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 At issue is whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalties should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Department is authorized to regulate child care facilities pursuant to sections 402.301-402.319, Florida Statutes. Section 402.311 authorizes the Department to inspect licensed child care facilities. Section 402.310 authorizes the Department to take disciplinary action against child care facilities for violations of sections 402.301-402.319. Tiny Blessings is a child care facility operating pursuant to License Number C04DU0799. The facility is located at 4932 Blanding Boulevard, Jacksonville, Florida. Lawanda Jackson is the owner of Tiny Blessings. Jacqueline King is a family service counselor for the Department's child care licensing program. She is charged with inspecting day care facilities. Ms. King has worked for the Department for over 20 years. In addition to five years in her current position, Ms. King has worked as a child protective investigator on sexual abuse cases and has served as a juvenile probation officer. Ms. King conducted the inspections of Tiny Blessings that are at issue in this case. Count I On October 6, 2010, Ms. King conducted an inspection of Tiny Blessings. The facility's records appeared to show that employee Monalisa Tedtaotao had been hired on September 3, 2010, but that her background screening had not been completed until September 27, 2010. Ms. King noted that the facility's records indicated that Ms. Tedtaotao's 40-hour training program began on September 3, 2010. Ms. Tedtaotao testified she began work at Tiny Blessings on September 27, 2010, the day the background screening was completed. Ms. Jackson was adamant that Ms. Tedtaotao did not begin work at Tiny Blessings until September 27, 2010. She believed that Ms. King either mistook the date on Ms. Tedtaotao's job application for her starting date, or was intentionally misstating the facts in order to stack the alleged violations and close down Tiny Blessings.2/ The Department produced no witness who actually saw Ms. Tedtaotao working at Tiny Blessings prior to September 27, 2010. The only document in evidence showing the date of September 3, 2010, was created by Ms. King as part of her inspection report. It is noted that Ms. Jackson produced no payroll records or other evidence to verify Ms. Tedtaotao's starting date. As to Count I, the Department proved at most that Tiny Blessings' recordkeeping was inadequate. The Department did not prove that Ms. Tedtaotao worked at Tiny Blessings as an unscreened individual. Count II Ms. King testified that, at the time of the October 6, 2010, inspection, employee Tiffany Turner's personnel file was missing a mandatory document: CS-FSP 5131, "Background Screening and Personnel File Requirements" ("Form 5131"). The Department characterized this as a "filing problem," not a situation in which the employee had failed to undergo background screening. Ms. Jackson agreed that a Form 5131 was not in Ms. Turner's personnel file on the date of the inspection. Count III Ms. King testified that on or about October 12, 2010, the Department received a complaint that Ms. Jackson had been arrested for domestic violence but was still working at Tiny Blessings. Ms. King's investigation revealed that Ms. Jackson had been charged with domestic battery in violation of section 784.03(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2010), on October 6, 2010, and had pled no contest to the charge on October 7, 2010. The county court in Jacksonville withheld adjudication and placed Ms. Jackson on 12 months of probation with early termination contingent upon her completion of the Safe Families program and her having no contact with the victim. Under the provisions of section 435.04(3), Florida Statutes (2010), a plea of nolo contendere to an offence that constitutes domestic violence as defined in section 741.28, Florida Statutes, is an offence that disqualifies a person from occupying a position for which a Level 2 Background Screening is required. Ms. King testified that on October 12, 2010, she advised Ms. Jackson that her plea constituted a disqualifying offence. Ms. Jackson did not accept Ms. King's statement. Ms. King put Ms. Jackson on the phone with staff in the Department's background screening office, who confirmed Ms. King's statement. Ms. Jackson testified that she entered her plea only upon the assurance by the court and the assistant state attorney that the domestic violence charge was not a disqualifying offense and the plea would not affect her child care license. On November 3, 2010, Ms. Jackson's counsel filed in the county court a motion to vacate and set aside the judgment. In the motion, counsel stated as follows, in relevant part: The Defendant, by and through her undersigned counsel, raised the issue of the Defendant's fear of losing her daycare license as a result of pleading to the charge of Battery. The State Attorney and the judge both advised the undersigned