The Issue The issue at the hearing was whether Petitioner is entitled to an exemption from disqualification of employment as a person who has direct contact with aged or disabled adults.
Findings Of Fact In 1993, Petitioner was 25 years old. Petitioner was employed by Sunland to care for its disabled clients. Petitioner's duties included direct contact with the clients of Sunland. The background screen revealed that on November 9, 1993, Petitioner plead guilty to two counts of battery (domestic violence). The conviction was the result of a physical altercation between Petitioner and Petitioner's live-in boyfriend, during which Petitioner threw an iron at her boyfriend missing him and striking her 3 year-old child. As a consequence of the conviction, Petitioner was fined the minimum amount and sentenced to two years' probation. She was adjudicated guilty. Contrary to Petitioner's testimony, the evidence showed that Petitioner has had at least two other encounters with the criminal justice system. The greater weight of the evidence showed that Petitioner has a problem with controlling her anger and in controlling her violent response thereto. Based on the record in this case, Petitioner has not established by clear and convincing evidence that she will not be and is not a danger to disabled or elderly persons with which she might come into contact and that she has not learned to control her anger and use of physical aggression. The Petitioner is therefore not entitled to an exemption from disqualification from employment.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Children and Family Services enter a Final Order denying Petitioner, Tammie Collins, an exemption from disqualification from employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of February, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 February, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven Wallace, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services Suite 252 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2949 Tammie Collins Post Office Box 208 Greenwood, Florida 32444 Gregory D. Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John S. Slye, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to an exemption to work in a position of special trust upon clear and convincing proof of rehabilitation as required by Section 435.07(3), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact In 1988, Petitioner was the divorced mother of three girls, one of whom was S.H., who was eight years old. The other daughters were older. At that time, Petitioner and her second husband left her daughters in the care of a 14-year-old girl and walked down the street to a local store. When they returned, they found the girls entertaining several young men, in direct defiance of Petitioner's prior instructions. Petitioner flew into a rage. Petitioner inflicted visible marks on all three girls with a belt. Respondent's predecessor agency personnel came with the police, removed the children, and delivered them to their natural father. Petitioner pled nolo contendere to a single charge of aggravated child abuse against S.H. Adjudication was withheld. She was placed on five years' probation, including paying court costs, 60 hours of community service, and counseling at her own expense. She never violated her probation and earned early termination of probation. For a period of time, Petitioner lost custody of her daughters and was only permitted to see them during court-supervised visitations. During this period, Petitioner took anger management and parenting classes through Gainesville Mental Health Services, which she credits with changing her attitude and her life. She complied with all agency expectations. After a year and a half, the daughters wrote the circuit judge involved in the case, requesting that they be returned to their mother's custody. S.H. has lived with Petitioner ever since. S.H. is now almost 19 years old. Petitioner and S.H. live together and are devoted to each other. S.H. supports the exemption. Petitioner has been supportive of S.H. throughout S.H.'s recent unwed pregnancy and childbirth. Petitioner is helping S.H. raise her infant son. At the present time, the two older daughters live elsewhere. Both support the exemption. Some of S.H.'s testimony suggested a recantation of what she told authorities in 1988, but the documentary evidence clearly supports the 1988 charges against Petitioner of aggravated child abuse. Petitioner described her reasons for her 1988 outburst as being fear for her daughters because the men in the home had knives and because her children had endangered themselves by disobeying her and letting dangerous people in the house. She maintained that she never intended to hurt her children. She feels that she now knows how to manage her anger; give her children the listening ear they need; use "time-outs"; and be sensitive to their needs. She related attendance at women's counseling groups, and increased church activity. Petitioner ran her own cleaning company in 1988, and had worked at the County Health Department in Lake Butler, at Tacachalee, and in daycare prior