The Issue Is it appropriate for Respondent, Department of Revenue, Child Support Enforcement Program, to garnish funds for past due child support reduced to judgment from a joint account pursuant to Section 409.25656, Florida Statutes (2001)?1
Findings Of Fact On December 20, 1985, an Order of Support was issued in Derrick v. Wright in the Hillsborough County Circuit Court; pursuant to this Order, Petitioner was ordered to pay $25.00 per week for the current support of his minor child, Mesheal Lee Wright, born on April 20, 1983, commencing December 16, 1985. On February 10, 1995, a Recommendation of Hearing Officer and a Findings of Fact and Order on Motion for Contempt in Derrick v. Wright were filed in the Hillsborough County Circuit Court, which adjudicated Petitioner’s child support arrearage in the case to be $10,639.02 as of October 7, 1994. On May 11, 1995, a General Findings and Order of Arrest Instanter in Derrick v. Wright was filed in the Hillsborough County Circuit Court, which adjudicated Petitioner’s child support arrearage in the case to be $9,463.02 as of December 31, 1994. On or about May 13, 2002, a Recommendation of Hearing Officer and a Findings and Establishing Arrears in Derrick v. Wright were filed in the Hillsborough County Circuit Court, which adjudicated Petitioner’s child support arrearage in the case to be $16,121.06 as of April 9, 2002, and ordered Petitioner to pay $167.00 per month in liquidation of his arrearage, commencing May 1, 2002. All the arrearage was owed by Petitioner to the custodial parent of the minor child; none of the arrearage was owed to the state. On October 15, 2001, Respondent mailed a Notice of Freeze in an amount up to $16,121.06 to Suncoast by certified mail, return receipt requested, regarding any accounts of Petitioner with the credit union; Suncoast received the Notice of Freeze on October 18, 2001. Suncoast confirmed a freeze on Petitioner’s joint account in the amount of $5,573.95 as of October 18, 2001. The signature card, produced as an exhibit by the Respondent, stipulated that the account was owned as a joint tenancy with right of survivorship by Petitioner and a non- obligor joint account holder, Petitioner's sister. On October 22, 2001, Respondent mailed a Notice of Intent to Levy in an amount up to $16,121.06 to Petitioner by certified mail, return receipt requested; the Notice of Intent to Levy was received and signed for at the Florida State Hospital, Chattahoochee, Florida, on October 23, 2001. The Notice of Intent to Levy advised that a non- obligor joint owner, who claimed to have an equal right to all of the money levied upon in a joint account, had a right to contest Respondent’s action. The non-obligor joint account holder did not file a petition to contest the levy nor did she appear at the final hearing. On or about November 5, 2001, Petitioner filed a Petition-Disputed Issues of Material Fact with Respondent. Respondent sent a Notice of Extension of Freeze in an amount up to $16,121.06 to Suncoast on November 9, 2001. Pursuant to the official records of the Hillsborough County Circuit Court in Derrick v. Wright, Petitioner’s child support arrearage was $16,121.06 as of November 21, 2003. Petitioner and his sister, Sandra W. Russaw, opened a joint account with survivorship rights at Suncoast on November 21, 1997. The Suncoast account had balances of less than $100.00 for 12 of the first 25 months it was open including the five months immediately preceding January 20, 2000, when $3,900.00 was deposited in the account. On December 27, 1999, Petitioner had $3,655.00 deposited in a Resident Trust Account he maintained at the Florida State Hospital, Chattahoochee, Florida. These funds, which were deposited by the U.S. Treasury, were followed by a deposit of $749.00 from the same source. These funds were initial payments to Petitioner for Veteran's Administration benefits. On January 14, 2000, $4,200.00 was withdrawn in the form of a check from Petitioner's Resident Trust Account at the Florida State Hospital. On January 20, 2000, $3,900.00 was deposited in the Suncoast account. Over the next 23 months, from January 20, 2000, to November 31, 2001, $20,538.00 directly attributable to Petitioner was deposited in the Suncoast account. The money was from Veteran's Administration benefits paid to Petitioner by direct deposit. Not surprisingly, upon notification of the Notice of Freeze the monthly checks from the Veteran's Administration stopped being deposited in Petitioner's Suncoast account. On March 8, 2000, $5,000.00 was withdrawn from the Suncoast account, and on July 10 and 20, 2000, $4,990.00 was deposited in the same account. With the exception of the July 2000 deposits, only $1,490.00 in deposits to the Suncoast account are not directly attributable to Petitioner.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order that: (1) levies upon the funds in Petitioner’s credit union account with Suncoast Schools Federal Credit Union, Tampa, Florida, up to the amount of unpaid child support as of November 21, 2003, i.e., $16,121.06, or to the full amount frozen, whichever is less; (2) applies the funds levied to satisfy all or part of Petitioner’s past due child support obligation; and (3) credits Petitioner for the amount so applied. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of January, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JEFF B. CLARK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of January, 2004.