counsel that the daycare license would not be affected. Upon reliance on same, the Defendant entered a plea of nolo contendere to the charge of Battery and was sentenced on the same day. On or about October 15, 2010, the Defendant was visited by an agent from the Department of Children and Families and advised that due to her plea of no contest to the battery charge and being sentenced on same, the Defendant's daycare license was subject to forfeiture and ineligibility. This came as a result in a change of law that took effect in July 2010 that mandates that either an adjudication of guilt or a withhold [sic] of guilt on a domestic charge, such as Battery, makes the license holder ineligible to run a daycare.3/ As of the date of the hearing in the instant case, the county court had not acted on Ms. Jackson's motion to vacate. On May 24, 2011, the court denied a May 17, 2011 motion filed by Ms. Jackson to "amend the record."4/ The Department sent Ms. Jackson a certified letter, dated December 1, 2010, advising her of her disqualifying offence and of the process contained in chapter 435 for Ms. Jackson to seek an exemption from disqualification. The post office tracking slip indicated that the letter was returned unclaimed on December 31, 2010. Ms. Jackson knew or should have known, no later than December 31, 2010, that she was disqualified from operating a day care facility. Ms. Jackson has never filed an application for an exemption from disqualification. Count IV K.J. is a four-year-old autistic boy. He has a six- year-old sister, A.S. Their mother is Annette Wiggins. K.J. and A.S. attend Oak Hill Elementary School ("Oak Hill"). During the period relevant to this proceeding, K.J. was enrolled in pre-kindergarten and A.S. was in kindergarten. During the latter part of September 2010, K.J. and A.S. were enrolled for day care at Tiny Blessings. Ms. Wiggins would normally drop off K.J. and A.S. at Tiny Blessings, and Tiny Blessings would transport the children to Oak Hill. Two days per week, Ms. Wiggins would pick up the children from school at the end of the day. Three days a week, Tiny Blessings would pick up the children when Oak Hill dismissed its students, and then Ms. Wiggins would pick up the children from Tiny Blessings. K.J.'s teacher at Oak Hill, Amalia Santiago, an autism specialist, testified that at the beginning of the school year, Ms. Wiggins was "heavily dependent" on the day care to provide transportation for the children. Ms. Wiggins works at Point West Cluster, a nursing home. Her regular work hours are from 7:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. Ms. Wiggins did not drop off her children at Oak Hill unless one of the children was sick, she was not working that day, or there was some special occasion. Ms. Wiggins testified that she always let Ms. Jackson and Ms. Santiago know whether she would be taking the children to Oak Hill. Ms. Santiago confirmed that Ms. Wiggins was scrupulous in informing her of the children's transportation arrangements. Ms. Santiago and Ms. Wiggins had a close working relationship because of their mutual concerns with K.J.'s autism. Ms. Santiago testified that in her experience, Ms. Wiggins had never dropped her children off at Oak Hill without personally leaving K.J. with her. Sharon McKahand is K.J.'s grandmother and Ms. Wiggins' mother-in-law. Ms. McKahand was sometimes responsible for picking up K.J. from school or from day care but never for dropping him off in the morning. Nancy Garrett is a fifth grade teacher at Oak Hill. She also is the extended day director at Oak Hill for early and after-school care. Ms. Garrett's responsibilities include overseeing children who are brought to Oak Hill between 7:00 a.m. and 8:05 a.m. because their parents have to go to work early. Ms. Garrett stated that there were approximately 55 children who stayed in early care during the early part of the 2010-2011 school year. Ms. Garrett is assisted by a paraprofessional named Barbara Johnson. Neither K.J. nor A.S. was enrolled in the early care program at Oak Hill. One day near the end of September 2010,5/ Ms. Garrett found K.J. and A.S. in a hallway at Oak Hill at a time close to 7:00 a.m. The children were not accompanied by an adult. Ms. Garrett did not know the children's names and had no idea how they got there. Philip Gardner, a special education teacher who specialized in autistic children, recognized K.J. and took the children to his classroom. Ms. Garrett noted that it was not quite light outside when the children were dropped off. She was there for early care, and Mr. Gardner was a well-known "early bird," but aside from them, there were very few people on the Oak Hill campus at seven in the morning. Ms. Garrett reasonably believed that because the children were "tiny," and K.J. had special needs, an adult should have been with the children. A couple of days later, Ms. Garrett was at Oak Hill at about the same time in the morning and heard "little knockings going on in the hallway." Upon investigation, she discovered