to 1988. She related losing opportunities to compete for jobs at the Alachua County School Board, Alachua County Sheriff's Department, Tacachalee Institute, and in daycare positions since 1988, as a result of the statutory bar from working in a position of special trust and/or as a result of her 1988 criminal record. As a result, she has not had sufficient income to enroll in junior college as she had intended. Nonetheless, Petitioner has continued to work and support herself and her family. She currently works in a submarine sandwich shop. In 1996, the agency investigated an allegation by S.H. that she had been raped by an adult living in the home she shared with Petitioner. The man involved was a mentally retarded male, about 23 years of age, for whom Petitioner had assumed a caretaker role. Petitioner became payee for his Social Security Insurance benefits and moved him into her home for approximately four months. Petitioner testified that as soon as S.H. made the rape accusation, Petitioner transferred the man out of her home and transferred his custody to another member of her church. This man is not the father of S.H.'s child. Petitioner claimed that it had not occurred to her that a retarded person who behaved like a small child could be capable of sexual acts. She claimed that S.H. recanted the 1996 rape charge to the authorities and admitted to consensual sex with the retarded man, but S.H. was not recalled to the stand to verify Petitioner's statement. Apparently, no charges were brought against Petitioner for this 1996 incident. Petitioner denied that she had been arrested for theft in 1998. The agency submitted no evidence of such an arrest or criminal charge. Mr. Odell Hartman is employed by the agency as a Behavior Specialist at Tacachalee Institute. He has known Petitioner only for the last year. He met her through Bible study at their church. He is confident in leaving his young son in her care. He believes that Petitioner has had a complete change of heart and that everyone is entitled to a second chance. Letrail Roberson has known Petitioner for the last five years. She has a son who is now about 23 months old. They attend the same church as Petitioner, who is involved in the church's dance ministry and Sunday School. Ms. Roberson's son enjoys Petitioner's company and follows her around. Ms. Roberson has observed Petitioner to be "patient, loving, and kind-hearted" with the children at the church, especially with her son. Petitioner submitted, without objection, several letters in support of her receiving an exemption or supporting her applications for employment. All attest to her good character. Few specified a lengthy involvement with Petitioner.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Family Services enter a final order granting Petitioner an exemption to work in a position of special trust. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of October, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 4th day of October, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Lucy Goddard, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 1000 Northeast 16th Avenue, Box 3 Gainesville, Florida 32601 Betty Joe White Post Office Box 5412 Gainesville, Florida 32627 John S. Slye, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory D. Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Rooms 204B 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner’s application to adopt a minor child should be denied because it is in the best interest of the child.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, in accordance with chapters 39, 63, and 409 Florida Statutes (2013),3/ is the agency tasked with, among other things, the responsibility to deny or approve adoption applications. The minor child was born in May 2013 and placed in Petitioner’s home in that same month.4/ At all times relevant to this case, the minor child’s biological parents were unable or unwilling to take responsibility for their child. Termination of parental rights was completed in October 2013. Petitioner is the minor child’s step-grandmother. Petitioner filed an application to adopt the minor child on November 25, 2013, listing her address as 4203 East Hanna Avenue, Tampa, Florida. A home study, which is an assessment of the potential adoptive parent’s home environment, parental capacity to support the child and the relationships with individuals both inside and outside the home of the potential adoptive parent, must be conducted prior to an adoption. On November 26, 2013, the home study was conducted at the Hanna Avenue address. Several areas of concern were noted in the home study; the home was cluttered and dirty with soiled dishes in the sink and fast food bags and wrappers throughout the home. On February 11, 2014, the AARC met to review Petitioner’s application to adopt the minor child. Petitioner was present at the AARC meeting. The following concerns were expressed during the AARC meeting: Petitioner’s monthly expenses far exceed her income; Petitioner has a criminal history and is currently on probation for the last offense, and served 10 days in jail in January 2014 without