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether part of Petitioner's lottery prize should be withheld and used to pay an allegedly outstanding debt for child support.
Findings Of Fact On April 15, 1990, Petitioner submitted a claim to the Department of the Lottery (Lottery) on a ticket he held for the Lotto drawing of April 14, 1990. The ticket reflected that Petitioner had correctly selected five of the six numbers drawn on April 14 and rendered him eligible for a prize of $4,334.50. On May 4, 1990, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (DHRS) certified to the Lottery that Petitioner owed $3,625.00 in Title IV-D child support arrearage. By letter dated May 9, 1990, the Lottery notified Petitioner that DHRS had advised it of the outstanding debt and that, pursuant to Section 24.115(4), Florida Statutes, it had transmitted the prize amount to the Department of Banking and Finance (DBF). Petitioner was further advised that DBF would notify him shortly regarding the distribution of the funds. By letter dated May 15, 1990, DBF notified Petitioner that it was in receipt of his prize from the Lottery and that it intended to apply $3,625.00 of the award toward the unpaid claim for child support. Enclosed with that letter was State of Florida warrant number 2537015 in the amount of $709.50 payable to Petitioner. This warrant was a partial payment of the lottery prize and represented the difference between the amount of the prize and the amount of chld support that HRS had certified as being due. In a letter received by DBF on May 30, 1990, Petitioner disputed that any obligation was outstanding and requested a formal hearing. On July 18, 1990, DHRS notified DBF that Petitioner's child support arrearage had been reduced by $2,154.82 as a result of an IRS tax refund interception. That letter indicated that, as a result of the interception, DHRS had calculated the amount of the Petitioner's outstanding child support obligation to be $1,470.18. In the letter, DHRS specifically relinquished its claim to the additional $2,154.82 it had originally certified. By letter dated July 30, 1990, DBF transmitted to Petitioner State of Florida warrant number 0129960 in the amount of $2,154.82. This warrant was a partial payment of the lottery prize and reduced the amount of the prize being held by DBF to $1,470.18. On July 18, 1991, General Master Helen T. Erstling entered a Recommended Order On Determination Of Arrears which concluded that as of July 11, 1991, Petitioner owed $1,568.68 in child support arrearage. That Recommended Order provided that DBF was authorized to release to DHRS up to $1,568.68 of Petitioner's lottery proceeds. On August 13, 1991, Circuit Court Judge George E. Orr of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Dade County, Florida, entered an Order Upon Recommended Order On Disputed Arrears which ratified and adopted the Recommended Order of the General Master. The arrearage calculated by the General Master and adopted by the court was calculated as of June 11, 1991, and established that, as of that date, Petitioner owed $1,568.68 in Title IV-D child support arrearage. Petitioner, the party responsible to make such payments, offered no proof at the hearing in this case to establish that such sum has been paid and/or is no longer owing. This arrearage exceeds the remaining amount of the lottery prize being held by DBF.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Department of Banking and Finance enter a final order dismissing the Petitioner's request for formal hearing, and that it pay to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services the $1,470.18 remainder of Petitioner's lottery prize in partial satisfaction of Petitioner's debt for child support. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 16th day of October 1991. J. STEPHEN MENTON 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 16th day of October 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Lawrence Fowler Apt. 202 9481 Evergreen Place Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33324 Bridget L. Ryan Assistant General Counsel Office of the Comptroller Suite 1302, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Chriss Walker, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Louisa Warren Department of the Lottery 250 Marriott Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399 The Honorable Gerald Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 William G. Reeves General Counsel Department of Banking and Finance The Capitol, Room 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
