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
The Issue The issue is whether the Beatrice Guardian Angel Daycare violated provisions of chapters 402 and 435, Florida Statutes (2012), and/or Florida Administrative Code Chapter 65C-22, such that its license should not be renewed.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for inspecting, licensing, and monitoring child care facilities such as the one operated by the Daycare. It is the Department's responsibility to ensure that all such facilities are safe and secure for the protection of the children utilizing those facilities. The Department inspects each licensed day care center three times a year: two unannounced routine inspections (to ensure compliance with the applicable laws and rules), and one renewal application inspection. In the event of a complaint, additional inspections and/or investigations are conducted. Ms. Giles owned, operated and directed the Daycare. The Daycare located on West Lancaster Road opened in November 2011, and was in continuous operation at all times material.6/ Ms. Giles opened the Daycare at this particular location after operating it at a different location. Luz Torres is a family service counselor for the Department. Ms. Torres is trained to inspect day care centers for initial applications, renewal applications and routine inspections. Ms. Torres is familiar with the Daycare, having inspected it several times while it was operational. Inspections of the Daycare revealed operational deficiencies during four inspections, dated February 15; June 20,; July 2,; and November 7, 2012. The specific deficiencies were set forth on inspection reports provided to Ms. Giles at the time of each inspection. Ms. Torres conducted a routine inspection of the Daycare on February 15, 2012 (inspection one). A number of areas of noncompliance areas included physical environmental issues, such as insufficient lighting, gaps in fencing, ground cover for outdoor equipment, and training. Other areas included: a lack of documentation of employee educational courses showing literacy and developmental course training, a 40-hour child care course, and 10 hours of in-service training; items in the first aid kit were missing; deficiencies in food and nutrition, such as unlabeled bottles and sippy cups; and deficiencies in children's health and immunization records, personnel records, and background screening. The Department issued an "Administrative Warning Notification" (notification) to Petitioner based upon the following violations: "[T]he facility's fencing, walls or gate area had gaps that could allow children to exit the outdoor play area. The gate was observed broke [sic] with gaps on both sides." This notification advised Petitioner that the "next violation of a licensing standard outlined in this notice, [would] result in an administrative fine." On June 20, 2012, Ms. Torres conducted a routine inspection (inspection two) of the Daycare. The noncompliant areas included: missing documentation for some children's immunization records; missing documentation of ten hours of in-service training for the Daycare's director; and missing documentation of background screening documents, including an affidavit of good moral character for employees. A second notification7/ (dated June 20, 2012) was issued to the Daycare following inspection two. This notification involved issues regarding a child's health and immunization records, and missing documentation for employees. One child's immunization records had expired. Four staff members were deficient regarding in-service training logs, and an additional staff member had not received the level two screening clearance. In response to a complaint (complaint one), Ms. Torres conducted an investigation of the Daycare on July 2, 2012. The Daycare was found to be out-of-ratio regarding the number of children to staff, and background screening documentation for level two screening for staff members was missing. In a mixed group of children ages one and two years old, the ratio of one staff for six children is required. At the time of the complaint one investigation, there was one staff per eight children. Although this ratio issue was rectified during the complaint one investigation, it was and is considered a violation. The documentation for the level two screening violation for the staff was not corrected during this investigation. A third notification was issued to the Daycare following the complaint one investigation. This notification involved the staff-to-child ratio, and the lack of background screening documentation. The Daycare was notified that the appropriate staff-to-child ratio must be maintained at all times, and the missing Level two screening documentation had to be resolved. This notification advised the Daycare that the "next violation of a licensing standard outlined in this notice, [would] result in an administrative fine." 8/ On August 1, 2012, the Daycare was notified that its license would expire on November 29, 2012. The Daycare's renewal application was due 45 days before the expiration date, or before October 15, 2012. The denial letter set forth that the Daycare's renewal application was filed on October 30, 2012.9/ In June 2012, Ms. Giles became aware that her daughter, Alexis Anderson, had a drug addiction problem when Ms. Anderson's baby was born addicted to drugs. Ms. Anderson and her two children were required to live with Ms. Giles while Ms. Anderson addressed her addiction problem. Ms. Anderson's