telling Respondent where she was and who was attending the minor child; Petitioner has significant health issues including congestive heart failure, diabetes, high blood pressure and a bulging disc in her back; Petitioner is legally married but has been separated from her husband for over 20 years without any knowledge of whether her husband is alive or dead; and there have been multiple abuse reports, although some indicators of abuse were not substantiated. Additionally, Petitioner has moved from the residence where the home study was conducted in November. That move to a different address invalidated the home study and another home study would have to be conducted to evaluate Petitioner’s current living situation. Petitioner’s expenses, as she detailed, far exceed her income. Petitioner receives approximately $820 a month in income, yet her living expenses include $800 rent, $150 in utility services, and $50 for water. Currently, Petitioner’s two daughters and their children (each daughter has a child) live with her in a three-bedroom home. Petitioner has her own bedroom. Each daughter has her own bedroom which is shared with her child. One daughter, (B), currently works at a hotel. Daughter B supplements Petitioner’s income to run the household. However, Daughter B has indicated she wants to move out. She has not given a specific move date. The other daughter, (M), was arrested in May 2014 for allegedly stealing electricity from Tampa Electric. The charge was dropped when Daughter M paid the electrical bill and court costs. That daughter is applying for a job but is without an income to support herself and her child at this time. Respondent does not consider income from persons other than the applicant in its review of potential adoptive parent’s application. In November 2010 Petitioner entered a plea of guilty to allegations of fraudulent use of a credit card and grand theft. The circuit court in Hillsborough County withheld adjudication of guilt, but placed Petitioner on 24 months of probation with the requirement to re-pay the money and all mandatory court costs. Petitioner has been arrested three times on violation of probation (VOP) for her failure to timely pay the costs. Petitioner’s last arrest, in January 2014 resulted in a ten-day jail term for the VOP. Although Petitioner’s adult daughters were tending to the minor child, neither Petitioner nor her daughters notified Respondent that Petitioner was not available for the minor child’s needs. Petitioner anticipates paying the remainder of the costs within the next few weeks when one of her daughters receives her income tax refund. Petitioner has significant health concerns. While at work several years ago, Petitioner sustained a back injury, a bulging disc. She is not seeking rehabilitation for her back, and is not planning on returning to work. Petitioner confirmed she has a history of high blood pressure and congestive heart failure, although she is currently feeling well. Additionally, Petitioner verified that she takes insulin four times a day to control her diabetes. Petitioner married D.B. on June 28, 1993. Petitioner has obtained the form to file for a divorce, but to date no petition for divorce has been filed by either Petitioner or D.B. Petitioner has had several reports of child abuse since 1990; however, some of those reports have been unsubstantiated. Petitioner and the minor child have lived in no less than three different homes over the past year. Petitioner submitted her adoption application while residing at one home and Respondent conducted the requisite home study at that location. However, even before the AARC meeting could take place, Petitioner had moved to another home, thus voiding the home study. Petitioner’s frequent moves does not provide a stable living environment for the minor child. Ms. Spofford has worked as a guardian ad litem (GAL) for over three years. A GAL advocates for the best interest of the child and may, at times, express different advocacy positions than the biological parents, potential adoptive parents, caregivers or, as in this case, Petitioner. GAL Spofford was appointed as the minor child’s GAL approximately three weeks after his birth, and she has visited with the minor child at least once a month since that appointment. GAL Spofford makes both announced and unannounced visits to Petitioner’s home to visit with the minor child. As a small baby, the minor child was not mobile, and GAL Spofford was not as concerned about his home environment. However, the minor child is now mobile and GAL Spofford has a lot of concerns. On one particular unannounced visit, GAL Spofford was allowed into the home by a three- or four-year old child, when no adult was present.5/ GAL Spofford picked up the minor child and discovered he had a wad of paper in his mouth, which GAL Spofford removed. In this one instance alone, the supervision of the minor child and the other young children was inadequate. Based on the totality of the circumstances, GAL Spofford believes it is in the minor child’s best interest to be adopted by another family. There is no dispute that Petitioner loves the minor child. Petitioner has cared for the minor child since his discharge from the hospital. Petitioner’s witnesses were unified in their observations of how Petitioner loved the minor child and looks out for his interest. Although Petitioner wants to adopt and care for the minor child, current circumstances do not render that a viable option. Respondent has a formidable task in ascertaining the best interest of any child. It requires a look into the future and a prediction of what will happen. Petitioner’s past indiscretions do not lend themselves to a stable and secure environment for the minor child. It is in the minor child’s best interest to be adopted by someone other than Petitioner.