The Issue Whether Petitioner's application to become adoptive parents with the Department should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Beginning in November 1993, Petitioners were foster parents licensed by the Department. They stopped fostering in 1997. On March 25, 1997, Petitioners submitted an application to become adoptive parents through the Department. On August 22, 1997, an adoptive home study was completed by Ms. Townsend, supervisor of adoption and out-of-home care for the Department and adoption counselor for Petitioners. Among other things, the home study consisted of an interview with Petitioners and a review of Petitioners' history as foster parents. Ms. Townsend testified that when asked, Petitioners said they wanted to adopt a little girl under four. However, because of the age desired, such a child is not a special needs child. After completion of her review, Ms. Townsend identified the following needs in Petitioners: Appear to allow emotions to influence their judgment. Appear to be inflexible when presented an opinion different from their own where children are concerned. Seem to have unrealistic "love conquers all" attitude about special needs children. Appear to have trouble defining boundaries in their relationships with children. Need to develop more structure and objectivity when dealing with special needs children. It appears that they may, unintentionally, encourage the dependence of children on them in an effort to demonstrate their love. May need to examine more closely their motivation and apparent need to have a child. Need to develop a more positive working relationship with the Department. The needs referenced above were based on the interviews with Petitioners and their history as foster parents. Ms. Townsend also identified several strengths that Petitioners had as adoptive applicants. These strengths were: Family has knowledge and experience with special needs children. Committed and sincere desire to adopt. Willingness to take an active role in the lives of children. Demonstrated ability to accept children regardless of their problems. Provide assurance to children that they are loved and cared about. Open, verbal, and demonstrative people. Actively pursue what is in the best interest of children. Stable marriage of twenty-five years. Stable and well kept home with space available for expanding the family. Stable and more than adequate employment and income. Based upon her assessment of Petitioners, Ms. Townsend felt Petitioners' deficiencies outweighed their strengths. She recommended denial of Petitioners' application and that they pursue adoption of a non-special needs child. Per Department procedure, an adoptive applicant review committee was convened to consider Petitioners' application. The committee consisted of Ms. Winters, operations management specialist; chairperson, Mary Alegretti; Diane Rickman; Sheila Sinkfield; and Donna Veline. The committee report attached the foster parent adoptive home study, the foster parent re-licensing study, the original foster home study, a memorandum from Tom Waltz, foster child licensing counselor, dated January 8, 1997, a memorandum from Tom Waltz dated August 19, 1994, and a memorandum from Michele Shaner, foster care counselor, dated October 5, 1994, and the individual recommendations of all the committee members. The attachments to the committee's report identified difficulties Petitioners had concerning foster children previously in their care. Those documents related specific concerns based on incidents regarding foster children J.J., H.J., and D.C. The committee identified the following areas of concern for Petitioners: They really do not want to adopt a special needs child. When the adoption counselor pointed out to them on more than one occasion that the type of child they were describing was not special needs, they then said they would consider a sibling group, as long as one of the siblings was a little girl. It appears they have had problems in establishing appropriate parent-child relationships with appropriate boundaries. R.R. and P.R. did not respond appropriately when a foster child in their home was on runaway status; they withheld information from the Department concerning her possible whereabouts. Based on those concerns, the committee unanimously recommended denial of Petitioners' application to become adoptive parents. District legal counsel and the district administrator concurred with that recommendation. Petitioners were notified of the denial. The denial was based upon an evaluation of Petitioners' capacity for parenthood pursuant to the Department's service manual, HRS manual 175-16. The denial letter only cited Petitioners' demonstrated problem in establishing appropriate parent-child relationships with appropriate boundaries. Parenting a special needs child is more complicated and demanding than parenting a child without special needs. For the most part, special needs children come to the Department after they have been removed from or abandoned by the parents or other guardian. They often come from abusive or neglectful homes. Many special needs children have emotional and behavioral problems. The various problems a child may have differ with each child. Generally, special needs children, and probably all children, need clear and consistent boundaries with enforced structure in their daily lives. The required amount of boundaries and structure will differ from child to child. Each child's individual problems must be dealt with in a consistent manner. In fact, the Riches are very familiar with the varying problems and difficulties associated with special needs children and have dealt with each child they fostered in appropriate ways. Importantly, at no point in this review process was a specific child being considered for adoption. Because there is no specific child's needs under consideration, this case does not encompass whether a specific child would be a good