The Issue Should Petitioner's request for exemption from disqualification from employment in a position of trust or responsibility be granted?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: The Department is the agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility of requiring security background investigations of persons employed by employers under the Department's jurisdiction and licensing powers in positions designated by law as positions of trust or responsibility. The purpose of the security background screening is to determine if there are individuals who have committed an offense which would disqualify the individual from working in positions designated by law as positions of trust or responsibility. Petitioner was employed in a position of trust or responsibility by Polk Opportunity Council (the Council) located in Polk, County, Florida. The Council cared for children which required licensure by the Department. Petitioner's job with the Council required that she be screened in accordance with level 2 standards for screening set forth in Chapter 435, Florida Statutes. The screening revealed Petitioner's arrest on September 14, 1992, for spouse battery (domestic violence), under Section 784.03, Florida Statutes. The screening further revealed that on December 3, 1992, Petitioner: (a) entered a plea of nolo contendere to the charge of spouse battery, a misdemeanor; (b) was adjudicated guilty and; (c) placed on probation for a period of one year. After being placed on probation, Petitioner successfully completed, although not timely, the community service hours and the Domestic Violence Program required by the court's probation order. Petitioner timely completed all other requirements of her probation. On January 5, 1994, the court terminated Petitioner's probation but due to the untimely completion of the Domestic Violence Program and the community service hours the record reflects that her probation was terminated unsatisfactorily. The arrest and subsequent adjudication of guilt disqualified Petitioner from employment in a position of trust or responsibility. Subsequent to the screening, the Department notified Petitioner and the Council of Petitioner's disqualification. Thereafter, Petitioner was discharged from her employment with the Council. The Council has agreed to hire Petitioner back in her old position if she is granted exemption from disqualification by the Department. Petitioner would be working in the kitchen in the morning and working with children in the afternoon. There is no record of Petitioner being charged with any other crime (domestic violence or otherwise) since her arrest on September 14, 1992. Petitioner is no longer married to the person involved in the incident on September 14, 1992, which resulted in Petitioner's arrest. In fact, her former husband was charged and served time with the Department of Corrections for subsequently beating Petitioner. Since Petitioner completed her probation, she has worked to support her children. Petitioner is presently supporting her seven children. It appears that the Department or its predecessor, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, has, since Petitioner's completion of probation, allowed Petitioner to care for children in her home. Petitioner has worked hard and diligently to stay off of welfare, to support her children, and to better her and her children's position in life. In addition to her regular work, Petitioner is always first to volunteer for charitable projects. Petitioner has been sufficiently rehabilitated so as to be employed in a position of trust and responsibility and that she will not present a danger if allowed to be employed in a position of trust or responsibility
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department enter a final order granting Petitioner's request for an exemption from disqualification for employment in positions of trust and responsibility. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of February, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of February, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Stacey C. Andrews, pro se Post Office Box 3298 Lakeland, Florida 33802 Jack Farley, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 4720 Old Highway 37 Lakeland, Florida 33803 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 The issue for determination is whether Southern Baptist Hospital of Florida, Inc., d/b/a Baptist Medical Center should be reimbursed by AIG for medical services rendered in accordance with the proposed agency action by the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, Office of Medical Services issued on April 22, 2011.
Findings Of Fact Based on the Petition and assertions by the parties to which no disagreement exists, the following Findings of Fact are made: Baptist Medical Center filed a Petition for Resolution of Reimbursement Dispute (Petition for Resolution) with the Department. Baptist Medical Center was the Petitioner, and AIG was the respondent. On April 22, 2011, the Department issued its decision in favor of Baptist Medical Center. Contained in its decision, among other things, the Department notified all affected persons, including AIG and AIG's servicing agent, Specialty Risk Services, Inc. (SRS), that any petition for hearing was required to be filed within 21 days from their receipt of the decision and that failure to do so would constitute a waiver of the right to a hearing regarding the Department's decision. Both AIG and SRS received their respective copy of the Department's decision on April 25, 2011. A petition for hearing was required to be filed with the Department on or before May 16, 2011. SRS forwarded a petition for administrative hearing to the Department's Clerk by Federal Express on May 10, 2011. An inference is drawn and a finding of fact is made that SRS' petition for administrative hearing was received by the Department on May 11, 2011. SRS' petition for administrative hearing reflects, among other things, in the style and the allegations, SRS as the Petitioner and SRS as requesting the hearing. Also, in an allegation identifying the Petitioner and the Petitioner's address, SRS includes AIG and Liberty Asset Recovery as Petitioners. Subsequently, AIG was contacted by the Department's counsel on June 16, 2011. The Department's counsel advised AIG that SRS did not have standing to file the petition for administrative hearing; that AIG, instead of SRS, must be named as the Petitioner; and that the 21-day deadline would be extended to allow AIG to file an amended petition for administrative hearing to correct the defect of SRS as the Petitioner. AIG forwarded its Petition to the Department's Clerk by Federal Express on June 20, 2011. An inference is drawn and a finding of fact is made that AIG's Petition was received by the Department's Clerk on June 21, 2011. The Department's Clerk received AIG's Petition more than 21 days from the date that AIG received the Department's decision on the Petition for Resolution. AIG's Petition is untimely.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, Office of Medical Services enter a final order dismissing AIG's Petition for Administrative Hearing. S DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of September, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL 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 6th day of September, 2011.