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 application to adopt the minor child. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of June, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK 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 26th day of June, 2014.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Petitioner has demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that she is rehabilitated from disqualifying offenses, and whether Respondent’s intended agency action to deny her request for an exemption from disqualification is an abuse of discretion.
Findings Of Fact Parties Respondent is the state agency responsible for regulating employment of persons who provide direct service to APD clients. APD clients are a vulnerable population of individuals whose developmental disabilities include intellectual disability, autism, spina bifida, cerebral palsy, Prader-Willi syndrome, and Down syndrome. Respondent’s clients are often incapable of adequately communicating their needs or whether they have been harmed. Therefore, employment as a direct service provider to Respondent’s clients is considered a position of trust. A person seeking employment in a position of trust must undergo a pre-employment Level 2 background screening to ensure the person has not been convicted of crimes that may pose a threat to vulnerable persons. Petitioner is a 35-year-old female who seeks to qualify for employment with a direct service provider (Right Direction Christian Center, Inc.) in a position of trust. The position for which she applied required that she undergo Level 2 background screening. The Level 2 background screening revealed that Petitioner committed five disqualifying offenses between July 1, 2004, and August 4, 2005, which were described as follows: Count I: Aggravated Child Abuse with a Deadly Weapon (first degree felony); Count II: Aggravated Child Abuse by Great Bodily Harm (first degree felony); Count III: Child Neglect (third degree felony); Count IV: Child Neglect (third degree felony); and Count V: Child Neglect (third degree felony). Disqualifying Offenses The events leading to the disqualifying offenses occurred 11 years ago, when Petitioner was 24 years old. She had two biological children, a son (age 6) and a daughter (age 3), at the time of the events. Each of the disqualifying events involved Petitioner’s children. On August 4, 2005, the paternal aunt of Petitioner’s son observed injuries to the son’s foot and contacted the Leon County Sherriff’s Office to report suspected child abuse. The responding officer recorded his observations in a police report.2/ Petitioner’s son indicated that Petitioner struck him with a metal mop handle on his feet, legs, and arms as punishment. The deputy observed a three-quarters inch, circular-shaped laceration, with two smaller lacerations beside it on the inside of the son’s left heel. On August 16, 2005, a detective continued the investigation. During an interview with the detective, Petitioner’s son indicated that Petitioner struck him with a hanger causing “marks” on his back, which the detective photographed. The detective observed the “marks.” Petitioner’s son also complained of a toothache. He indicated Petitioner placed a heated hairpin in his tooth to resolve the tooth decay. The detective noted in his report that the tooth appeared to be decayed to the root. Petitioner also left her son and daughter at home without supervision, while Petitioner was at work. At the conclusion of the investigation, Petitioner was arrested and charged with child abuse and neglect. On October 26, 2005, Petitioner entered a plea of nolo contendere to all five disqualifying offenses described above. The court withheld adjudication of guilt, sentenced Petitioner to imprisonment of 70 days (with 62 days credited for time served), imposed 42 months of probation with special conditions that she: 1) follow orders of the Department of Children and Families; 2) complete parenting and anger management classes within one year; and 3) pay court costs and fees. Petitioner completed all terms and was released from probation on July 30, 2009. On May 10, 2016, Petitioner paid the civil judgment related to costs and fees imposed for her 2005 offenses and the court issued a Satisfaction of Judgment. Non-Disqualifying Offense In addition to disqualifying offenses, agencies may also consider criminal events that occur after the disqualifying offense. The background screening