two children attended the Daycare. Ms. Anderson would visit the Daycare to see her children. On November 7, 2012, as a result of another complaint (complaint two) being filed, DCF conducted an investigation of the Daycare. Ms. Giles reported that on two different occasions, two small bags were found at the Daycare. One small empty bag was found in the Daycare's common hallway. A second bag was found on a desk in the Daycare's office and contained a white residue. After the second bag was found and Ms. Giles was told by an employee what the bags might be used for ("people transport drugs in"), she suspected that Ms. Anderson might have left the bags at the Daycare. Also, after finding the second bag, Ms. Giles banned Ms. Anderson from the Daycare. There was speculation that the two bags contained an illegal substance; however, the two bags were discarded before any scientific testing could be done or any photographs could be taken. There is simply no proof as to what was in either bag.10/ There was no clear and convincing evidence that Ms. Anderson supervised or tended to children other than her own while she was at the Daycare. There was clear and convincing evidence that Ms. Anderson was at the Daycare on multiple occasions and had access to every room and child/children there. Ms. Anderson did not have the appropriate level two screening. In addition to investigating complaint two, child care regulations counselor Christina Bryant also observed inadequate ratios between staff and children, and a lack of qualified or unscreened individuals supervising children. Ms. Bryant observed one staff for five children in the zero to twelve month age group (ratio should be one to four), and she observed one staff to nine children, in the one-year-old classroom (ratio should be one staff to six children). Upon completing a review of the Daycare's record keeping, Ms. Bryant also found that background screening documents were missing for staff members. On November 14, 2012, Child Protective Investigator (CPI), Beauford White was directed to go to the Daycare and remove Ms. Anderson's two children from the Daycare.11/ When CPI White advised Ms. Giles he was removing the children from the Daycare, Ms. Giles became very emotional, and initially told CPI White he could not take the children. CPI White contacted his supervisor who directed CPI White to contact the Orange County Sheriff's Office (OCSO) for assistance in removing the children. Between the time the OCSO was called and when the deputy arrived, approximately 45 to 60 minutes, CPI White had obtained compliance, and Ms. Giles released the two children to his custody.12/ On Thursday afternoon, November 29, 2012, Ms. Giles was asked to attend a meeting on Friday, November 30, 2012, in the Department's legal office regarding the Daycare's license. Because of the short notice, Ms. Giles was unable to obtain an attorney to accompany her to the meeting on November 30, 2012. Ms. Giles attended the meeting by herself with a number of Department staff. Ms. Giles was given the following option: execute a relinquishment of the Daycare's license, or the Department would seek to revoke the license. Ms. Giles did not know the law. Ms. Giles executed the relinquishment13/ of the Daycare's license because she was thinking that "revoke sound[ed] horrible to" her. She did not want to relinquish her license, nor close her business, but she did not feel she had any choice in the matter. The totality of the circumstances under which Ms. Giles found herself renders the "relinquishment" less than voluntary. After this meeting, Ms. Giles returned to the Daycare and was present when Ms. Torres removed the Daycare's license from the wall. Mytenniza Boston, a Daycare employee, was also present when Ms. Torres removed the license. Ms. Giles did not tell Ms. Boston or any of the other Daycare employees that the Daycare's license had been relinquished, nor did she start notifying parents of the Daycare's closing. On Monday, December 3, 2012, around noon, Department investigators arrived at the Daycare and found children in the opened facility. Ms. Giles was at the Daycare making telephone calls to parents asking them to come pick up their child or children. The Daycare was open for business despite the fact that Ms. Giles had relinquished her license on Friday, November 30, 2012. On occasion Pervis Giles, Ms. Giles' then husband would walk to the Daycare to talk with Ms. Giles. Mr. Giles would also cut the Daycare's grass, unlock the Daycare's door for daily operations, and participate with Ms. Giles in making business decisions about the Daycare. Ms. Giles did not consider these activities to be working for the Daycare; however, common sense dictates otherwise. Ms. Giles has several children. At various times during the Daycare's operation, Ms. Giles' children were at the Daycare volunteering, cleaning up or helping with the Daycare children in some fashion. Ms. Giles' children did not have the required level two background screening as Ms. Giles did not know that her children needed to be screened. Ms. Giles' lack of understanding regarding who is required to be screened is troublesome. Ms. Giles has been in the daycare business for many years, yet she failed to comply with basic safety measures.
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 the renewal application. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of July, 2013, 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 22nd day of July, 2013.