The Issue The issues for consideration concern whether the Petitioner is qualified for licensure pursuant to Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, to act as a real estate salesman.
Findings Of Fact On March 22, 1990, Petitioner made application with Respondent to become licensed as a real estate salesman. In the course of that application he provided an affirmative answer to Question 7. Question 7 said, "Have you ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere (no contest), even if adjudication was withheld." In particular, Petitioner acknowledged that he had been in the possession of a controlled substance in a case dating from February 8, 1976 and received a fine of $100. He further acknowledged a case dating from June 15, 1983 in which he received one day in jail for disorderly intoxication and breach of peace. Finally, he acknowledged an October 26, 1983 charge of carrying a concealed firearm in which adjudication was withheld. These offenses form the basis for Respondent's intent to deny the application for licensure. Petitioner had applied for a real estate license in Florida on or about February 14, 1987. His application was denied. This lead to an administrative hearing in which the February 1976 and October 1983 offenses previously described were considered with another offense not the subject of the denial on this occasion. Based upon the criminal offenses and the failure to demonstrate rehabilitation following the commission of those offenses, Hearing Officer Diane K. Kiesling in her recommended order of December 8, 1987, recommended the denial of the license. That recommendation was accepted and a final order was entered on January 20, 1988, denying the license application. Given the denial in the prior case, Petitioner truthfully answered Question 14 in the present application and acknowledged Respondent's action turning down his request to receive a license in the previous submission. According to the present statement of denial because Petitioner had been denied before by action of the final order of January 20, 1988, Respondent would deny Petitioner's current application for licensure. In summary, Respondent continues to hold the opinion that based upon Petitioner's moral turpitude as related to his criminal history and insufficient demonstration that he has rehabilitated himself, Respondent is unwilling to license the Petitioner. That is an erroneous impression as Petitioner proved at hearing. Petitioner has not been arrested or incarcerated since the October 26, 1983 incident. He has been involved in the construction business since May, 1990, associated with the hauling and cleaning of debris from job sites. Petitioner operates this business. Prior to that time he had been employed by his father in a family-owned company, a roofing business. Anthony Speight is Petitioner's pastor in the Living Way Christian Fellowship Church International in Jacksonville, Florida. He has known the Petitioner for three years and is the godfather to Petitioner's son. Petitioner and his four children attend services every Thursday and Sunday at Reverend Speight's Church. Reverend Speight converses with the Petitioner on a daily basis and has found the Petitioner to be a moral and upstanding citizen. Petitioner has participated in church activities related to building and remodeling of adjunctive services at the church site. Reverend Speight knows the Petitioner to be person who spends his time working, at home with the children and at church. The work Petitioner has done for the church has been without compensation. Reverend Speight believes the Petitioner to be a trustworthy individual. Reverend Speight does not believe that Petitioner is insincere in his attempt to live an upstanding life. The pastor also made mention of the fact that the Petitioner is desirous of helping disadvantaged persons who are without housing. Warren A. Jones is a City Councilman in Jacksonville, Florida. He has known Petitioner throughout the Petitioner's life. His main involvement with the Petitioner was when the two men were growing up. As children he found the Petitioner to be a reasonable citizen from a good family background. He believes that Petitioner may have gone astray because of the environment in which he found himself. Mr. Jones is a real estate salesman. Lee Stradtner is a broker with Reed Realty Group in Jacksonville, Florida. He also teaches as a real estate instructor at Florida Community College in Jacksonville, Florida. Petitioner took a course from Mr. Stradtner in Salesman's Principles and Practices I in January, 1990. The is a preparatory course for qualifying to take the real estate salesman's examination in Florida. The course has components that deal with ethical considerations emphasizing the fiduciary relationship between real estate persons and their clients. Stradtner found Petitioner's attendance at this course exemplary. Petitioner passed the final examination with a score of in excess of 90 per cent correct which was the highest grade in the class. Petitioner freely explained to Mr. Stradtner his prior criminal law problems. Mr. Stradtner encouraged Petitioner to reapply for licensure based upon Petitioner's attendance, performance and responses in class. He believed that Petitioner understood agency and fiduciary relationships and the fact that real estate professionals are involved with positions of trust. Outside the class Petitioner discussed with Mr. Stradtner the circumstances in an area of Jacksonville, Florida, known as Springfield. This discussion related to a project that Mr. Stradtner was working on at the time and that Petitioner showed an interest in. It pertains to renovation and restoration and the provision of affordable housing in close proximity to the down town area. This would make housing available for all segments of society. Mr. Stradtner has discussed the possibility that the Petitioner might work with Mr. Stradtner's realty group; however, Mr. Stradtner is not the broker in charge and an interview would have to be conducted with the managing broker in that firm before hiring Petitioner (assuming licensure). All comments from the witnesses testifying in behalf of the Petitioner as reported in these findings of fact are credited.