) The Court reserved jurisdiction to determine the amount of child support to be paid by Archie L. Atkins and to establish a public assistance child support obligation and to tax costs. In its Order of Modification, the Court determined that the sum of $8,611.50 was the public assistance child support obligation owed by the Defendant to the State of Florida for assistance paid on behalf of the minor from October 1974 to April 1, 1985. (Copy attached) The Defendant was ordered to pay $25 per week for the support of the minor child and $5 per week toward the public assistance child support obligation. Approximately one year after the commencement of child support, it was determined that Archie L. Atkins was then in contempt due to his failure to make the payments previously ordered on April 8, 1985. Specifically, he was $897.78 behind through March 21, 1986. Mr. Atkins was ordered to pay $897.78 instantly plus $250 to be applied toward the public assistance child support obligation. (Copies attached) Mr. Atkins paid both the $897.78 and the $250 as ordered by the Court. At the same time the Court entered its Contempt Order, the Court directed that future payments be deducted from Mr. Atkins' pay check by his employer, the United States Postal Service. Archie Atkins and his wife, Richardine Atkins, overpaid their 1985 Federal Income taxes in the amount of $1,605.21 and were entitled to a refund in that amount. However, the Office of Child Support Enforcement sought to intercept that tax refund and to apply it toward the public assistance child support obligation. Mr. Atkins was notified of the interception on June 2, 1986, and requested a hearing on June 19, 1986.
Recommendation For the foregoing reasons it is recommended that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a Final Order in this case to the effect that the Department is not entitled to intercept Archie L. Atkins' federal tax refund unless and until Atkins is delinquent in the periodic court-ordered payment, and to the further effect that any federal tax refund which may already have been intercepted shall be returned to Atkins. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of November, 1986, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of November, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: R. Craig Hemphill, Esquire Assistant Counsel Child Support Enforcement Program 105 East Monroe Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Daniel Richardson, Esquire 1004 First Union Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 William Page, Jr., Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Department of Revenue should apply the Petitioner's $2,500 lottery prize to reduce an outstanding Public Assistance Obligation for child support.
Findings Of Fact By a Final Order on Support entered by the Circuit Court, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Hillsborough County, Florida, in Case No. 88-20006, on April 9, 1990, nunc pro tunc September 5, 1989, it was established that the Petitioner was the father of a child born out of wedlock on May 13, 1983, and that he owed the State a Public Assistance Obligation in the amount of $8,249 for AFDC paid to the mother for the support of the child prior to the Final Order of Support. The court ordered the Petitioner to pay $6.37 a week towards the Public Assistance Obligation and $48.96 a week for current child support. The Petitioner has met these court-imposed obligations. Notwithstanding having met the court-imposed obligations, and the intercept of an IRS income tax refund that reduced the remaining balance, $3,761.57 remained to be paid on the Public Assistance Obligation as of August 14, 1998.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a final order certifying that the Department of Lottery should pay the Petitioner's $2,500 lottery prize to the Department of Revenue for application to the Petitioner's outstanding Public Assistance Obligation. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of September, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: John Reynolds 1707 Walnut Street Tampa, Florida 33607 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of September, 1998. Chriss Walker, Senior Attorney Department of Revenue Post Office Box 8030 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 Louisa Warren, Esquire Department of Lottery 250 Marriott Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Linda Lettera, General Counsel Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 Larry Fuchs, Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100
The Issue The issue for determination is whether the Department of Revenue should retain and apply the Petitioner’s $7,278.00 lottery prize to reduce an outstanding arrearage for child support.