adoptive match with Petitioners. Additionally because there is no specific child's needs under consideration, whether Petitioners could theoretically meet the theoretical needs of any and all special needs children is not the issue in this case. This case only encompasses whether Petitioners demonstrate the qualities expected of good parents. Ronnie Rich and his wife Pamela Rich have been married for 29 years. Mr. Rich has been employed with the Pensacola newspaper since 1982. He often works at night. Although Petitioners never ruled out the possibility that Pam Rich might become pregnant, they had discussed adoption from the very start of their relationship. They both felt there were too many kids in the world already who needed somebody. The Riches are very family oriented and participate in their church and church-sponsored activities. Ms. Rich is politically active in various social causes. They are somewhat "counter-culturish." Neither Ms. Rich's activism, nor the Riches' religious views have been pushed on any foster child in their care. Both Riches are very caring individuals. The Riches became interested in fostering because of an incident that occurred in 1983 with a young child who lived behind them. The child eventually ended up in protective placement. During the process, the Riches met with Janice Jeffcoat who performed the investigation concerning their neighbor. Later they decided to become foster parents with the intention of having the neighbor's child placed with them. For reasons not related here, the placement did not occur. Once the Riches began fostering children, they found that they had a knack with the kids they were fostering. At the time they decided to adopt a special needs child they had had a few years experience with special needs children. The Riches recognized that special needs children can be the hardest children to care for. Petitioners' first foster child was H.J, a 15-year-old female child. H.J. was known as a difficult child to place anywhere. She was particularly difficult for new and inexperienced foster parents. Petitioners describe H.J. as "a shocker." H.J. was known to say things to people just to see what kind of rise she could get from them. She would lie down in the hallway as if she were dead when someone opened the front door. She once told a dinner guest, Reverend Hawkins, that she was part of a group that sacrificed animals. H.J. had a history of violence with her step-mother and with her brother. The family had several knock-down-dragout fights, involving serious physical violence. H.J. had serious emotional and mental health problems. She often tantrumed, lost control of her behavior, injured herself, damaged property, and verbally abused others. This behavior was exhibited during her stay at the Riches. None-the-less, H.J. stayed with them for 5 months. During H.J.'s time at the Riches' home, she was seeing Chris Guy in therapy. The Riches supported and participated in that therapy. In fact, H.J. made progress in controlling herself while under the care of the Riches. Her behavior deteriorated when she learned that she was going to be placed with her uncle in Alabama. Finally she was removed from the Riches' home when one night she became uncontrollable, self-injurious, destructive, and threatening toward Ms. Rich. She ended up in the hospital, where the Riches stayed with her until three o'clock in the morning. After a short placement with another foster home, H.J. was placed with her uncle in Alabama. The Department's concerns as to H.J., were that Pam Rich had taken H.J. to hear a band at a restaurant where alcohol was served; used the term "jail bait"; allegedly encouraged H.J.'s interest in the occult; allegedly encouraged H.J. to explore her lesbian feelings; and stated a favorable opinion on the legalization of marijuana. H.J. did not testify at the hearing regarding the validity of the Department's concerns or her perception of the Riches' behavior or lifestyle. Moreover, all of these concerns were investigated by the Department with subsequent recommendations for relicensure as foster parents. During the course of her stay with the Riches, H.J. wanted to go see a band that was playing at a popular restaurant in town. Ms. Rich agreed that H.J. could go to the performance as long as Ms. Rich accompanied her. While there Ms. Rich drank one glass of wine in the presence of H.J. During a break, an older man with the band began to "hit" on H.J. in an attempt to pick her up. The man's English was not very good. In an effort to quickly terminate the man's pursuit, Ms. Rich told the man that he needed to leave because H.J. was "jail bait." She used the term to make the man understand his attention was not wanted and that he should go away. The man promptly left. Ms. Rich did not intend the term "jail bait" to be derogatory to H.J. She intended to use the term to communicate very quickly to the man in a language he could understand that serious consequences would ensue if he continued to pursue H.J. There was no evidence that H.J. found the remark offensive or derogatory. There was also no evidence that H.J. needed to be protected from an adult appropriately having a glass of wine. At some point during her stay with the Riches, H.J. elected to participate in the Riches' church and some of its church-sponsored functions. Ms. Rich