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of facts and the conclusions of law, it is, recommended that a Final Order be entered which accepts the Petitioner's application for licensure as a real estate salesman. RECOMMENDED this 10th day of January, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this day of January, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Walter Lee Jordan 10770 Anders Boulevard Jacksonville, FL 32216 Joselyn M. Price Assistant Attorney General State of Florida, Department of Legal Affairs 400 West Robinson Street, Suite 107 South Orlando, FL 32801 Kenneth E. Easley, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Darlene F. Keller, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32802
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to an exemption from disqualification to work in a position of special trust.
Findings Of Fact On June 6, 1979, Petitioner went into a public restroom and attempted to use a urinal. To do so, he had to remove his sexual organ from his clothing. An adult male dressed in beach clothing called to him, "Come here," so Petitioner turned around and took half a step. The man asked, "What do you like?" Petitioner responded, "Women. Excuse me," and faced the urinal again. The other man, a plain-clothes law-enforcement officer, arrested Petitioner. Petitioner was charged with Section 800.03, Florida Statutes, "exposure of a sexual organ (by masturbation) -- misdemeanor." This was a misdemeanor charge at the time committed. Despite there having been no masturbation, in his opinion, Petitioner pled nolo contendere, and adjudication was withheld; he was assigned six months unsupervised probation and paid a fine. It is only on the basis of the foregoing 1979 plea that Petitioner has been disqualified from working in a position of special trust. He was notified by an April 18, 1996 letter that, pursuant to Sections 402.302(8) and 435.04(2), Florida Statutes [1995], he is disqualified as a household member in a family day care home. (Agency Exhibit 1) Petitioner also was arrested in 1982. The record is unclear as to what statute he was charged under at that time, but he did plead guilty and was fined. The circumstances surrounding the 1982 incident were established solely by Petitioner's testimony. He was in a department store restroom. There was a hole cut in the wall between two stalls "and apparently there was someone on the other side, the next stall that prompted me to put my sex organ through the hole in the wall." The person in the next stall was not a law enforcement officer. (TR 37-41, 43-45)1 Petitioner was arrested upon exiting the restroom. He has not been arrested since 1982. Petitioner has been happily married for 27 years. He and his wife have three children and five grandchildren. He and his wife are well-loved by their own children and grandchildren. They have a history of welcoming the troubled friends of their children into their home. The neighborhood children and Petitioner's grandchildren have always affectionately called Petitioner, "Grand-daddy" and have called Petitioner's wife, "Nanny." Their home is, and always has been, a gathering place for the neighborhood children. Petitioner's wife runs a licensed family day care home out of the family home from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Although she did not know about Petitioner's 1979 incident before it was disclosed through the agency screening process, she does not believe Petitioner presents a danger to children. She believes the 1979 incident constituted "entrapment". By a second letter dated April 18, 1996, Petitioner's wife was notified that, pursuant to Sections 402.302(8) and 435.04(2) Florida Statutes [1995] (Agency Exhibit 2), Petitioner was forbidden from having contact with any children in her family day care home and that if he is allowed to have contact with children in her care, she would be subject to an administrative fine and possible criminal penalties. The four children currently paying to attend Petitioner's wife's day care home are respectively aged one, two, three, and four years of age. For the last eight years, due to his trade as a self- employed leather worker, Petitioner has traveled a wide circuit from flea market to flea market throughout the week. He is only present in the family home from 10:30 p.m. Fridays to 3:00 a.m. Mondays. His wife's day care home does not operate during those periods that Petitioner is typically at home. Petitioner is a devout Seventh Day Adventist and an elder of his local church. He is the church's Sabbath School Superintendent. Petitioner's daughter and former daughter-in-law wrote letters entered in evidence and also testified that the family home is warm and loving and that Petitioner is a great "Grand- daddy." They rely on Petitioner and his wife for baby-sitting services. In their mutual opinion, Petitioner is not a danger to children, however some of their testimony minimized Petitioner's problems as only being "past mistakes." Neighbors' letters to the effect that Petitioner does not pose a threat to children, is active in his church, and travels except on weekends were admitted in evidence without objection, as was a statement by his pastor that Petitioner is a man of "impeccable character." However, none of these persons was available for cross-examination, and their letters do not clearly show that they had knowledge of Petitioner's past lewd acts or any reason or opportunity to know if he had committed any subsequent ones.