Findings Of Fact DOR and DOL are the agencies of the State of Florida charged with the duty to enforce statutes which provide for the seizure of lottery prize winnings to satisfy past-due child support debt. DOR and DOL provided Davidoff with timely and proper notice of their finding that he was indebted to the state for court-ordered child support through the court depository, in the total amount of $32,400.00 as of July 29, 1996. Davidoff was further notified that it was the state's intent to intercept his lottery prize and apply it to partially satisfy his unpaid child support debt. Pursuant to a Final Judgment of Paternity and Order for Payment of Arrears entered on July 29, 1996, Davidoff is subject to a lawful order requiring him to pay child support retroactive to June 6, 1996, in the total amount of $32,400.00. Davidoff failed to discharge his child support obligations pursuant to that judgment. He admits arrearages in an amount in excess of $27,000.00 as of the date of the final hearing. DOR is entitled, indeed required by law, to apply the Petitioner’s lottery prize in the amount of $7,278.00 to partially satisfy this past-due child support debt.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a final order retaining Davidoff's $7,278.00 lottery prize to be applied to reduce the accrued arrearage on Davidoff's child support obligation. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of July, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ___________________________________ FLORENCE SNYDER RIVAS 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 31st day of July, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: David Davidoff 2956 Kirk Road Lake Worth, Florida 33461 Chriss Walker, Esquire Child Support Enforcement Department of Revenue Post Office Box 8030 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-8030 Louisa Warren, Esquire Department of Lottery 250 Marriott Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James Zingale, Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 Bruce Hoffmann, General Counsel Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 David Griffin, Secretary Department of Lottery 250 Marriott Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ken Hart, General Counsel Department of Lottery 250 Marriott Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues for determination are: (1) whether Petitioner is delinquent in child support payments; and (2) whether Respondent is authorized to levy Petitioner's two bank accounts and apply the funds to reduce Petitioner's past due child support obligation.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence and testimony of the witnesses presented and the entire record in this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: Petitioner is the father of a child born in Connecticut in 1986. On May 2, 1990, a Connecticut court ordered Petitioner to pay child support of $72.00 per week for the support of his child. The court also found that Petitioner had a child support arrearage of $3,797.11 and ordered that he pay an additional $15.00 per week to reduce the arrearage. Petitioner moved to Florida in early 1994. On November 13, 2001, the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Manatee County, Florida, received a request from the State of Connecticut to register and enforce a foreign support order against Petitioner. The adjudicated arrearage in child support was $25,179.87, as determined by the State of Connecticut. On December 11, 2001, Petitioner was sent a Notice of Registration of Foreign Support Order. The notice, sent by certified mail, was received at Petitioner's then current residence address. On January 23, 2002, an Order Confirming Registration of Foreign Support Order was entered; Petitioner was ordered to pay $90.48 per week beginning January 25, 2002. On July 12, 2007, the State of Connecticut certified that as of July 12, 2007, Petitioner had a $23,853.56 child support arrearage. Petitioner stipulated that the child support arrearage was at least $23,000.00. On September 8, 2006, the Department sent a Notice to Freeze to the Bank of America; on the same day a Notice of Freeze was sent to Regions Bank. In the notices, sent by certified mail, the Department advised the banks to hold up to $25,725.26 of Petitioner's funds until further notice. Bank of America responded indicating that Petitioner had $1,270.95 in his account; Regions Bank reported $591.42. On September 15, 2006, the Department sent two Notices of Intent to Levy by certified mail to Petitioner. The notices provided, in pertinent part, the following: You are hereby notified that pursuant to Section 409.25656, Florida Statutes, the Department of Revenue intends to levy on credits or personal property belonging to the obligor named above [Petitioner], or debts owed to the obligor. This property consists of liquid assets and is in the control of [appropriate bank]. This action is taken for nonpayment of child support by the obligor in the amount of $25,725.26 as of [appropriate date]. You are hereby notified that you may contest the agency's action to levy on the above referenced property. You may do so by either filing a petition in the existing Circuit Court case, . . . or by requesting an administrative hearing. If you wish to request an administrative hearing, you must file your petition for hearing, in writing, in accordance with the Notice of Rights attached to this Notice. Although Petitioner testified that he did not receive the notices, neither was returned by the postal service. On October 2, 2006, Petitioner filed a Petition for Administrative Hearing (Petition), in response to each Notice of Intent to Levy. In October 2006, the Department issued and sent Notices of Extension of Freeze to each bank indicating that Petitioner was challenging the Notices of Intent to Levy. The monies on deposit in each bank were the result of payments received by Petitioner for his labors as a lawn caretaker.