K.J. and A.S. again alone in the hallway. This time, Ms. Garrett took the children to Ms. Santiago's classroom. Ms. Santiago and Ms. Garret asked the children who had dropped them off. K.J.'s language deficits were such that he was unable to answer. A.S. told Ms. Santiago that they had been dropped off by "the day care." Ms. Garrett then informed Ms. Santiago that this was not the first time she had found the children alone in the hallway. Ms. Santiago phoned Ms. Wiggins to alert her that her children had been found roaming the campus unattended and that A.S. said that the day care had dropped them off. Ms. Santiago testified that Ms. Wiggins was "livid" when she learned that her children had been wandering the campus unattended. Ms. Wiggins was at work when Ms. Santiago called her. Because she was unable to leave work to address the issue, Ms. Wiggins contacted Ms. McKahand and asked her to go to Oak Hill and make further inquiries into the situation. Ms. McKahand immediately went to Oak Hill. The receptionist at Oak Hill could not tell Ms. McKahand who had dropped off the children that morning. Ms. McKahand next went to Tiny Blessings. Ms. McKahand testified that Ms. Jackson stated that Tiny Blessings had dropped off the children that morning, but that they had dropped the children off on time and would never drop them off early. Ms. King testified that she learned of this incident while investigating a report that staff of the day care was physically abusive to a school-age child who arrived at Tiny Blessings early in the morning. Ms. King arrived at the day care early on the morning of October 13, 2010, to interview parents as they dropped off their children. She saw Ms. Wiggins dropping off K.J. and A.S. Ms. King noted that A.S. appeared to be of school age. She asked Ms. Wiggins whether the day care was transporting A.S. to school. This was significant to Ms. King because Tiny Blessings had told the Department that it did not provide transportation. Ms. Wiggins told Ms. King that Tiny Blessings had been providing school transportation for both children since the start of the school year. Ms. King then asked Ms. Wiggins if she had any concerns about the care her children received at Tiny Blessings. Ms. Wiggins proceeded to tell Ms. King about her children being dropped off at Oak Hill by Tiny Blessings and later being found wandering in the hallway at the school. Ms. King informed Ms. Wiggins that she would have to make other provisions for the transportation of her children to school, because Tiny Blessings did not have an employee who met the licensing standards to transport children. Ms. Wiggins told Ms. King that in that event she would remove her children from Tiny Blessings. With Ms. Wiggins' permission, Ms. King interviewed A.S., who told Ms. King that "Joe" drove her and K.J. to and from Oak Hill. Joseph Williams is Ms. Jackson's son and an employee of Tiny Blessings. Ms. King interviewed Mr. Williams, who admitted transporting children in his mother's vehicle but denied ever dropping off the children without ensuring they were released to school staff at the curbside pick-up and drop-off location. Ms. Santiago, who assisted in the curbside pick-up, recalled that a "young man" frequently picked up the children after school. Mr. Williams did not testify at the hearing. At the hearing, Ms. Jackson denied that Tiny Blessings ever dropped the children off early. Ms. Jackson testified that on many days the children could not have been dropped off early at school because Ms. Wiggins did not drop them off at Tiny Blessings until around 8:00 a.m. Ms. Jackson introduced Tiny Blessings' parent sign-in sheets for the period from September 20, 2010, through September 29, 2010. On September 20, Ms. Wiggins dropped off the children at 8:04 a.m. On September 21, 2010, Ms. Wiggins dropped off the children at 8:11 a.m. On September 22, Ms. Wiggins dropped off A.S. at 7:59 a.m.; the sheet indicated that K.J. was not dropped off at the day care. On September 23, the date that Ms. Santiago believed to be the second date on which the children were found wandering the school, Ms. Wiggins dropped off the children at 7:09 a.m. On Friday, September 24, Ms. Wiggins dropped off the children at 7:04 a.m. On Monday, September 27, Ms. Wiggins dropped off the children at 7:36 a.m. On September 28, Ms. Wiggins dropped off the children at 8:02 a.m. On September 29, Ms. Wiggins dropped off the children at 7:11 a.m. Ms. Jackson testified that on days when the children were brought to Tiny Blessings at around seven, they were given breakfast at the day care before being transported to Oak Hill. On days when Ms. Wiggins was running late, Ms. Jackson would drive the children directly to school. School staff persons would be waiting at the curb to take the children from the vehicle. Ms. Jackson testified that she had one child whom she had to pick up from the child's home no later than 7:30 a.m. By the time she returned to the day care at around 7:45, it would be time to transport school-age children