The Issue Whether Petitioner owes child support and, if so, the amount of the indebtedness and whether Respondent should report that indebtedness to credit reporting agencies.
Findings Of Fact In 1983, the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (DHRS) filed a paternity action against Petitioner in the Circuit Court for Broward County, Florida. This matter was assigned Case Number 83-1335 CH. The proceeding was filed to determine whether Petitioner was the father of a child born to Debra Bethea on November 17, 1979. This matter was voluntarily dismissed by the DHRS on December 29, 1983. Petitioner made a court appearance prior to the dismissal, and he received a copy of the notice of dismissal. In 1992, DHRS and Ms. Bethea filed a Complaint to Determine Paternity and Child Support in Broward Circuit Court, where it was assigned Case Number 92-4134(23). Like the 1983 proceeding, this pertained to the child born to Debra Bethea on November 17, 1979. In 1992, the Broward County Sheriff's Office used a Return of Service form which contained the following to reflect that a complaint had been served on a defendant by substitute service: At the defendant's usual place of abode on "any person residing therein" the age of fifteen years or older, to wit: in accordance with the provisions of F.S. 48.031(1), Florida Statutes. The Return of Service filed in Case 92-4134(23) reflected that a copy of the complaint had been served on Petitioner on February 28, 1992, by substitute service. The person with whom the complaint was left at Petitioner's "usual place of abode" was a Mr. Turner who was identified as being a "friend." The second paternity complaint was heard by a hearing officer who made findings and recommendations to the presiding judge. The "Report of the Hearing Officer on Paternity and Support" dated June 22, 1992, filed in Case 92-4134(23) (the Report) reflects that a clerical default was entered against Petitioner on April 14, 1992. The hearing officer recommended that the Court enter an order adjudicating Petitioner to be the father of the child and ordering that he pay child support in the amount of $221.00 per month until the child reached 18 years of age. 1/ These payments were to be made through the Court's Support Payment Unit. Petitioner did not appear at the proceeding before the hearing officer. The recommendation as to the child's paternity was based on the testimony of Ms. Bethea. On June 29, 1992, the presiding judge entered an order that ratified the Report, adopted its findings, and ordered the parties to comply with all items contained in the Report. This is a facially valid order from a court of competent jurisdiction. The sums of $28.36, $56.72, and $23.75 were paid in the years 1992, 1993, and 1994, respectively. No other payments or credits were made. As of September 30, 1999, Petitioner owed the sum of $28,604.17 in back child support. Petitioner had made no child support payments between that date and the date of the final hearing in this proceeding. Petitioner testified that he was homeless in February 1992 and that he did not know Mr. Turner. He also testified that he knew nothing of the second paternity proceeding, that he was not the father of the child, and that reporting this debt to credit reporting agencies will destroy his credit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order finding that Petitioner owes back child support in the amount of $28,604.17. It is further recommended that Respondent report that arrearage to appropriate credit reporting agencies pursuant to Section 61.1354(2), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of April, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of April, 2000.
The Issue Whether petitioner should receive a federal income tax refund HRS has intercepted and proposes to apply against petitioner's public assistance child support obligation, even though he has fully complied with the judgment establishing the obligation?