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is , reluctantly, RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Families enter a Final Order removing Petitioner from the registry of disqualified persons.RECOMMENDED this 6th day of March, 1997, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 6th day of March, 1997.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Petitioner should receive an exemption from disqualification from caring for children, under the criteria set out in Chapter 435, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Respondent, Department of Children and Family Services, had the responsibility for licensing and overseeing the operation of foster care of children in this state, and, under the provisions of Chapter 435, Florida Statutes, of evaluating and ruling on requests for exemption from disqualification to serve as foster parents submitted by individuals otherwise disqualified from performing that function. Petitioner, Aaron B. Hodges, is currently 29 years old. His wife, Sue, is 38. They have been married since he was 21. The couple has a child of their own, and Mrs. Hodges has an 18 year-old daughter by a previous marriage. On November 20, 1995, the family resided at 4000 North Combee Road in Lakeland, Florida. They operated a family business at that address, in which both participated; a public ranch at which they offered farm parties, trail rides, and wedding receptions; and provided facilities for other similar events. It was a high-stress operation, which occupied the greatest part of the time of both individuals seven days a week. As a result of the constant stress, and, as a contributing factor, the relative immaturity of Petitioner, the couple had undergone a period of domestic strife which culminated in several serious arguments. None of those had resulted in physical contact between the parties. However, on November 20, 1995, the couple was involved in another dispute, as a result of which Petitioner was leaving the family home. He was threatening to take with him some of the parties’ personal property. Because a wedding reception was scheduled for that weekend, Mrs. Hodges objected to his taking the stereo, and strong words were passed between the parties. Mrs. Hodges’ daughter inserted herself into the dispute. Petitioner lost his temper and attempted to force his way back into the house. When he did so, the door struck Mrs. Hodges and she received an abrasion to the ear. In addition, her daughter tried to interpose herself between Petitioner and her mother. In response, Petitioner pushed her backward which resulted in the daughter stepping off the porch, which was one step above the ground. She did not fall, nor was she injured as a result of the incident. Nonetheless, the sheriff’s office was called twice that evening. The first time a deputy responded, Petitioner was not there and the deputy spoke with the wife and daughter outside the residence. At that time, Deputy Barnett observed some redness to the wife’s ear, and he requested the two women write out their statements as to what happened. The statements written by the two women somewhat exaggerated the incident as a result of Mrs. Hodges’ desire to get Petitioner out of the house. At hearing, both women recanted the more serious aspects of their previous allegations, admitting that they had made their statements present a picture of Petitioner’s actions which was far worse than reality. Neither mother nor daughter had or would recount a firm recollection of the incident by the time of hearing, insisting they could not remember the details. Both were sure, however, that neither was hurt nor was either afraid for their physical safety as a result of the Petitioner’s actions. Both described Petitioner as a non-violent person who, at worst, suffered from an immature reaction to stress. After taking the statements of the two women, Deputy Barnett departed the residence but returned somewhat later when Petitioner was present. At that time, based on his prior interview with Mrs. Hodges and her daughter, the deputy arrested Petitioner for battery which consisted of striking Mrs. Hodges and grabbing her about the neck, and throwing a roll of tape at the daughter, in addition to pushing her off the porch. Barnett acted in a manner consistent with a sheriff’s department policy of arresting any perpetrator of an incident of domestic violence. At the time of the arrest, Petitioner was not hostile to the deputy and was cooperative. The story he told the deputy at the time was consistent with what Mrs. Hodges had told the deputy previously. Petitioner stated that his wife had pointed a rifle at him. In reality, though a rifle was used as a weapon by Mrs. Hodges, she did not point the muzzle at Petitioner. She grabbed it by the barrel and used it as a club. Taken together, it would appear that the altercation transpired as was initially reported to the deputy. No doubt Petitioner was aroused and threatened as well as committed a battery on his wife. It is also found that his actions toward her daughter resulted in the girl’s stepping backward off the porch. Petitioner was kept in jail overnight and subsequently released. At his arraignment