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Department of Revenue, enter a final order that: (1) levies an amount up to $23,853.56 in each of the Petitioner, Michael K. Dugdale's, two bank accounts at Bank of America, N.A. and Regions Bank; (2) applies the funds to reduce Petitioner's past due child support obligation; and (3) credits Petitioner for said payment. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of October, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JEFF B. CLARK 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 18th day of October, 2007.
The Issue Whether the five thousand dollars of prize money claimed by the Petitioner should be paid to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services due to the Petitioner's outstanding debt for child support collected through a court.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the individual whose name appeared on the lottery ticket and claim form for a five thousand dollar prize. The claim form and winning ticket were submitted by the Petitioner to the Tallahassee Office of the Department of the Lottery for validation and payment in accordance with that Department's procedures. The Department of the Lottery, as required by law, provided the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services with a list of five thousand dollar winners. The list contained the name of the Petitioner. The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services compared the list with its records and determined that there was an arrearage in child support of eight thousand one hundred and fifty-seven dollars and eighty-four cents owed by the Petitioner in Lee County, Florida. On July 12, 1988, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services certified the child support arrearage to the Department of the Lottery in accordance with Section 24.115(4), Florida Statutes. The Department of the Lottery fowarded the five thousand dollar prize money to the Office of the Comptroller. On July 19, 1988, the Petitioner was notified by certified mail by the Office of the Comptroller of its intention to apply the entire five thousand dollars towards the Petitioner's unpaid court ordered child support. The Petitioner requested a hearing on the nature of the debt and the amount owed. The amount of unpaid court ordered child support due on the date of the hearing was eight thousand one hundred and fifteen dollars and fifty-three cents.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Petitioner, Lee Ann Flagg, is a 22-year-old resident of Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Since 1991, she has received Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) benefits for her 22-month-old son. Petitioner wants to learn a marketable skill, so she can obtain a job and stop receiving AFDC. Based on the information in Petitioner's AFDC case file, her total income was her AFDC grant of $241 per month. Petitioner is exempt from Job Opportunities and Basic Skills (JOBS) program due to the age of her child. On May 26, 1992, Petitioner volunteered for Project Independence (PI). On June 5, 1992, Petitioner attended PI orientation at which she stated her desire to attend school in the fall of 1992. At all times material hereto, Petitioner met PI target group criteria in that she is under the age of 24 and had not been employed for the past 12 months. On July 28, 1992, Petitioner requested child care assistance from Respondent. She advised her PI case manager that the lack of child care was a barrier to her being self-sufficient and that she needed child care to attend school in the fall of 1992. In July 1992, Petitioner's case manager informed Petitioner that, due to the child care freeze, Respondent could not provide her with child care and placed Petitioner in "limited contact." During the time in "limited contact," Petitioner provided monthly attendance verification to her PI worker until February 1993. In August 1992, Petitioner enrolled in business classes at Lively Area Vocational Technical School (Lively) in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Needing child care assistance, Petitioner's parents assisted her with child care temporarily. In February 1993, because Respondent could not provide Petitioner with child care, she requested disenrollment from the PI program. However, Petitioner can re-enroll in the PI program at any time. Petitioner continues to attend classes at Lively. But, due to her inability to obtain child care services from Respondent, she has been forced to reduce her classes. Additionally, Petitioner has taken a part-time clerical job at below poverty wages, for which she receives child care. Because of the child care freeze, Petitioner cannot receive child care assistance from Respondent for education and training activities. Background The Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) Program is a