Findings Of Fact On May 16, 1984, HRS obtained a final judgment of paternity against Jimmie L. Henry, petitioner in these proceedings. Henrietta Payne and State of Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services vs. Jimmie Henry and Woodrow Grissett, No. 81-10950-CA (4th Cir.). The judgment declared Mr. Henry the father of Shea Bernard Anderson, established the "sum of $2656.00 ... as a public assistance child support obligation owed by Jimmie Henry to the State of Florida," ordered petitioner to pay $150 support payments for the child monthly, and ordered that "with each payment [the petitioner] shall make an additional payment of $25.00 per month until the [public assistance child support] obligation ... is paid in full." The public assistance child support obligation arose because of payments HRS made, before paternity was determined, for the benefit of Shea Bernard Anderson under the Aid for Dependent Children program, payments which were "IV-D services" provided by a "IV-D agency." Since entry of the final judgment of paternity, petitioner, who has since married and had other offspring, has made every payment required by the judgment, when required. As of September 11, 1988, his public assistance child support obligation had been reduced from $2,656.00 to $1,374.40. HRS has intercepted all of the federal income tax refund owed petitioner for calendar year 1987, which amounts to $664, and proposes to apply it against his public assistance child support obligation.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services was the state agency in Florida responsible for the licensing of family child day care centers in this state. Respondent, Elizabeth Horton, has, since before January 31, 1992, operated the Little Darling Horton-Cotton Family Day Care at 3710 11th Street East in Bradenton, Florida. The location is Mrs. Horton's home, and she resides there with Alfrader L. Cotton, her companion, Craig E. Horton and Sheldon G. Horton, her sons, and Tangela D. Horton, her daughter. In January, 1992, Mrs. Horton submitted an application for a license to operate a family day care center at the stated location and listed the others noted above as residents. Thereafter, on July 9, 1992, June 28, 1993, July 11, 1994, July 18, 1994 and December 21, 1995, Mrs. Horton submitted application forms for renewal of her license. On each of the renewal application forms, those same individuals were listed as residents of the home. Mrs. Horton's brother, L. H., was not listed as a resident or in any capacity on any of the application forms. On or about December 3, 1993, a report of abuse of a minor female, A. M., born on February 12, 1984, was received in the Department. The substance of the allegation was that A. M., along with her little brother, born on March 6, 1985, were placed by their mother at the Respondent's home from about 5:00 PM until early the next morning each week night, while their mother was at work. The report further alleged that Mrs. Horton's brother, L. H., had molested A. M. while she was staying in the Horton home. He was alleged to have awakened her in the middle of the night while she was asleep in the Horton daughter's bedroom on the pretext of taking her to the bathroom, but fondled her breasts and vaginal area. This report was investigated by personnel of the Department and was classified as verified. A report of neglect was entered against Mrs. Horton arising out of her failure to supervise the children and a Hearing Officer from the Division of Administrative Hearings, after a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, entered a Recommended Order recommending that the Department enter a Final Order amending the proposed confirmed report to a classification of unfounded and expunging Mrs. Horton's name from the case record and all Department records. The Hearing Officer found, however, that L. H. had committed the abuse, and this determination was subsequently affirmed by the Secretary of the Department in the Final Order entered in this case. In 1989, L. H. was found guilty in the Circuit Court in Manatee County of lewd and lascivious acts in the presence of a child eleven years of age or younger, in violation of Section 800.04, Florida Statutes, a felony, and was sentenced, among other things, to community control for two years followed by seven years probation. After his arrest for the assault on A. M., on June 28, 1995, his prior sentence was increased to seven years in prison. He was also tried in Circuit Court for Manatee County for sexual battery, and was, on that same date, sentenced for the second offense to life imprisonment, with the provision he serve no less than twenty-five years. Whenever an individual is issued a license to operate a family day care center, that person is provided with a copy of a handbook containing the rules of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services relating to the licensing and operation of those facilities. Included within that pamphlet is a copy of Department rule 10M-10.002, dealing with personnel, which requires that all persons who are members of the operator's family or who reside in the day care home must be screened as must be persons providing substitute care in the absence of the operator. The evidence regarding the status of L. H. is contradictory. A. M. indicates that L. H. would be at the center from about 10:00 PM at night, after Mrs. Horton picked him up at work; would be there when she, A. M., went to bed at some time after 9:00 PM and before 11:00 PM; and, most of the time, would also be there then next morning, having spent the night in the bedroom of Mrs. Horton's son, Craig. A. M. cannot recall if L. H. ate his meals at the Horton home or took his showers there, but she recalls that he did cook there several times. She never saw him change or wash his clothes there and she never saw any of his clothes in the closet. Though she contends she was never left alone with L. H. by Mrs. Horton, she claims she was touched on her private parts by him on several occasions in the early hours of the morning, while the others in the house were sleeping. A. M.'s mother does not know if L. H. lived at the Horton child care center or not. He was there sometimes at night when she dropped