and H.J. attended a chaperoned youth conference sponsored by the church in south Florida. Unknown to Ms. Rich, H.J. was "hit on" by another girl at the youth conference who allegedly was gay. Upon returning home, H.J. told Ms. Rich about the incident. Ms. Rich asked H.J. if the incident bothered her. H.J. said that it didn't. Ms. Rich told H.J. about a triangular pendant she wore that indicated that it is okay that another person is gay, but that the wearer of the pendant is not gay. The pendant is known as a PFLAG pendant. PFLAG stands for Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays. Afterward, H.J. on her own bought a PFLAG pendant at the Crystal Center where she took yoga classes. Additionally, at some point, H.J. asked Ms. Rich how she would react if she told her she was gay. Ms. Rich told H.J. that it would be okay. H.J. then informed Ms. Rich that she was not gay; Ms. Rich told H.J. that not being gay was okay too. Ms. Rich only had these discussions at H.J.'s prompting. Ms. Rich did not initiate H.J.'s discussions about homosexuality. She did not encourage H.J. to purchase a PFLAG pendant. On another occasion, after hearing a song by a popular group about legalizing marijuana, H.J. inquired about the Riches' position on the subject. The Riches explained that while it might be a sound policy to legalize marijuana and treat it more like alcohol, alcohol and marijuana were illegal substances for a teenager and were strictly prohibited in their family. H.J. then changed the subject and moved on to other things. There was no evidence that H.J.'s parental needs included a boundary excluding honest discussion of homosexuality or marijuana when H.J. raised such. Teenagers will raise controversial issues with the adults who are significant in the teenagers life. The Riches' responses were not inappropriate. Again these facts do not support the conclusion that either Rich demonstrated an inability to set appropriate boundaries for a special needs child. Finally, H.J. had some interest in the occult. The evidence did not show that this interest was serious, but was more of the behavior H.J. used to shock others. When H.J. came to the Riches' she brought a voodoo doll with her. She stapled it to the wall and never moved the doll from that spot. The Riches never saw her use the doll for voodoo purposes. At some point, H.J., like other teenagers, wanted a Ouija board. Mr. Rich purchased a Ouija board for H.J. He did not find it unusual to buy H.J. a Ouija board because he had had a Ouija board when he was growing up. He saw the board as a game and did not associate the board with the occult. The evidence did not show that the Riches used crystals and chanted. The evidence did not show that the Riches encouraged H.J. to use crystals and chant. The evidence did not demonstrate that any of this activity was a necessary boundary which H.J. required to be maintained. Again these facts do not establish that the Riches do not have the ability to set appropriate boundaries for children. After H.J., two sisters from Santa Rosa County were placed with Petitioners. Petitioners were told that nobody in Escambia or Santa Rosa County would take them in. The sisters had been in foster care prior to this placement and an older sister had been removed from the home permanently. The girls' father had a history of violence. The oldest of the two girls placed with Petitioners made accusations of inappropriate touching by the father. The girls had problems as to how they related to each other and discussed things. During the placement, Petitioners, who live in Escambia County, traveled with the girls to and from appointments in Milton, Okaloosa County, Florida; they also attended court hearings with them. The girls were in their care for a few months. No Department concerns were noted for this placement. The next placement to Petitioners' home was K. She came to Petitioners from Turning Point. Turning Point is a facility for young girls with serious behavioral problems. The facility's purpose is behavior modification. K. was a very difficult child. She would be happy and laughing one minute and the next, she would close down. During her stay with the Riches, K. was finishing the program at Turning Point. However, her mother was not prepared to take her back into her home. The Riches were a "gap period" placement between the time K. left Turning Point until her mother could make proper living arrangements with a place for K. During the placement, the Riches worked very closely with various therapists and case workers at Turning Point. Turning Point staff were sometimes in and out of Petitioners' home three or four times a week, visiting K. and holding therapy sessions. Staff would come once a week to see the Riches and to see if they had any problems. K. was reunited with her Mother. The Riches remain friends with K. and her mother and maintain contact with them. The Department did not have any concerns with this placement. After K., J.J. was placed with the Riches. Up to this time, Mr. Rich stated that they had had older female children. J.J. was 2 years, 10 months old upon her arrival at the Riches' home. She stayed with the Riches for 15 months and was 4 years old when she left. J.J.'s problems were not the same as those of the other foster children who had been placed with