joint federal-state assistance program authorized by Title IV-A of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 602. The AFDC program is administered by states under the supervision of the Federal Department of Health and Human Services. A "Job Opportunities and Basic Skills" (JOBS) program must be developed by each state participating in the AFDC program. The purpose of the JOBS program is to provide training, education and work opportunities for AFDC recipients, pursuant to the Family Support Act of 1988, that will help avoid long-term public assistance dependency. Supervision of the JOBS program and contracting for the provision of support services, such as child care, is the responsibility of the state agency administering the AFDC program (referred to as the IV-A agency). In Florida, Respondent is the IV-A agency, and the Department of Labor and Employment Security administers the JOBS program. Florida's JOBS program is called Project Independence (PI). The criteria governing PI is found in Section 409.029, Florida Statutes, the Florida Employment Opportunity Act. For PI purposes, all AFDC recipients are either exempt or nonexempt from participating in PI and are either target group or non-target group members. Exempt recipients are persons who have barriers to participating in PI, such as having young children or being disabled, based on federally defined exemption criteria. These recipients are not required to participate in PI, but may volunteer to participate. Nonexempt recipients are persons who do not meet the federal exemption criteria and are referred to as mandatory. These recipients may be referred to PI by their Respondent caseworker, and if referred, they are required to participate in PI as a condition of receiving AFDC, so long as resources are available. Conversely, if resources are not available, a nonexempt referred recipient is not required to participate in PI, but may volunteer to participate in PI. Furthermore, even if a nonexempt recipient is not referred to PI, such recipient may volunteer to participate in PI. Target group members are AFDC recipients who, based on certain characteristics such as work history or number of years already on AFDC, are likely to become long-term public assistance recipients. Non-target group members are AFDC recipients who do not meet target group criteria. Both target group members and non-target group members may be either exempt or nonexempt. Caseload Prioritization Rule Participation requirements for AFDC recipients in PI is set forth in Section 409.029, Florida Statutes, the Florida Employment Opportunity Act. In April 1992, Respondent promulgated Rule 10C-32.002 AFDC Employment and Training Program, Florida Administrative Code, implementing Section 409.029, Florida Statutes. Section (4) of Rule 10C-32.002, referred to as the caseload prioritization rule, sets forth Respondent's PI caseload prioritization procedures, implementing Subsection 409.029(9)(c), Florida Statutes. Subsection 409.029(9)(c) states: (9) PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS (c) All exempt and nonexempt AFDC recipients who do not meet target group criteria shall be permitted to volunteer. Nonexempt AFDC recipients who meet target group criteria shall be required to participate in the pro- gram. Exempt AFDC recipients who meet target group criteria shall be permitted to volun- teer. If the department lacks resources to provide the services necessary for participa- tion under this section, nonexempt AFDC recip- ients who do not meet the target group crit- eria shall be required to participate in in- itial job search if they are approved for ini- tial job search, but shall be deferred from further participation after completing up to 3 weeks of job search activities. If the department continues to lack resources to pro- vide the services necessary for participation under this section, nonexempt recipients who do not meet target group criteria and who are not approved for initial job search shall also be deferred from further participation after completing orientation. If deferring such recipients from mandatory participation does not alleviate budget constraints on ser- vices, the department shall defer nonexempt AFDC recipients who do not meet target group criteria from mandatory participation and may also defer participants who meet target group criteria from mandatory participation so long as the department is meeting federal particip- ation rates and target group expenditure re- quirements. If the department cannot, after making a good faith effort, meet federal part- icipation rates and target group expenditure requirements by deferring nonexempt target group AFDC recipients from participation, the department may limit service to AFDC recip- ients who meet target group criteria and may mandate the participation of those target group members who are non-target-group volun- teers only after the department has attempted to conserve its resources under the proce- dures established in this section. (Emphasis added.) Rule 10C-32.002(4) states: Effective October 1, 1991, the Florida Employment Opportunity Act, F.S. 409.029, was revised to allow the department to prioritize and disenroll participants