such as A.S. Ms. Jackson stated that, within the strictures of her morning schedule, it would make no sense for her to drive K.J. and A.S. to school before 7:45 a.m. Ms. Jackson testified that on the days in question, Ms. Wiggins must have dropped the children off at school herself. She noted that on September 22, Ms. Wiggins had not dropped both children off at Tiny Blessings because K.J. was sick. It is problematic that the Department could not definitely state the dates on which K.J. and A.S. were dropped off at the school. However, the Department has proven facts sufficient to establish Tiny Blessings' responsibility for the incident. Ms. Garrett and Ms. Santiago were absolutely clear that both K.J. and A.S. had been dropped off early at Oak Hill and been found wandering the halls of the school. Ms. Garrett witnessed this situation twice within a few days. These teachers had no motive to invent such a story. Ms. Santiago testified as to the shock and anger registered by Ms. Wiggins when she learned that her children had been found wandering the school, and that Ms. Wiggins always came in and spoke to her when she dropped off her children at the school. Ms. Wiggins' testimony was credible and consistent with Ms. Santiago's observations. Ms. Jackson's own records established that Ms. Wiggins left both children at Tiny Blessings on each weekday morning between September 20 and 29, with the exception of September 22, when only A.S. was left at Tiny Blessings. Therefore, Ms. Wiggins could not have dropped off the children at Oak Hill at around 7:00 a.m. on any of those mornings. The children could only have been left at Oak Hill by Ms. Jackson or some agent of Tiny Blessings.6/ The Department did not prove that the children were dropped off at the school by Mr. Williams. The hearsay statements of Mr. Williams and A.S. are the only evidence supporting a finding that Mr. Williams drove the children to school. Though she denied that anyone at Tiny Blessings would ever drop off the children without supervision, Ms. Jackson testified that she did most of the driving in the mornings. Mr. Williams drove mostly in the afternoons, picking up the children from Oak Hill. Counts V, VI, and VII Ms. King followed up her October 13, 2010, investigation with a visit to Tiny Blessings on October 14. During the follow up visit, Ms. King observed an individual named Trameka Monroe supervising the one-year-old children. Ms. King did not recognize Ms. Monroe and requested to see her personnel folder. The personnel folder showed no documentation that Ms. Monroe had undergone an employment history check, a part of the background screening the Department requires of child care personnel. Also, Ms. Monroe's folder contained no documentation of the required FBI/FDLE criminal records clearance. Ms. Jackson testified that Ms. Monroe had obtained background screening and that her local law enforcement clearance and FDLE/FBI clearance had been completed on October 13, 2010. She introduced a document produced by the Department stating that it had received Ms. Monroe's complete criminal history records and found nothing that would disqualify her from working for Tiny Blessings. The letter stated: "RESULTS VALID AS OF: 10/13/2010." However, the document also stated: "PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT CHECKS WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THE DETERMINATION/PROCESS." No evidence was presented that Ms. Monroe's background screening was ever fully completed. Ms. Jackson did not provide an employment history for Ms. Monroe. Ms. Jackson testified that Ms. Monroe was so anxious to start work at Tiny Blessings that she personally went to the Department's office on October 13 to have her background check completed. Ms. Jackson stated that the morning of October 14 was Ms. Monroe's first day on the job, and that it was a coincidence that this was the day Ms. King arrived at the facility. Ms. Monroe did not testify at the hearing. In the absence of any information in the personnel file confirming the status of Ms. Monroe's background screening, Ms. King instructed Ms. Monroe to leave the premises, which she did. Ms. Jackson testified that Ms. Monroe never came back "because of how rude Ms. King was." Ms. King also observed that the personnel file for employee Sarra Brown was incomplete. Ms. Brown had been employed previously at Tiny Blessings, but at some point she had been terminated and then rehired. Ms. Jackson provided no records to show the dates of the prior employment or how many days elapsed from the day Ms. Brown was fired to the date she was rehired. Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C- 22.006(4)(e)6. provides that child care personnel must be re- screened following a break in employment in the child care industry that exceeds 90 days. Because Ms. Brown's file lacked an employment history, Ms. King was not able to determine whether or for how long Ms. Brown had been out of the day care industry. Ms. King required Ms. Brown to leave the premises. The personnel files of both Ms. Monroe and Ms. Brown were missing completed Form 5131 and CS-FSP 5337, "Child Abuse & Neglect Reporting Requirements" ("Form 5337"). Ms. Monroe's file lacked the forms entirely; Ms. Brown's forms were incomplete. Ms. Brown later completed the forms in her file. Ms. Monroe did not complete the forms, possibly because she never came back to Tiny Blessings after Ms. King directed her to leave on October 14.