in County Court on December 4, 1995, Petitioner, appearing without counsel, pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of domestic violence (spousal battery). He was adjudicated guilty and placed on probation for a period of one year. A condition of his probation was that he attend a domestic violence counseling program, perform 30 hours of community service, and pay a fine of $156.50. Petitioner successfully completed all the terms of his probation. The counselor who conducted the court-ordered domestic violence course, James N. Barnett, in a letter dated October 30, 1997, described Petitioner as an excellent participant who was regular in his attendance and attentive in every way. Based on his personal interaction with Petitioner, Mr. Barnett found him to be concerned, sincerely motivated, and of excellent character. Petitioner and his wife have now applied to be foster parents for a young boy, V., for whom Mrs. Hodges has been a foster parent in the past. The child has stayed in touch with her since he was returned to his parents, but he is now back in foster care, and both the child and his mother want him placed in the Hodges’ home. Even after Petitioner’s arrest and conviction, and with the knowledge thereof of the Department, the child was placed with the Hodges in a non-relative placement for six months. The Department did not question the placement nor indicate, at that time, that Petitioner’s conviction was a problem. However, after the six months, Mrs. Hodges had a miscarriage and V. started acting up, and Mrs. Hodges tried to get him placed in the Baptist Children’s home, thinking that was a good place for him. However, V. was placed in a home for delinquent children instead, and when Mrs. Hodges tried to get him back, she was told she would have to apply to be a foster parent. When she and Petitioner did so, they were rejected because of Petitioner’s conviction. Mr. Richardson, a child protective investigator for the Department, met Petitioner and his wife approximately a year to a year and a half ago as a result of their care of a minor child client of his, V., for whom they provided care in the past. He found their home to be an excellent environment and a good place for the child, who was happy there. The child had bonded with both Petitioner and his wife, and Richardson is of the opinion that it would be appropriate for the child to be placed there again. On the other hand, Barbara Sykes, a family services counselor for the department and home finder for District 14, did a home study of the Hodges' home for a specific child, presumably V., at the request of the child’s foster care counselor. As a part of her investigation, she interviewed both Mr. and Mrs. Hodges. When she went to the home, Ms. Sykes was not aware of the charges of domestic violence. However, the Hodges were very forthcoming in talking about it when it came up. The Department is very careful regarding issues of domestic violence, and foster children are removed from a foster home when the issue comes up. Based on the information presented to her, Ms. Sykes concluded there were some unresolved questions as to what actually happened on the night of November 20, 1995. Because of this, she did not complete the home study; she was of the opinion that the issue of an exemption had to be resolved before she could complete it. Nonetheless, based on what she saw and heard at that time, she concluded the home of Petitioner and his wife was not a suitable placement. However, in addition to his attendance in the court- ordered domestic violence program, Petitioner also sought counseling with James R. Johnson, his friend and a minister also licensed as a pastoral counselor, who worked with Petitioner in the area of anger management. As a result of their ongoing relationship, Reverend Johnson has come to the opinion that Petitioner has grown and bettered himself and has learned how to handle stress and anger without reacting to it with impulse. He noted that Petitioner is very good with children and he would have no hesitation trusting Petitioner with the care of his own children if he and his wife were to go out of town. This good opinion of Petitioner, and the conviction that he is very good with and no danger to children, is shared by Ms. Mulvahill, a former employee of the Hodges; Mrs. Hodges’ sister, Mrs. Smith; and Mrs. Murphy, the foster parent to V.’s sister. They all are of the opinion that Petitioner has grown and learned how to control stress and anger and were impressed with the rapport he develops with children and the respect they show him. Because Petitioner’s conviction of the misdemeanor domestic violence charge disqualifies him from being licensed as a foster parent, or of working with foster children, a screening committee meeting was held under the provisions of Section 435.07, Florida Statutes, to determine if Petitioner had demonstrated his rehabilitation to a degree sufficient to support granting him an exemption from disqualification. The committee was chaired by Malcolm Miller, a Department screening coordinator. At the meeting, Mr. Miller was troubled because he did not see what Petitioner wanted to present. Petitioner brought with him only isolated bits and pieces of the documentation sought. In addition, Petitioner appeared reticent and reluctant to discuss the matters at issue to the point some committee members questioned his honesty. Mrs. Hodges seemed to speak for him. At hearing, Petitioner admitted that his presentation at the committee meeting was not fully enlightening, but he claimed the entire process was a humiliating experience for him and intimidated him. This is