revealed one non- disqualifying offense. On June 13, 2006, Petitioner was charged with Violation of Probation (“VOP”) for driving without a valid driver’s license. As a result of the VOP charge, on November 16, 2006, the court issued an Order modifying the probation. The Order of modification added 30 days in jail with credit for time served and prohibited Petitioner from early termination of probation. Exemption Request/Agency Review By letter, Respondent notified Petitioner that she was disqualified from employment because of her criminal offenses. She requested an exemption from disqualification. Petitioner filed her Request for Exemption with the Department of Children and Families (“DCF”). DCF conducts the background screening and prepares an exemption investigation file on Respondent’s behalf. A DCF background screener compiled the investigation materials and forwarded the exemption review file to Respondent. Petitioner’s file was assigned to Lynne Daw for a recommendation regarding the exemption request. Ms. Daw is the regional operations manager for the Northwest region. She has been employed in that position since April 2012. Her job responsibilities include overseeing operations of the region, background screening, and eligibility for direct service providers. Ms. Daw reviewed Petitioner’s exemption request file, which included the exemption review summary, court documents, police reports and supporting affidavits, Petitioner’s exemption questionnaire, notice of termination of probation supervision, affidavit of good moral character, character reference letters, reference check verification form, high school diploma from Cornerstone Christian Correspondence School, and certificate of completion for a parenting class. Respondent considers the nature of the disqualifying offenses when evaluating a request for exemption. At hearing, Ms. Daw testified that the nature of the disqualifying criminal charges were concerning due to the vulnerability of the clients Respondent serves. In her review, Ms. Daw relied upon statements contained in the police report made by a physician who examined Petitioner’s son. Those statements are hearsay within hearsay. Because the statements do not meet any hearsay exception, they cannot be considered for a finding of fact. Respondent also considers the history of an applicant since the incident and other evidence or circumstances indicating whether the applicant would present a danger to Respondent’s clients if employment is permitted. Respondent considers counseling a factor, when the nature of the offense involves acts of anger. Ms. Daw testified that there was no evidence in the exemption packet to show Petitioner completed an anger management course. During the hearing, however, Petitioner refuted this contention and stated she completed an anger management course. The evidence in the record includes a notice of termination of supervision from Petitioner’s probation officer. Completion of an anger management course was a term of Petitioner’s probation. Therefore, a reasonable inference could be drawn that she completed the anger management course. Ms. Daw also expressed concern for safety of Respondent’s clients who could be transported by Petitioner. Of note, Petitioner’s background screening revealed several traffic violations. However, none of the violations involved injuries to passengers or others. Subsequent to the disqualifying offenses, Petitioner has furthered her education by earning a general education diploma (also known as GED) on December 1, 2011, and a certified nursing assistance (CNA) certification on November 16, 2015. She is not eligible to take the certification exam due to the Level 2 screening results. Petitioner also maintained employment after her convictions until June 4, 2015. From April 3, 2006, to June 4, 2015, Petitioner worked at Big Lots as a recovery associate. From April 8, 2012, to May 6, 2014, Petitioner worked at Vector Connect (Cutco) as a sales representative. She described her duties as selling cutlery. Petitioner provided favorable reference letters in support of her request for exemption. The first letter described Petitioner as patient, dependable, and trustworthy. The author indicated that Petitioner served as the primary caregiver for her physically disabled mother. It is not clear, however, the length of time Petitioner provided the care to the author’s mother or whether Petitioner was paid for her work. The second letter indicated Petitioner is kind and professional. The author of that letter is described as a friend. Overall, the letters indicated Petitioner may be a good employee but were not helpful on the issue of rehabilitation. Ms. Daw concluded that, considering the totality of the circumstances, there was no clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner could work in a position of trust without posing a safety risk to Respondent’s clients. As a result, Ms. Daw recommended the request for exemption be denied and submitted the exemption file to the agency director, Barbara Palmer, for final determination. The agency director issued the notice of denial on May 27, 2016, notifying Petitioner of