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 imposing a fine of $1,225.00 upon Lawanda Jackson d/b/a Tiny Blessings, and suspending License Number C04DU0799 until such time as the Department grants Lawanda Jackson an exemption from disqualification pursuant to section 435.07, Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of December, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 12th day of December, 2011.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether the Department of Revenue should retain and apply the Petitioner’s $800.00 lottery prize to reduce an outstanding arrearage for child support.
Findings Of Fact Department of Revenue and Department of Lottery 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. On or about April 30, 2001, Johnson made a claim to a lottery prize in the amount of $800.00. The DOR notified the DOL that Johnson was indebted to the state for court-ordered child support through the court depository, in the amount of $10,626.79. Pursuant to Subsection 24.115(4), Florida Statutes, Petitioner’s entire lottery prize was transferred to DOR by DOL. Petitioner was given written notice on April 30, 2001, of the DOR’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 Income Deduction dated September 13, 1989, Petitioner is subject to a lawful order requiring him to pay child support. Johnson has failed to discharge his child support obligations pursuant to that judgment, and as of December 8, 1995, Johnson's arrears were $10,626.79. DOR intends to apply the Petitioner’s lottery prize in the amount of $800.00 to partially satisfy his 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 Johnson's $800.00 lottery prize to be applied to reduce the accrued arrearage on Johnson's child support obligation. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of January, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ 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 11th day of January, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: William Johnson 2815 Northwest 95th Street Miami, Florida 33147 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 issue presented is whether Petitioner's license to operate a child care facility should be revoked.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Geraldine Lee was the owner and operator of a child care facility, licensed by the State of Florida and known as The Children's Palace II. On November 14, 2004, there were eighteen children in the care of The Children's Palace II. Each child was signed in by the child's parent when the child arrived each morning, and one of Lee's employees then signed that the child was actually there. The child was then signed out when the child was picked up that day. The facility was open until 10:00 p.m. However, the facility closed earlier if all the children had been picked up before that time. On November 14 when Taunya Patterson brought her six- month-old son Kenneth Geddes to the facility, she neglected to sign in her son, and no employee counter-signed. Thus, there was no written record that he was there. At that time, Geddes had been receiving child care at The Children's Palace II for two months. When Patterson returned to the facility at 9:00 p.m. to pick up her son, she found the facility closed, locked, and dark. She summoned the police, who, in turn, summoned Geraldine Lee, who came to the facility. She unlocked the facility and Patterson's son was in the crib where he normally slept, lying on his stomach and crying. The infant was unharmed. Geraldine Lee had left the facility that day at approximately 7:30 p.m. Before leaving the facility, she walked through but did not see any children still there. She left her employee Theresa Leverett in charge of the facility. At approximately 8:30 p.m. Lee returned to the facility to pick up her granddaughter. Leverett was leaving the facility when Lee was picking up her granddaughter. On December 3, 2004, the Department notified Lee that it was revoking her license to operate a child care facility effective immediately. On August 18, 2004, Lee had been issued a provisional license for The Children's Palace II, effective August 20, 2004, to February 19, 2005. Once before, The Children's Palace II had been issued a provisional license but had been issued a regular license thereafter. Prior to November 14, 2004, no child had been left alone in the facility. The only prior similar incident occurred when an employee walked out of a room where a child was present, thereby leaving the child unsupervised.