understandable. He was far more articulate at the instant formal hearing, and presented a favorable impression. It is not difficult to see where the committee could have come to the conclusion that Mrs. Hodges spoke for her husband. Even at the more formal instant hearing, she was not at all reluctant to speak out. The committee asked many questions of Petitioner that Mr. Miller felt were not satisfactorily answered. On the issue of the previous arrests, Petitioner denied any, when in reality his record shows an arrest in 1991 for disorderly conduct. While there was no substantial evidence to show that the instant (1995) incident was alcohol-related, the committee seemed concerned that alcohol was also a problem for Petitioner. In substance, the committee was of the opinion there was a risk this type of conduct could occur again, and the length of time since the incident, only slightly over two years, was not sufficient to support the granting of an exemption. Generally, the Department requires a period of five years to demonstrate rehabilitation. Mr. King, also a member of the committee, concluded that Petitioner had not had enough counseling for domestic violence to indicate rehabilitation, even though Petitioner had completed the court requirements. Counseling, not elapsed time, was the overriding consideration for Mr. King.
Recommendation Based on 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 Aaron B. Hodges an exemption from disqualification from serving as a foster parent. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of July, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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) 921-6947 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of July, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Suzanne Harris, Esquire 6700 South Florida Avenue Suite 31 Lakeland, Florida 33813 Jack Farley, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 4720 Old Highway 37 Lakeland, Florida 33813-2030 John S. Slye General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory D. Venz Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to an exemption from disqualification.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Anthony Bellamy, is the husband of, and resides with, his wife, Helena Bellamy. Helena Bellamy applied to Respondent, Department of Children and Family Services, for registration of a family day care home in the couple's home in Lynn Haven, Florida. In order for the family day care to be registered with the Department, Mr. Bellamy must satisfy the screening requirements set forth in Chapter 435, Florida Statutes, because he is a member of Ms. Bellamy's family. In 1995, Mr. Bellamy was a full-time student in Chipola Community College in Marianna, Florida. Mr. Bellamy, who was born and raised in humble circumstances, met a group of individuals who seemed to have all they needed without having to work for it. Mr. Bellamy started associating with this group whose income, it turned out, was derived from the sale of illegal drugs. Mr. Bellamy, envious of the monied lifestyle of his newfound associates, adopted their ways and started selling marijuana and cocaine to his friends. Mr. Bellamy's favorite place of business was a stand of trees on his father's property, which is, coincidentally, near a public school in Cottondale, Florida. However, Mr. Bellamy did not sell drugs to any of the school children. Mr. Bellamy usually timed his sales to coincide with the paydays of his customers so as to enhance his sales. This usually occurred two or three times per month. Mr. Bellamy did not use drugs himself. On January 11, 16, and 25, and March 6 of 1996, an undercover police officer made purchases of cocaine from Mr. Bellamy. On the occasion of his arrest on March 6, 1996, 55 packets of marijuana and approximately 83 pieces of crack cocaine were found with Mr. Bellamy. Mr. Bellamy pled nolo contendere to four counts of sale of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school, one count each of possession of cocaine with intent to sell within 1,000 feet of a school, and possession of cannabis with intent to sell within 1,000 feet of a school. Mr. Bellamy was adjudicated guilty of these offenses and sentenced to 22 months of jail time and 10 years of probation. Mr. Bellamy is still on probation for these offenses. He anticipates that he will remain on probation until 2005 or 2006. Although Mr. Bellamy has not re-offended, he concedes that the fear of re-incarceration if he violates his probation is one factor in his recent good behavior. However, his main reasons for no longer selling drugs is that his incarceration taught him a lesson and that he did not wish to be that type of person or live that type of life, especially since he has married and had children. Incarceration, for Mr. Bellamy, was an epiphany, not to be repeated again. During his incarceration, Mr. Bellamy was placed on trustee status and permitted to attend Chipola Community College. He completed his degree in electrical engineering and holds a state license for professional engineering. Importantly, Mr. Bellamy passed the character evaluation to become a licensed professional engineer. After getting out of prison, Mr. Bellamy worked for Southern Bell as an electrical engineer. Southern Bell had full knowledge of Mr. Bellamy's criminal history when it employed him. He was and is considered a diligent and productive employee. Mr. Bellamy now has formed his own company and performs electrical engineering services on a contract basis for Southern Bell. Mr. Bellamy also works part-time at Tropical Smoothie. He is entrusted to handle the money from that business. In 1999, Mr. Bellamy married his wife. They now have three children and he is very much a family man who wants to do right by that family. He has the determination and enthusiasm to succeed in his chosen work and life. Mr. Bellamy is active in his church and counsels the youth in that church to avoid drugs. He utilizes his experience to emphasize his counseling. There was no evidence that Mr. Bellamy was ever a danger to children or the disabled. Mr. Bellamy has shown that he is not the same person who dealt drugs and has changed his life for the better. He is entitled to an exemption from disqualification.