Petitioners. She had more serious behavioral and emotional problems. She soiled her pants, did not sleep through the night, and had nightmares. She came from a home with a tremendous amount of drugs, alcohol, and violence. Sexual abuse was not an issue with J.J. On one occasion, Mrs. Rich asked J.J. what she was looking for in the hallway. J.J. replied that she was looking for the blood. Later, the Riches learned that her mother had been beaten so severely by her father that there was blood in the hallway. J.J., at the age of three, was in therapy. J.J. improved at the Riches' home. While J.J. was in the Riches' home, it was normal for the Riches to rock J.J. to quiet her before bedtime. It was a period of time for her to stop from the rushing of the day and settle down before bedtime. Her bedtime was fairly early in the evening just after supper. The Department's concern as to J.J. was related to bathing. The child was not yet old enough to be left unsupervised in the bath tub. Therefore, someone had to watch her while she bathed. Most often, Ms. Rich was responsible for supervising J.J.'s bath. Occasionally, Ms. Rich would shower or bathe with J.J. Usually, she would keep an eye on J.J. while J.J. was in the bath tub. About once a month, Mr. Rich supervised the end of J.J.'s bathing. He would keep an eye on her from the hallway. The only time, Mr. Rich was called on to supervise J.J.'s bath was when Ms. Rich had to leave J.J. to begin cooking or take care of some other task which had to be done so that J.J. could get to bed on time. Nothing the Riches did regarding J.J.'s bath was unusual or abnormal. Clearly, given the age of J.J., the Riches acted responsibly in supervising J.J. in the bath. There was no evidence which demonstrated that such a bathing routine was harmful to J.J. or was an inappropriate boundary regarding her, especially since sexual abuse was not an issue with her. The Department came to the same conclusion when it relicensed the Riches as foster parents. Petitioners wanted to adopt J.J. after J.J.'s case worker expressed the possibility to them. However, the Riches were not kept informed of the Department's ongoing efforts to reunite J.J. with her parents. With these mixed signals about whether she would be staying with the Riches on a permanent basis or whether she would be reunified with her mother and father J.J. quickly reverted back to soiling her pants, not sleeping through the night, and having nightmares. J.J. was reunited with her parents. The Riches experienced considerable remorse over the loss of J.J. They felt department staff had misled them and cruelly raised their hopes about adoption of J.J. In October, 1996, after investigation of the above concerns, the Department found the Riches had a lot to offer its special needs children and recommended relicensure. The Riches were found to have used appropriate discipline; were committed to the children placed in their care; provided a warm, friendly, and caring environment to those foster children; and were extremely cooperative with the Department on fostering issues. Two foster care counselors thought they were above satisfactory in all areas of fostering. Before J.J. left the Riches' home, Delores Shelton, formerly known as D.C., was placed with the Riches. She was 16 years old. Beginning with her father, Delores had been passed around among various males in and out of her family. Once her father had left her with another man, he and her mother abandoned Delores and moved to California. At each move to another male who would take care of her, Delores was mentally, physically, and sexually abused. At age 15, she ended up with a man who was 26. They had a child together, but were not married. One day they had a fight. The Department was called to take Dolores and the infant child into custody. At that point, prior to placement with the Riches, Delores was moved from foster home to foster home. Delores was diagnosed with severe post-traumatic stress disorder. She also was diagnosed with a drug and alcohol problem. Drug and alcohol abuse is not uncommon for teenagers with post-traumatic stress disorder and Delores' behavior was out of control. Delores was a chronic runaway. The Riches knew Delores from a prior placement with another foster parent. They were aware of her problems. At the time of transfer to the Riches, Betsy Thomas, from the Department, told them that Delores may or may not stay the whole night. Significantly, Delores never ran away while in the care of the Riches. The Departments concerns as to Delores were that Mr. Rich had rocked Delores in a rocking chair with her in his lap, Petitioners placed her in a bed with them during an episode in which she threatened suicide, had attempted to interfere in her treatment, inappropriately kissed her in saying goodbye and failed to disclose Delores' whereabouts to the Department when she had run away. Delores and J.J. were very close. They referred to each other as sisters and shared a room. On one occasion, while Mrs. Rich was cooking dinner, and Mr. Rich was rocking J.J., Delores was sitting on the couch and started making comments such as "Well, I've never been rocked, my parents never rocked me. They never did that for me, but we do it every day for J.J., and sometimes rock J.J. more than once. But, you know, you all are all the time rocking