Respondent’s determination to deny her request for exemption. Given the nature of harm due to physical abuse and the potential of harm due to neglect, Petitioner’s actions raise concern about her ability to work with vulnerable persons. Absent compelling evidence that such serious behavior will not be repeated, Petitioner has not met her burden. Ultimate Findings of Fact The evidence in this case did not clearly and convincingly establish that Petitioner has been rehabilitated from her disqualifying offenses. Despite Petitioner’s statements that she accepts full responsibility for her actions, she continues to shift blame to her son’s aunt for her arrest and continues to deny that she left her young children at home alone. To her credit, Petitioner has taken steps to improve her life by earning a GED and CNA certificate and by volunteering with the elderly in the community. However, such evidence is not sufficient clear and convincing evidence of rehabilitation. Respondent did not abuse its discretion in denying Petitioner’s request for exemption from the disqualifying offenses because, on these facts, a reasonable person would reach the same conclusion.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Agency for Persons with Disabilities, enter a final order denying Petitioner, Shimika King’s, request for an exemption from disqualification. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of October, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S YOLONDA Y. GREEN 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 October, 2016.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner was subjected to discrimination in the work environment by Respondent due to Petitioner's race in violation of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Mildred M. Moultrie (Petitioner) is a member of a protected class. She is a black female who applied for employment in the position of Deputy Court Administrator for Juvenile Services with the First Judicial Circuit of Florida (Respondent). The primary duties of the position sought by Petitioner required service as the liaison between the Judiciary and the Department of Juvenile Justice, Department of Children and Family Services, local law enforcement agencies, schools and other community organizations serving the juvenile justice system. Petitioner had no experience in working with juveniles, and was unaware that dependent children were a part of the juvenile system. All applications and/or resumes submitted were reviewed and scored on a point system that assigned points to the following areas: education, related education, juvenile experience, and management experience. The points allocated were totaled and applicants with a score of seven or higher were submitted to the selection committee for oral interview. Petitioner did not score the minimum seven points and was initially informed that she would not be granted an interview. Petitioner contacted J. Wayne Peacock, Court Administrator for the First Judicial Circuit to inquire why she was not given an interview. Peacock advised Petitioner that she did not score the required number of points. Nevertheless, Peacock agreed to grant Petitioner an interview anyway. Petitioner was added to the group of applicants to be presented for oral interview with the Selection Committee. The Selection Committee was composed of J. Wayne Peacock, Court Administrator (white male); John Parnham, Circuit Court Judge, Juvenile Division (white male); and Eugene Brown, Director, Pensacola/Escambia County Human Relations Commission (black male). The committee selected Pauline Ryan (white female), for the position based upon, including but not limited to, her prior work experience as a Case Coordinator II assigned to the Escambia County Family Focused Juvenile Drug Court and the strength of her oral interview with the Selection Committee. Ryan's work experience from 1993 to the time of her selection has been directly related to juvenile services and exceeds the juvenile work experience of Petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of October, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DON W. DAVIS 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 17th day of October, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: John Lewis Allbritton, Esquire Allbritton & Gant 322 West Cervantes Street Pensacola, Florida 32501 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mildred M. Moultrie Post Office Box 17705 Pensacola, Florida 3252 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the Department of Children and Family Services (Department) properly denied the renewal of Clay and Diana Merritt's family foster home license, No. 019917.