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Family Services enter a final order granting Petitioner Antonio Bellamy an exemption from disqualification. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of June, 2002, 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 26th day of June, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Antonio Bellamy 604 Hummingbird Street Lynn Haven, Florida 32444 John R. Perry, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 2639 North Monroe Street Building A, Suite 104 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2949 Paul F. Flounlacker, Jr., Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204B Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Josie Tomayo, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Whether the Petitioner is entitled to an exemption from disqualification from employment in a position as a “caregiver?”
Findings Of Fact The Sunland Center in Marianna, Florida is a residential facility operated by the Department of Children and Families (DCF), serving developmentally disabled adults. The Petitioner, Larry Wyatt, worked at Sunland Center as a Vocational Instructor II, supervising and training a group of developmentally disabled clients. After he got involved in the events which lead to his disqualification from such a position of special trust he was demoted, but is still employed at Sunland Center in a position where he does not have client contact. The Respondent is an Agency of the state of Florida charged, in pertinent part, with screening the criminal and adult abuse records of persons employed in positions of special trust, such as the supervision of a group of developmentally disabled clients. Upon learning of an altercation involving the arrest of the Petitioner for assault (domestic violence) the department disqualified him from employment in a position of special trust working with children or developmentally disabled clients under relevant law. On the evening of August 18, 1995, the Petitioner became embroiled in an argument with his wife. The Petitioner had in his possession a six-pack of beer and had consumed two cans of beer, leaving four unopened. At some point during the course of the argument Mrs. Wyatt attempted to leave their home and go to her mother’s home in her car. Mr. Wyatt remonstrated with her to try to get her not to leave and when she refused to stay he got into his vehicle and bumped her car slightly with his vehicle. He did not actually ram her car with any great degree of force, but merely slightly bumped her car at a very slow speed, with not enough force to cause any damage or injury. Both protagonists were angry and shouting at each other. No blows or physical touching occurred. In an angry state of mind, Mrs. Wyatt telephoned the Jackson County Sheriff’s Department who dispatched Deputy David Edmundson to the scene. On arriving at the scene, Deputy Edmundson spoke to Mrs. Wyatt, who asked him to stay with her until she left the premises or else to require Mr. Wyatt to leave. She specifically asked that he not be arrested. Mr. Wyatt began again yelling at Ms. Wyatt whereupon the Deputy told him to desist. He started yelling and arguing with the Deputy and the Deputy determined that it was best to place him under arrest and remove him from the scene. He placed him under arrest for “domestic violence” and “resisting arrest without violence.” He took the Petitioner to the Jackson County Jail. Several hours later Deputy Edmundson visited Mr. Wyatt in the holding cell at the jail. Mr. Wyatt then apologized to the Deputy for his conduct at the scene of the incident and the Deputy explained to Mr. Wyatt that, at that point, he was under an injunction and prohibited from returning to his home, unless the injunction was removed by the court. Mr. Wyatt then inquired if he could retrieve his belongings from his home and the Deputy explained he could make one trip home for that purpose but would need to be accompanied by a law enforcement officer and that he would need to make arrangements with the Jackson County Sheriff’s Department in order to do so. The following day, on August 19, 1995, Mr. Wyatt went to his home in the company of his father, without the assistance or accompaniment of a law enforcement officer and without making arrangements with the sheriff’s department for the trip. He committed no improper behavior when he arrived at home, retrieved his belongings and left. Upon the discovery by the authorities that he had made the trip without proper authorization the Petitioner was again placed under arrest. On August 21, 1995, he pled guilty to “domestic violence” (presumably assault), “resisting arrest without violence” and “violating an injunction.” As a result of that guilty plea he was disqualified from his employment as a Vocational Instructor II at Sunland Center. The court did not adjudicate him guilty. Rather adjudication was withheld and he was placed on probation with conditions. A condition of his probation was that he attend Alcoholics Anonymous