based on target groups and assessment status where funds are insufficient to serve all partici- pants. Caseloads may be reduced to allow for sufficient case management when they exceed a staff/client ratio of 1:150. Staff/client ratios for the teen parent caseload should not exceed 1:100. Each district will init- iate case load disenrollment procedures as needed. Case managers must identify three cate- gories of participants in their caseloads: Priority One, exempt volunteers; Priority Two, mandatory target group participants; and Priority Three, mandatory non-target group participants. When caseloads exceed a staff/client ratio of 1:150, all Priority Three cases, mandatory non-target participants, will be offered an opportunity to continue partici- pation or disenroll. Priority Three participants who wish to continue in the program must be allowed to do so and will be placed in Priority One category. Priority Three participants who do not wish to continue in the program should be disenrolled after Orientation, and Job Search if the participant meets the criteria for Initial Job Search. To reach or main- tain the 1:150 staff/client ratio, new mand- atory non-target referrals may be disen- rolled after Orientation, and Job Search, if applicable, if they do not wish to continue to participate. If the staff/client ratio remains above 1:150 after disenrollment of Priority Three cases, then all Priority Two, mandatory tar- get groups may be allowed the opportunity to disenroll from the program after Orientation, and Job Search, if applicable. Information about disenrollment and re- entry into the program must be provided, verbally and in writing, to each participant being given these opportunities. This infor- mation must include: A participant who is given the opport- unity to disenroll will not be sanctioned, nor will disenrollment affect the AFDC grant amount. An individual who disenrolls may re- enroll in the program at a later date by con- tacting the local AFDC employment and train- ing office. An individual who disenrolls and becomes employed may be eligible for child care dur- ing the hours of employment and should con- tact the AFDC employment and training case manager. A participant who is given the opport- unity to disenroll and chooses to continue participating in the AFDC employment and training program can do so. A participant who does not meet an exemp- tion from program participation and who chooses to remain in the program although given the opportunity to disenroll can be sanctioned for failure to complete assigned activities. A participant who does not meet an exemp- tion from program participation and chooses to disenroll may be required to re-enter the program at a future date. Failure to do so without good cause will cause a sanction to be imposed. Support Services will be terminated for a participant who chooses to disenroll unless the individual is employed. If new referrals are not sufficient to maintain the staff/client ratio of 1:150, disenrolled cases should be identified for program re-entry. Program re-entry will be based on continuing eligibility for AFDC, priority group status, and length of time since disenrollment. The first individual disenrolled from the highest priority group will be re-enrolled first, etc. If the state fails to meet the feder- ally required expenditure rate for target groups, participation in the program may be limited to and required for target group members. (Emphasis added) The caseload prioritization rule only applies in situations in which PI staff/client ratio exceeds 1:150; staff meaning case manager. Respondent contends that Subsection 409.029(9)(c), Florida Statutes, was needed for the determination as to when PI's resources were sufficient to provide services to clients. In the caseload prioritization rule, Respondent interprets the statutory phrase "lacks resources" as the point at which the staff/client ratio exceeds 1:150. Respondent's districts meet this "limited resources" point when the staff/client ratio exceeds 1:150. The factors considered in the measuring stick used by Respondent to determine the limited resources were staff allocations and staff availability to provide services. Child care was not included, since it was, and is, a support service as interpreted by Respondent from Subsection 409.029(7), Florida Statutes. At the time Subsection 409.029(9)(c) was passed by the Florida Legislature, the staff/client ratio exceeded 1:400 and 1:500 in some of Respondent's districts. Respondent determined that a ratio exceeding 1:150 prevented a case manager from providing the services needed for clients, i.e., spending the amount of time needed, and that the lack of time, translating into the lack of services needed, could affect Respondent's PI federal funding. Respondent contends that the caseload prioritization rule was necessary for the administration of Subsection 409.029(9)(c). The rule in Respondent's view provided and clarified the procedures to be used for the disenrollment of clients to reduce caseloads. Respondent further contends that the caseload prioritization rule was necessary for the proper administration of Subsection 409.029(7), Florida Statutes, which Respondent interprets