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that the Department failed to meet its burden of proof and dismissing its notice of intent to revoke the license of The Children's Palace II. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of December, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINDA M. RIGOT 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 6th day of December, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Robin Whipple-Hunter, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services Post Office Box 2417 Jacksonville, Florida 32231-0083 Thomas A. Delegal, III, Esquire Delegal Law Offices, P.A. 424 East Monroe Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Gregory Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204B 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Slye, Acting General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The ultimate issue is whether, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services may intercept Daniels' income tax refund. However, this turns on the issue of whether Daniels has been delinquent in excess of 3 months. Factually, Daniels owed money for aid provided his child. The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services has obtained a judgement in the amount of $6,673 upon which Daniels is to make payments of $25/month. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services argues that Daniels owes and has been delinquent on the $6,673 since the order was entered. Daniels argues that he is not over three months in arrears on his payments of $25/month. The evidence introduced by Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services shows Daniels is in arrears only $27.91 on his payments on the judgement. The issue is whether Section 45 CFR Section 303.72 requires a delinquency in payments required to be made on the amount of money established in a court order.
Findings Of Fact On October 10, 1981, Carol Renee Neal assigned to the State of Florida her rights to child support for Latoya v. Daniels, acknowledged child of Ira Clayton Daniels. An Order was entered on January 14, 1985, which established that Ira Clayton Daniels owed the State of Florida $6,673 for a public assistance child support obligation and provided that Ira Clayton Daniels would pay $25/month until the $6,673 was repaid. The records of the Department, Daniels' Exhibit 1, reflect Daniels has made regular payments on the debt, and at the time of the hearing owed $27.91 arrearage on the debt. Daniels was less than three months in arrears on his payments established by the Order referenced above.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, the claim against Ira Clayton Daniels should be dismissed. DONE AND ORDERED 16th day of September 1986 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 16th day of September 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Warren J. Schulman, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Child Support Enforcement Program 105 East Monroe, Suite 101 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Frederick J. Simpson, Esquire HRS District IV Legal Counsel Post Office Box 2417 Jacksonville, Florida 32231-0083 Ira C. Daniels 8904 Greenleaf Road Jacksonville, Florida 32208
The Issue The issue in the case is whether, under the provisions of Section 409.25656, Florida Statutes, the Department of Revenue may apply bank account funds identified as belonging to Kim Sheldon towards an unpaid child support obligation.
Findings Of Fact By Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage dated August 9, 1995 (Case No. 95-742-CA-01, Fifth Judicial Circuit, Hernando County, Florida), Kim C. Meccariello was divorced from Dale W. Meccariello. Kim C. Meccariello subsequently remarried and is known as Kim C. Sheldon. As part of the settlement agreement in the 1995 divorce, Kim C. Sheldon (Petitioner) became obligated to pay monthly child support in the amount of $472.82. On November 1, 1999, the Department of Revenue (Department) became involved in this matter when the Petitioner's former husband apparently filed a "Request for Participation in Central Depository Program Pursuant to Florida Statute 61.13" seeking to have the Department collect unpaid child support on his behalf. By form letter dated December 1, 1999, the Department notified the supervisor of the Support Division, Hernando County that payments in the case should be redirected to the Department. The Petitioner asserts that she did not get a copy of this notice. The certificate of service indicates a copy was mailed to her. The Petitioner asserts that because she did not get the notice, the child support debt accounting fails to include payments made directly to her former husband, but has no documentation of the form or amount of such payments. There is no documentation that any direct payments were made. The evidence fails to establish that such direct payments occurred. Although the exact amount of unpaid child support owed by the Petitioner is disputed, the evidence clearly establishes that her unpaid child