the children off, and he was always there when she picked them up the next morning. To the best of her knowledge, the children were never left alone with him. Mrs. Horton, on the other hand, while admitting she knew that her brother had been convicted of a felony regarding a sexual offense against a minor child, categorically denies that L. H. lived at her home. She admits that he visited there from time to time and admitted to Ms. Winfrey, the child care supervisor from the Department, that he spent the night there from time to time as well. According to Mrs. Horton, L. H. lived with their parents in a home in the next block east on 11th Street East. Respondent admitted at hearing to picking him up from work around 9:00 PM at times, but not regularly. She contended at hearing he would come to the house to watch TV and to play games with her son, but rarely did he stay and never did he spend the night. The probation officers who visited L. H. would sometimes come to her house to see him but would never come in. None of the probation officers ever said anything to her about L. H.'s being at her home with children being present. At no time until the report of abuse was filed did she have any idea that L. H. was behaving improperly with any children in her charge. When she found out what he had done, she told him not to come back to that house. Mrs. Horton's daughter, age 17, claims that L. H. did not live at the care center at any time. He did not wash his clothes there or do anything which indicated he lived there. Since she was older, she stayed up later than A. M., going to bed around 10:00 PM or so. As she recalls, L. H. would usually leave the house about 10 or 11:00 PM and she would see him leave often. She did not often go to bed while he was still there. Taken together, the evidence establishes that while L. H. may not have resided at the house on a permanent basis, he was there frequently enough to be considered a member of the family as defined in the Department rules.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a final order denying Elizabeth Horton renewal of her license to operate a family day care center. DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of October, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of October, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Raymond R. Deckert, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative services, Room 500 400 West Dr. M. L. King, Jr. Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33614 Elizabeth Horton 3710 11th Street East Bradenton, Florida 34208 Alfrader Cotton Qualified Representative 3710 11th Street East Bradenton, Florida 34208 Gregory D. Venz Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Building Number Two, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Richard Doran General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Building Number Two, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
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 Amended School Board Policy 2262 is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority under section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes (2013)1/.
Findings Of Fact The School Board has the constitutional duty to operate, control and supervise the public schools within Collier County, Florida. Art. IX, § 4(b), Fla. Const. (2014); see also § 1001.32, Fla. Stat. Sports Club is a private, non-profit Florida corporation, whose principal business activity is providing before and after school child care. Sports Club is located in Collier County, and offers its child care services at its own private facilities, as well as at certain District elementary schools. Parents Rock is a private, non-profit Florida corporation formed on June 24, 2013, for the purpose of representing parents’ interests in education, and advocating for legislation, regulations, and government programs that improve parents’ rights and choices in local education. Parents Rock’s membership consists of approximately 700 individuals, mostly parents of children attending schools in the District. A substantial number of these parents use the child care programs located at the District facilities. Moreover, a substantial number of Parents Rock’s members routinely attend School Board meetings and advocate for parental involvement in their children’s education and issues of importance, like the District’s child care program. Amended School Board Policy 2262, which is part of the School Board’s Bylaws and Policies, is titled: Before and After School Child Care. The challenged policy contains paragraphs lettered “A through L” which provides for the following issues: Parents and the community being given an opportunity to make recommendations concerning the operation and funding of child care programs prior to the approval by the School District; Child care programs and services being available to students both prior to and after the school day; Child care programs having an emphasis on providing educational opportunities and “variety of activities that promote the social, intellectual, and physical development of children in the program[;]” Adequate attention being given to the child care programs having an environment that meets the needs and well-being of the children, ensuring the children’s safety, security, that the children are clothed, fed, and “hav[ing] an opportunity for a variety of social, intellectual, and physical activities[;]” Vendors or other organization contracted to provide the child care programs having adequate liability insurance, and “maintaining appropriate adult-child ratios, provide quality child care, and in general, complying with the procedures established by the State and the District[;]” Notifying parents and families about the child care programs and procedures for enrollment; Continuing program assessments by staff, participating parents, and other stakeholders during the course of the child care program; Fees for the child care services being applied only to those schools involved in vendor run or school based programs; Recognizing that a parent may notify the child care providers of the parent’s preference that a child receiving either additional physical or academic activities, and “every reasonable effort