as applicable to the offering of child care services. According to Respondent, the rule gave Respondent the ability to identify specific reasons to defer individuals from participation in the PI program. On July 10, 1992, Respondent's caseload prioritization procedures were issued statewide and were generally applicable to all PI participants in Respondent's districts. Notwithstanding, because the staff/client ratio did not exceed 1:150 in Respondent's District 2, the procedure was not utilized in District 2. The caseload prioritization procedures were not invoked prior to instituting the child care freeze in Respondent's District 2. Child Care Freeze For the 1992-93 fiscal year, the Florida Legislature failed to appropriate sufficient funds to meet the needs of PI child care in Respondent's District 2. Subsequently, again, for the 1993-94 fiscal year, the Legislature did not appropriate sufficient funds. On July 10, 1992, Respondent issued a memorandum, effective that same date, freezing child care in Respondent's District 2 only for new enrollments of AFDC recipients who wished to participate (volunteers) in PI education and training activities and who needed child care in order to participate. The challenged child care freeze policy purports to be as follows: Due to the large over annualization we are projecting for FY 92-93 in Service I, Ser- vice II and Family Support Act child care services, I am directing you to immediately freeze new enrollments except for entitled groups (TCC and AFDC Employed) and the high- est at-risk group (Priority 1 in Service I). We will closely monitor utilization and let you know as soon as spending is within bud- get limits. This freeze applies to new enrollments only. Children currently in care should continue to receive services as appropriate. Respondent instituted the child care freeze because of projected annualized budget deficits; that is, Respondent annualized its current PI child care expenditures and projected a budgetary deficit if expenditures increased beyond what was currently spent. The child care freeze did not affect Transitional Child Care (TCC) recipients and AFDC recipients who work. Transitional Child Care is child care for former AFDC recipients who lost their AFDC eligibility due to earned income and who meet other federal requirements. TCC and AFDC employed individuals are guaranteed child care. Also, the child care freeze did not affect those individuals who Respondent requires to participate in PI. Respondent's District 2 is divided into two districts: Subdistrict 2A and Subdistrict 2B. Subdistrict 2A is comprised of Bay, Calhoun, Franklin, Gulf, Holmes, Jackson and Washington counties. Subdistrict 2B is comprised of Franklin, Gadsden, Jefferson, Leon, Liberty, Madison, Taylor and Wakulla counties. Child care services are provided through contract with central agencies. Two child care provider agencies serve Respondent's District 2: Big Bend Child Care, serving Subdistrict 2B and Early Childhood Services, serving Subdistrict 2A. PI child care monies are split between the two provider agencies. Due to the child care freeze, from July 10, 1992, no AFDC recipient in Subdistricts 2A and 2B, who needed child care for education and training, received it. However, on January 19, 1993, child care slots became available in Subdistrict 2A with Early Childhood Services. On January 19, 1993, Early Childhood Services had 318 children of AFDC recipients on a waiting list. Only 35 slots became available. On March 15, 1993, Respondent allowed Early Childhood Services to provide child care services on a "one-in one-out" basis--equal number of child care slots filled as are vacated. As of January 1993, in Respondent's District 2, 542 children of AFDC recipients were waiting to receive child care services. Approximately 70 of the children, all residing in Subdistrict 2A, have been placed since January 19, 1993. For the offering of child care services, Respondent looks to both Subsection 409.029(7), Florida Statutes, and Rule 10C-32.002(10)(b)2, Florida Administrative Code, for guidance as to what action to take when child care resources are limited. Respondent contends that Subsection 409.029(7) is applicable to child care services. Subsection 409.027(7) includes child care services as a support service and provides that child care services "shall be provided according to federal law to the extent funds are available." Rule 10C- 32.002(10)(b)2 provides that a PI participant, meeting the requirements for a deferred status and not required to participate, "will be placed in limited contact status" due to the "temporary unavailability of support services." In August 1992, Respondent conferred with the regional office of the federal agency overseeing the AFDC program, regarding the subject of guaranteeing child care to AFDC recipients as it relates to availability of funds. Respondent and the federal agency agreed to certain principles on the subject, which included the following: "To the degree resources are available" is acceptable as a factor in limiting participa- tion in a program component when child care is a determining factor (other than AFDC-emp- loyed and TCC). The state may determine the criteria for those