meetings and that he and his wife attend marriage counseling sessions. Mr. and Ms. Wyatt attended the marriage counseling sessions for twenty-seven weeks. They both testified that the therapy was very helpful to them. They learned how to control their anger and how to resolve disputes without destructive argument. Mr. Wyatt attended Alcoholics Anonymous meetings as well and found them helpful. His unrefuted testimony indicates that as to the Alcoholics Anonymous therapy and the marriage counseling sessions that both efforts were helpful in helping him to understand the role his failure to control anger and use of alcohol combined to harm the stability of his marriage and his relations with his wife. In summary, both Mr. and Mrs. Wyatt testified in a believable way, without refutation, that their marriage had greatly improved as a result of the catharsis engendered by Mr. Wyatt’s arrest under the above-found circumstances and the resultant marriage counseling therapy and his attendance at Alcoholics Anonymous counseling sessions. They have observed that they do not argue as they once did, that their children seem to respect them more, and they get along better among themselves as well. Their family life is strengthened and more stable as a result of their experience. Leon Hussey, the Petitioner’s immediate supervisor at Sunland Center, Mr. Fears, his father-in-law and co-worker, and Tracy Clemmons, the Superintendent of Sunland, all testified to the effect that the Petitioner had been an exemplary employee with a flawless record for sixteen years. He was classified as an above average employee by his supervisor and the superintendent. They noted that he was particularly skilled at handling difficult clients at Sunland in his work as a vocational therapist and that clients felt respect and great affection for him. They have even asked on occasion when he would “be back” to occupy his old position in working with them. Tracy Clemmons and Leon Hussey both testified that the Petitioner was an excellent employee and his return they regarded as essential in order to adequately deal with difficult clients and that it would be “a shame” if he were not permitted to return to the duties he performed so well in dealing with the developmentally disabled clients in question. In summary, although the incident occurring between Mr. Wyatt and his wife may be classified as assault (“domestic violence”), he testified, as did she, without refutation, that he never struck her and that the car bumping incident in their yard was the result of his insufficiently controlled anger at her but, fortunately, was not of a nature to cause any injury to his wife or the other vehicle, and was not so intended. Under the totality of the circumstances, considering especially the efforts Mr. Wyatt has made, with his wife’s cooperation, to rehabilitate himself and to learn to control his anger and other impulsive behavior and the lack of any similar altercations since the one in question, it is found that the Petitioner has adequately rehabilitated himself in order to justify the grant of an exemption. This finding is corroborated and supported by the testimony of the witnesses from his employment life who uniformly described his exemplary record as a skilled, caring, compassionate trainer of the developmentally disabled persons in his charge. They desire his return to his former position immediately, even with knowledge of the circumstances of his recent disqualification. The testimony adduced by the department did not establish a lack of rehabilitation on the part of Mr. Wyatt. The testimony adduced by the Department at most can be characterized as a conclusory statement of position that, given the circumstances of the incident between Mr. Wyatt and his wife, a similar incident between them some two years previously, and another incident involving a driving violation concerning an expired tag, drivers license and “leaving the scene of an accident,” to which a guilty plea was entered, that Mr. Wyatt has not shown adequate rehabilitation. That testimony is rejected as not being as substantial as that in support of the above findings of fact establishing the Petitioner’s adequate rehabilitation. No adverse incidents have occurred since the one causing this proceeding. The testimony of the Petitioner’s wife and the other witnesses is accepted over that of the Department’s witness, Ms. Hanson. They had more opportunity to observe the Petitioner’s personality and behavior since the incident in question and more of an opportunity to learn of his reputation in the community for behavior since the incident, which is consistent with his rehabilitation, which their testimony establishes, when considered in its totality with the other circumstances proved in this case.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, the evidence of record and the pleadings and arguments of the parties it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered awarding Larry Wyatt, the Petitioner herein, the requested exemption.DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of May, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of May, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Thayer Marts, Esquire Post Office Box 761 Marianna, Florida 32447 John R. Perry, Esquire Department of Children and Families 2639 North Monroe Street, Suite 252A Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2949 Gregory D. Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Families Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Richard A. Doran, Esquire Department of Children and Families Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