shall be made to accommodate the request[;]” Parents, whose children participate in the child care programs, giving “feedback concerning the program” and requiring that the District’s manager of after school child care consider the information; A procedure for surveying and collecting information from parents evaluating the child care programs; and Providing that “[a]ny terms, conditions, or issues enumerated in the District’s RFQ 115-4113 [sic], whether express or implied, related to this policy, are hereby adopted and incorporated by reference in the policy during the duration of RFQ 115-4113 including any renewal period provided for in said RFQ.” Amended School Board Policy 2262 then states that to “implement this policy, the Superintendent will develop and/or revise administrative procedures consistent with the RFP/RFQ process relative to child care service.” The School Board wholly adopted School Age Child Care Services, RFQ #115-4/13 (RFQ), into its Policy. Consequently, a short explanation of the RFQ is required here. In the RFQ, the District sought to qualify child care providers to operate child care programs at the District’s elementary schools. The RFQ that was released by the District, on May 2, 2013, provided for: uniform fees for all program services;2/ no credit for fees paid, if a child was unable to use the child care program due to an absence;3/ a $10.00 surcharge on each registered student that a private vendor provided financial assistance to attend the after school program;4/ and standards and criteria for the child care programs that required the programs to be staffed by certified teachers.5/ Finally, and importantly, the RFQ allowed elementary school principals to decide whether or not to offer child care through private providers or for the school to operate its own “in-house” child care program.6/ Sports Club participated in the RFQ process, and was identified as a qualified provider. Based on its approval as a qualified provider, Sports Club was given an opportunity to present its services to the District’s elementary school principals in a webinar. Following the presentation, on May 29, 2013, five elementary school principals chose Sports Club as child care provider for their schools. However, Sports Club was not chosen as a provider for six other elementary schools that it had previously served under a contract with the District. In some instances, like Veterans Memorial Elementary School, the principal had decided to operate an “in-house” program, rather than selecting Sports Club. After the selection process, Sports Club informed parents about the impending changes, and asked the parents to contact the School Board if they wanted to keep Sports Club as a child care provider. The School Board was to ratify the elementary school principals’ decisions at a June 11, 2013, School Board meeting. Many parents, on learning about the RFQ’s terms and that Sports Club would no longer be providing child care at their child’s elementary school, became extremely upset. A particular concern was the District’s decision not to seek any parental involvement in the formulation of the RFQ and provisions setting the uniform fees, which increased the child care costs for the parents. On June 3, 2013, the RFQ became the subject of an unadopted rule challenge brought by a parent. Rather than proceeding to a final hearing, the School Board elected to initiate rulemaking concerning the unadopted rule challenge on September 13, 2013. In the initial Notice of rulemaking, the School Board specifically stated that although a proposed text of the rule was not available, the RFQ’s provisions regarding fees and program content would serve as a reference point. During the rulemaking workshops on October 16, 2013, and November 13, 2013, the District’s rule proposals amended certain provisions within the RFQ. Specifically, the proposals amended the RFQ’s terms concerning the amount of the uniform fees to be charged;7/ the granting of credits in the limited instance when a child has a medical excuse for not attending the after school child care;8/ setting out a parental survey for assessing the child care programs;9/ and reducing the fee paid by private providers for using the District’s facilities during the summer months.10/ The School Board at its December 10, 2013, meeting, enacted Amended School Board Policy 2262, which incorporated the RFQ completely into the policy in paragraph “L.” On its face, the School Board’s language in paragraph “L” is not clear as to which version of the RFQ was incorporated. However, the testimony and attachments to the Amended School Board Policy show that the School Board’s reference is referring to the RFQ, as the School Board had amended it during the rulemaking process. Amended School Board Policy 2262, with the RFQ’s terms setting out the uniform fees and program criteria, only applies to child care programs located at the District’s elementary schools. Amended School Board Policy 2262 has no application for child care services off-site. The facts here show that Sports Club owns its own facility, and provides transportation to the Sports Club’s private facility for students from some of the elementary schools that elected to provide “in-house” services. Parents sign a permission form, and Sports Club’s bus transports the child from the elementary school to Sports Club’s facility. At its private facility, Sports Club is free to offer child care programs at rates that it decides are appropriate, without any regard to the challenged rule. Sports Club’s claimed economic losses are the result of its decision to participate in the RFQ process, not the challenged rule. Sports Club was selected as a child care provider under the RFQ at the June 11, 2013, School Board meeting, and Sports Club subsequently entered into a contract with the District to provide child care services under the RFQ, on August 16, 2013. These events occurred months before the School Board adopted the challenged rule here at its December 10, 2013, meeting. Moreover, the undersigned found that Mr. Brettholtz credibly testified that the financial records provided by Sports Club did not follow accepted accounting practices, and could not be used to support Sports Club’s claimed economic losses.