support debt clearly exceeds the amount of funds at issue in this proceeding. By Notice of Freeze dated July 7, 2000, the Department directed the MacDill Federal Credit Union to freeze the Petitioner's funds in the institution based on an unpaid child support obligation in the amount of $6,619.48. The Department subsequently received a letter on MacDill Federal Credit Union letterhead, dated July 11, 2000, and indicating that the Petitioner had two accounts at the institution: a savings account (#126552-01) containing $495.65; and a checking account (#126552-15) containing $1,123.42. By Notice of Intent to Levy dated July 14, 2000, the Department notified the Petitioner that the funds had been frozen and advised her of her right to challenge the action. The Petitioner requested a formal hearing. A letter from Strategic Outsourcing, Inc., dated July 18, 2000, states that the Petitioner's husband is an employee of Nicon, Inc., and that his wages are direct deposited into MacDill Federal Credit Union account #126522 on a weekly basis. Strategic Outsourcing, Inc., apparently handles payroll processing for Nicon, Inc. By Notice of Special Account release dated July 26, 2000, the Department notified the MacDill Federal Credit Union that all but $550.00 in the checking account (#126552-15) was released. The $495.65 in the savings account remained frozen. The total amount of currently frozen funds is $1,045.65. By Notice of Extension of Freeze dated July 27, 2000, the Department notified the MacDill Federal Credit Union that the Petitioner was challenging the Department's freeze and that the funds should remain frozen until the matter is resolved. The Petitioner and her current spouse are joint holders of the accounts at the MacDill Federal Credit Union. Because her husband did not have time to open the accounts, the Petitioner opened the accounts by herself, and her husband was added about a week later. The Department's decision to release the checking account funds (except for $550.00) was apparently based on conversations with the couple and upon receipt of the letter from Strategic Outsourcing, Inc. The funds were released based on the Department's determination that, other than $550.00, the checking account funds were directly attributable to the Petitioner's husband's income. The Department asserts that the currently frozen funds should be used to satisfy, in part, the Petitioner's unpaid child support obligation. The Petitioner asserts that since February 2000, she has been unemployed, that none of the funds in the accounts are attributable to her earnings, and that the funds should not be used to satisfy her unpaid child support obligation. According to the bank statement for the period March 1, 2000, to March 31, 2000, the balance in the checking account on March 1, 2000, was $862.10. There is no evidence that the March 1 balance did not include funds earned by and attributable to the Petitioner. According to account statements, a total of $2,170.97 in unidentified deposits were made to the account between March 1, 2000, and July 15, 2000, including a $958.97 cash deposit on April 24, 2000, a $162.00 cash deposit on May 8, 2000, a $500.00 check deposit on June 8, 2000, and a $550 deposit of unidentified type on July 3, 2000. At the hearing, the Petitioner and her husband testified that deposits into the checking account not directly attributable to his income were made by grown children residing at home and contributing towards household expenses which were allegedly paid from the husband's income. Other deposits were claimed to be small loans or gifts from family members. There was no documentation offered at the hearing to support the testimony. None of the children or relatives testified at the hearing. The evidence fails to establish that the deposits in the joint account came from adult children or other relatives. According to the bank statement for the period April 1, 2000, to April 30, 2000, a deposit on April 21, 2000, of $627.00 described as "US TREASURY 220" was a tax refund. The Petitioner's husband asserted that based on income, the refund was "90 percent" attributable to him. There was no documentation offered at the hearing to support the testimony. The evidence fails to establish that the tax refund deposited into the joint account is not attributable to the Petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Revenue issue a FINAL ORDER directing that $1,045.65 currently held at the MacDill Federal Credit Union be applied towards meeting the Petitioner's unpaid child support obligation. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of April, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 20th day of April, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Manuel V. Fajardo, Esquire 610 West Azeele Street Tampa, Florida 33606 Albert Thorburn, Esquire Florida Department of Revenue Post Office Box 8030 4070 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32314-8030 Linda Lettera, 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