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Children and Family Services is the administrative agency responsible for the licensing of foster homes under the laws of the State of Florida. The Department is responsible for investigating allegations of child abuse against citizens of the State of Florida. The Respondents, Clay Merritt and Diana Merritt were the holders of a foster care home license which was issued by the Department on January 27, 1997. That license was renewed in 1998 and provisionally renewed in 1999. During the period of time that the Respondents were a legally licensed foster home, three different children resided in their home, Amy C., Bo T. and Joe H. On January 27, 1999, an argument ensued between Respondents and Amy C. over Amy C.'s returning late from a date. During that argument, Amy stated that she would report the Merritts for sexual abuse if they did not relax their restrictions upon her. When the Respondents refused to relax their restrictions, Amy C. requested that she be removed from the home. The Department was called and Amy C. was removed from the foster home, and placed in a facility for run-a-way children in Gainesville, Florida. Very soon thereafter, Amy C. alleged that she had been sexually abused by the Respondent, Clay Merritt, on three occasions, all of which included sexual intercourse. The Respondent, Clay Merritt, denies the allegations in their entirety. Amy C. had been a prior victim of sexual abuse by her father, her brother, and her half brother. Amy C.'s father and her brother were convicted of sexually abusing her, and her father is still incarcerated. Amy C. testified at her father's criminal trial. Because of her prior abuse, Amy C. suffers from a number of mental disorders, to include post-traumatic stress syndrome, dysthymia, and attachment disorder. The child further evidences self-destructive behavior and vindictive behaviors against others. Susan Pierce counseled Amy C. for approximately nine months from early 1998 until the end of January of 1999. During that period of time, she developed a close therapeutic relationship with the child, and believed that the child was comfortable with her as a therapist. During that nine-month time period, the child never made any allegations of sexual abuse against the Respondent, Clay Merritt, although she discussed other instances of abuse with the counselor unrelated to the Respondents. Ms. Pierce felt Amy C. would have revealed abuse by Clay Merritt had such abuse occurred. The child lied on numerous occasions to her counselor and the Respondents. The child became increasingly interested in psychopathic murder, which was indicative of the disorders that were suffered by the child in Pierce's opinion. The child stated that she had been sexually abused by Clay Merritt in July, August, and September of 1997 and had a miscarriage in November or December of 1997. However, her diaries indicate that she had menstrual periods on October 25th and November 14th, 1997, thus precluding the possibility of pregnancy. The child further testified that the miscarriage was one of the most painful things she had ever encountered. The child stated under oath that she had not reported the miscarriage because "she did not want to hurt Diana's feelings." She stated to investigators that she did not report the abuse because she did not want to be taken out of the foster home. Throughout the period of time that Amy C. resided with the Respondents, she was a discipline problem. In June of 1998, Respondent, Diana Merritt, discovered Amy C. at home one afternoon with a boy with whom she had just completed having sexual intercourse. Diana Merritt took Amy C. to medical professionals for pregnancy testing and tests for sexually transmitted diseases. Diana Merritt counseled with Amy C. about the dangers of her conduct, and the Merritts maintained a closer watch upon the child. Amy C. refused to comply with the requests of the Respondents to restrict her sexual activities which led to numerous disagreements and arguments with Amy C. These arguments culminated in the argument of January 27, 1999, which resulted in Amy C.'s removal from the home. Amy C. was asked to take a voice stress test by the Sheriff's department, but she declined. The statements of Amy C. are contradictory with regard to specific facts. She gave two different dates for her alleged miscarriage: June and November 1997. She described severe physical trauma associated with the alleged miscarriage, but did not seek or receive medical assistance. She was subsequently examined and tested for sexually transmitted diseases as the result of an unrelated, consensual sexual relationship, and no findings were made indicating a prior, terminated pregnancy. Amy C.'s diaries are vague and unrevealing, except for the reporting the commencement of a menstrual period in October and in November. This is inconsistent with a reported miscarriage in December 1997. Because of the Amy C.'s prior abuse, resort to physical examination, or her description of details about the encounter is not helpful in resolving the her credibility. The allegations by Amy C. of sexual abuse by Clay Merritt are unsupported by any tangible evidence. Amy C.'s reputation for truth and veracity is not good. Her allegations are not supported by her diaries. Her allegations were made almost one and one-half years after the alleged events, and immediately after a fight with the Merritts. The Department's investigation revealed that the Merritts had spanked one of the other children on occasion in contravention of a Department policy banning