her, but I've never been rocked." At that time, Petitioners didn't know quite how to respond to Delores' request to be rocked. Mr. Rich told Delores that they would talk about it at another time. The next day she mentioned it again. So in full view of Mrs. Rich, Mr. Rich rocked Delores for no more than five minutes. After that occurrence, Petitioners discussed the rocking of Delores and decided that an afghan and/or small quilt would be placed on Mr. Rich's lap between him and Delores. Petitioners discussed the rocking with Jean Lenhert, Delores' counselor. Ms. Lenhert agreed that it was the appropriate thing to do for Delores. Delores had regressed emotionally to a younger age, and she was seeking out affection from the people she viewed as her parents. The rocking of Delores occurred no more than a half a dozen times. The rocking helped Delores. It calmed her down and relaxed her. Mrs. Rich tried to rock Delores on one occasion but it was to painful for her since she suffers from arthritis and Delores weighed somewhere between 110 to 120 pounds. Under these circumstances, the Riches acted appropriately in handling a situation which had arisen. The Riches were aware that they did not want to encourage Delores to seek affection in inappropriate ways as she had done prior to becoming a foster child. Generally, maintenance of personal space and appropriate and limited demonstrations of affection are important for a child who has been sexually abused. These factors are the reason they sought guidance on the matter from Ms. Lehnert. Moreover, the Riches' judgment in this matter was correct since it did indeed help Delores through a regressive period. Given these circumstances, this incident does not demonstrate that Petitioners are unable to develop appropriate boundaries in a parent-child relationship. Ms. Lehnert testified that she noticed a change in Delores after she was placed with the Riches. Delores told Ms. Lenhert that she felt like she had a home with the Riches. Delores stayed at the Riches' home and quit running away. Although she continued to use drugs and alcohol, it was not as extreme a use as her use in the past. Delores was trying to get off the drugs and alcohol. The Riches participated in the therapy sessions when they were asked. They would ask to speak with Ms. Lehnert to let her know what Delores' behaviors had been that week. Such involvement was appropriate. In fact, Ms. Lehnert asked all parents, foster and biological to be so involved in a child's treatment. Ms. Lehnert testified that Petitioners did everything she asked of them. If they weren't sure of something, they would always call her. Ms. Lehnert testified that just being in Petitioners' house brought Delores a sense of security and a comfort level. When Delores was taken out of Petitioners' home, she ran away and reverted to her old behavior. Delores never felt threatened or that the Riches behaved inappropriately towards her. She reported that she felt safe in their home. Dolores testified that upon arriving at the Riches' home, they went over the rules with her. At first, she tried to break the rules to see what would happen. She stated that the Riches always talked to her about how they felt when she broke the rules. She said she later started following the rules because she felt comfortable at the Riches; she knew they wouldn't just kick her out because she broke a rule. Significantly, Dolores testified that until she arrived at the Riches' home, she never felt a sense of security in any home. She stated that the Riches showed that they cared. They cared about her going to counseling and getting help to get her life together. She testified that in other homes she was not cared about but just there for the money. Dolores testified that the Riches treated her like a member of their family. To this day she calls them mom and dad. She considers them her real parents because they treat her like their daughter. Delores was very withdrawn and very untrusting when she was first placed with Petitioners. After some time, she became more trusting. Soon the Riches could count on Delores to help around the house. During her placement there was one occasion when Delores was placed in the bed between Petitioners; it was Thanksgiving weekend. Petitioners, Delores, and another foster child visited Ms. Rich's parents outside Spanish Fort, Alabama. After some time there, Petitioners noticed Delores appeared to be stoned. Petitioners discovered that Delores had gotten into Ms. Rich's mother's medicine cabinet. She had found an old Valium prescription and had taken some of the pills. Delores was caught trying to break into Ms. Rich's traveling case where she kept her arthritis medication. She also had tried to get into Ms. Rich's father's medication used for his heart condition. Delores clearly needed some professional help. Petitioners did not want to take Delores to an Alabama hospital because they had learned from the MAPP class that you should always avoid getting another Department involved if necessary. Baptist Hospital in Pensacola was the closest hospital known to the Riches, so they took Delores there. Upon their arrival and assessment of Delores, the medical staff told the Riches Delores did not meet the criteria to be Baker-acted. She was sent home with the Riches. Petitioners drove home and called