required and/or allowed to participate in the program as long as the state meets the federal participation rate and target group expenditure requirements. [W]hen a state finds itself without sufficient resources, including child care resources, it may place individuals on a waiting list. Before placing an individual on a waiting list, the individual will be given an opportunity to make provisions for her own child care, or other services, in order to remain in the program. [W]ith the exception of AFDC-employed and TCC, the guarantee of child care to both JOBS and non-JOBS participants is directly tied to the conditions under which the participant is required or allowed to participate. One clear and explicit condition is the extent to which state resources permit such partic pation. Respondent interprets Florida law, as it relates to budgeting, that the law requires Respondent not to exceed its budget. To stay within its budget, Respondent instituted the child care freeze instead of the other available options which would involve the disenrollment of children already in care, including the entitled groups. The child care freeze required Respondent to constantly be aware of the status of the child care budget (on a monthly basis) due to its constant fluctuation. Also, in administering the child care freeze, Respondent interprets the federal law and Subsection 409.029(9)(c), Florida Statutes, to state that it is not required to provide child care to volunteers of the PI program. But, even with this interpretation, volunteers for the PI program are not denied participation in the PI program during child care constraints. An individual who does not need child care, or even one who does need child care but can provide it through other means can volunteer for participation in the PI program. No child care will be provided, but the participants can receive other services associated with the PI program. The child care freeze was never promulgated pursuant to Section 120.54, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Clinton Williams won a prize of $3,839.50 on a $1.00 wager in the Lotto game for October 12, 1991. Based upon a letter to the Department of the Lottery from Chriss Walker, the Acting Assistant Secretary for Child Support Enforcement. The Office of the Comptroller found that Mr. Williams owed $3,250 as back due child support. That amount was deducted from his winnings and on November 8, 1991, a state warrant in the amount of $589.50 was delivered to Mr. Williams. The arrearage arose because an error had been made in the child support enforcement division of the State Attorney's Office in Miami. An income deduction order had been entered against Mr. Williams by the family division of the Circuit Court in Dade County Florida on September 27, 1990, but no money was ever deducted from Mr. Williams' pay. When the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services checked Mr. Williams' record after he submitted the winning ticket, the error was discovered. As a result, in January 1992 the award was modified obligating Mr. Williams to continue to pay $252 per month in child support, and to pay an additional $100 per month to pay back child support due under the September 27, 1990 order. In addition, the order entered by the Circuit Court on January 13, 1992, provides, in paragraph 14: The lottery winnings that are currently being withheld in Tallahassee shall be released to the Petitioner [the child's mother] immediately. Based on the order of the Circuit Court, there is no doubt that Mr. Williams is indebted for back child support. No error occurred in the interception of his lottery winnings to satisfy his obligation for that past-due child support.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petition for Formal Proceeding filed by Mr. Williams be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 7th day of May 1992. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of May 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: Karrin R. Boehm-Alman, Esquire Law Offices of Maurice M. Diliberto 28 West Flagler Street Suite 600 Miami, FL 33130 Bridget L. Ryan, Esquire Office of the Comptroller Suite 1302, The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0350 Louisa H. Warren, Esquire Department of the Lottery 250 Marriot Drive Tallahassee, FL 32301 Chriss Walker, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Honorable Gerald Lewis, Comptroller Department of Banking and Finance The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, FL 32399-0350 William G. Reeves, General Counsel Department of Banking and Finance Room 1302, The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0350