corporal punishment. The Merritts did not deny this allegation; however, there was no evidence that these spankings were abusive. The spanking was a violation of agency policy; however, testimony was received that this type of conduct was generally not a basis for revoking a license by itself. The Respondent, Diana Merritt, is a licensed practical nurse who is employed by the Putnam County health Department. She has no prior criminal record, no prior child abuse record, nor has she had any legal difficulties in her life. The Respondent, Clay Merritt, is employed as a paramedic and firefighter. He is certified as a paramedic. He has never been arrested nor had any child abuse allegations filed against him in his entire life. The guardian ad litem for Bo T. testified that Bo T. was suffering as the result of his removal from the Respondents' home. Bo T. was the child who was spanked. His guardian ad litem favored placing the child back in the Merritt's home and care.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department enter a final order renewing the foster home license No. 19917 of the Respondents. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of March, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 3rd day of March, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Lucy Goddard, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 1000 Northeast 16th Avenue, Box 3 Gainesville, Florida 32601 Richard J. D'Amico, Esquire 619 North Grandview Avenue Daytona Beach, Florida 32118 John S. Slye, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Samuel C. Chavers, Acting Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204B 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact Respondent Hostetler holds Certificate #432348 covering the areas of business education, physical education, and administration and supervision. Said certificate is valid through 1987. On or about October 2, 1978, Respondent pled guilty to child molestation in the State of Georgia and was placed on five years probation by the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia. See Exhibit 4.
Recommendation Having found the Respondent, Barry L. Hostetler, guilty of violating Section 231.28, Florida Statutes, it is recommended that the teaching certificate of the Respondent be revoked. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 11th day of January, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of January, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Roy L. Glass, Esquire 1400 66th Street, North, Suite 480 Post Office Box 10008 St. Petersburg, Florida 33733 Mr. Barry L. Hostetler 360 24th Street, NW, #1031 Winter Haven, Florida 33880 Donald L. Griesheimer, Director Education Practices Commission 319 West Madison Street, Room 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA EDUCATION PRACTICES COMMISSION RALPH D. TURLINGTON, as Commissioner of Education, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 82-1468 BARRY L. HOSTETLER, Respondent. /
Findings Of Fact The following are the facts to which the parties have stipulated: On September 27, 1977, the Circuit Court for the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit of Florida entered an order dissolving the marriage of Petitioner and Debra LaRhea Reynolds and incorporated into that order a stipulation whereby Petitioner agreed to pay child support in the amount of $20.00 per week. On April 13, 1977, Debra LaRhea Reynolds assigned her rights to child support to the Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. On June 25, 1982, the Circuit Court for the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit of Florida entered an order holding Petitioner in contempt for failure to pay accrued arrearages of child support in the amount of $4,280.00, to which Respondent was entitled by virtue of the assignment of rights referred to in paragraph 2. On June 8, 1982, the aforementioned court authorized a payroll deduction of $62.00 by weekly against Petitioner's paycheck. Under the terms of the contempt order, $40.00 of this amount was credited to the arrearage. As of June 23, 1987, the arrearage had been reduced to $1,960.00. On July 10, 1986, Respondent caused to be intercepted Petitioner's Federal Income Tax Refund of $1,080.03.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing stipulated Findings of Fact, and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a Final Order providing for the Petitioner's income tax refund in the amount of $1,080.03 to be intercepted and applied against his debt to the State of Florida for past due child support. Respectfully submitted and entered this 8th day of September, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 8th day of September, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Marian Alves, Esquire Legal Services of North Florida, Inc. 400 North Madison St. Quincy, Florida 32351 John R. Perry, Esquire Dept. of HRS, District 2, 2639 N. Monroe St. Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Dept. of HRS 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Sam Power, Clerk Dept. of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