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner's request for a variance or waiver of Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C-14.055 pursuant to section 120.542, Florida Statutes, should be granted or denied.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, LaTonya Holton, is seeking a waiver from Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C-14.055(1) because she desires to open and operate a licensed residential child-caring agency (RCA), which houses dependent youth. Ms. Holton proposes to open a residential facility for foster children called House of Judah, with Ms. Holton serving as executive director. House of Judah would be a "transitional housing program" for up to eight neglected, abandoned, or abused girls ages 12 through 17. Stacey Cleveland is a statewide licensing specialist with the Department. She has been in that position for about seven years and has worked for the Department approximately 23 years, approximately 15 of which have been in licensing. One of Ms. Cleveland's responsibilities is to review all of the waiver and variance requests and make a recommendation to agency leadership as to whether or not the request should be granted or denied. Ms. Cleveland reviewed Petitioner's application for waiver. The application includes a business plan and position descriptions. It also included a description of Ms. Holton's prior experiences pertinent to the position for which the waiver is sought. Ms. Cleveland reviewed the application package in evaluating whether Ms. Holton met the requirements to be the Executive Director. After reviewing the application, Ms. Cleveland concluded that Ms. Holton did not have the required education or the required experience in management or supervision. The application packet included a statement that Ms. Holton was enrolled to complete an associate of science degree by the summer of 2010, and then enter a program to earn a bachelor's degree in business administration. However, Ms. Holton did not complete the associate degree program and currently does not possess a college degree of any kind. She is no longer in a program to earn a degree. Ms. Holton has worked as an administrative assistant with increasing responsibility for major corporations. She was the executive assistant to the president at GE Aviation, and assisted seven vice-presidents. She currently is a quality administrator with GE Aviation. In this position, Ms. Holton has the authority to go into an assembly area and shut down a production line if she determines that the workers are performing a procedure that is not according to the work instruction. She also oversees investigations concerning quality assurance. She has worked closely with the FAA ensuring that when a new guideline comes out, it is "brought to the forefront of GE" and to ensure that the company's procedures are updated. However, Ms. Holton is not a manager, and does not have the authority to hire or fire employees. She does not have experience with fundraising for private donations, although that is included in the position description for executive director. Ms. Holton has, through volunteering, worked with troubled youth and has a genuine passion for helping troubled children. She has helped numerous youth through her church and in the community. She does not, however, have formal working experience in child welfare. Ms. Cleveland determined that Ms. Holton does not have the required management or supervisory experience to be an Executive Director, and had not demonstrated that the purpose of the underlying statute had been achieved. She based this determination on a review of the application package and on the agency's interpretation of the term "management or supervisory." That is, the agency looks for supervision, knowledge, skills and actual hands-on work in child welfare services, specifically with Department youth housed in a facility. The agency also interprets the term "management or supervision" as including experience supervising employees in areas such as hiring and firing, final budget decisions, and final decision making in matters relating to the management of the facility. The agency views the purpose of the underlying statute to require final decision-making responsibility in all areas related to the operation of an RCA. Ms. Holton did not present any evidence of any economic, technical, or legal hardship if she did not receive the waiver. Ms. Holton is sincerely disappointed in not receiving the waiver due to her strong convictions and passion to help troubled youth. Ms. Cleveland recommended to the agency that it deny the waiver request. On December 8, 2011, the Department issued an Order on Waiver Request to Ms. Holton, denying her request, which gave rise to this proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Children and Families enter a final order denying Petitioner's request for a waiver from rule 65C- 14.055. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of May, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BARBARA J. STAROS 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 this 16th day of May, 2012. COPIES FURNISHED: LaTonya Roschell Holton 136 Perth Road Jacksonville, Florida 32221 David G. Tucker, Esquire Department of Children and Families 5920 Arlington Expressway Post Office Box 2417 Jacksonville, Florida 32211 Gregory Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Families Building 2, Room 204B 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Marion Drew Parker, General Counsel Department of Children and Families Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 David Wilkins, Secretary Department of Children and Families Building 1, Room 202 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