Les Chambers and Betsy Thomas two foster care counselors. Neither answered and the Riches left messages on their answering machines. Mr. Rich drove back to Spanish Fort to collect their things and retrieve the other foster child whom they left with Ms. Rich's sister, a special education teacher. The trip took approximately 4 1/2 hours. When he returned, the other child was put to bed. Delores was manic. She was walking in circles. Delores had told Ms. Rich that she knew how to commit suicide by slicing her wrists. She said she would show Ms. Rich how it was done, so Delores drew a streak with a pen from her wrist to her elbow. Ms. Rich stated that prior to that, Delores' suicide attempts had been scratches, laterally across her wrist. This was the first time she showed the "correct" way to slice her wrists in order to commit suicide. At some point, Delores walked into the kitchen. Ms. Rich realized that Delores was going to get a knife. Mrs. Rich ran to the kitchen and grabbed Delores' wrist as she was grabbing for a knife. Petitioners were very concerned and frightened that Delores would try to kill herself. It was 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning, and they were "dead on their feet." They had heard nothing from anybody, and were at a complete loss as to what they should do. The Riches feared they would fall asleep and Delores would kill herself. They were afraid that if they put her to bed in another room she would kill herself. These fears were legitimate. The decision was made that the safest place for Delores was in the bed between the Riches under the covers, with Petitioners on top of the covers. Everyone was fully dressed. Delores made it through the night. Betsy Thomas called the following afternoon and told them to tough it out. Mr. Chambers did not call until sometime the following Sunday. Eventually, Delores was admitted to the Baptist Adolescent Stress Unit at Baptist Hospital. Upon being released from the Baptist Adolescent Stress Unit, Petitioners picked Delores up. Mr. Rich picked up a birthday cake for Delores because the Riches thought she would be staying with them. Upon arriving home there was a message from Les Chambers to deliver Delores straight to FIRS. There was no reason given as to why Delores was being removed from Petitioners' home. Delores was next placed at Willow Edge's foster home. Even though Delores was no longer in the care of Petitioners, she continued to call them. She called Petitioners while at Ms. Edges' and told them she stayed up all night doing drugs with one of the other people in the home. While Delores was at Ms. Edges' home a local mall held a shopping spree for foster children on December 14, 1996. Ms. Eastlack observed Ms. Rich create a scene with Delores and her new foster mother. Ms. Rich was crying and attempting to hug and talk to Delores; Delores was ignoring Ms. Rich. Delores was angry about being placed in another foster home. Ms. Rich shook her fist in the other foster mother's face, raising her voice at the foster mother. Ms. Rich was chastising the foster mother for permitting Delores to use drugs and stay up all night at her house. Ms. Rich was upset by the reports Delores had given the Riches of her activities at her new foster home, and she was concerned for Delores. Ms. Rich eventually was encouraged to leave by someone with Ms. Rich who tugged on her arm to get her to leave. While this episode was an emotional response, one such outburst does not reflect unduly on Petitioners as potential adoptive parents. It does show how much Ms. Rich cares about the children in her life. After Ms. Edge's home, Delores was moved from several different foster placements. Eventually, she was taken to Lakeview Center and then to Meridian. Meridian is a long-term residential psychiatric care facility for children and adolescents typically between the ages of 8 to 18, to work on their behavioral and emotional problems as well as substance abuse issues. It is a voluntary, residential facility for children. Stays are typically anywhere from three months to a year. Delores, stayed at Meridian for approximately 20 days, ran away, was returned, stayed another two weeks at maximum and ran away again. During the second time Delores ran away, the Riches received a call from Delores telling them she had run away because she couldn't stand Meridian anymore. She asked that they not be mad at her. She made several telephonic contacts with Petitioners. Petitioners were very concerned for Delores' safety on the streets; they feared she would revert to her old habits of trading sex for support. They encouraged her to return to Meridian and offered to pick her up and return her to Meridian. They stressed to her to stay clean and sober. At no time, did Delores reveal her location to Petitioners. She knew if she did Petitioners would tell the Department about her location and she would be picked up. At one point, Delores was desperate for money. Mr. Rich wrote Delores a letter enclosing some money and a phone card. He mailed it to an address she had stayed at. Delores did not tell Petitioners about this location until after she had left. At the time the letter was mailed, Mr. Rich did not know where Delores was and took a chance in the hope that she would get the letter. The evidence did not demonstrate that Petitioners withheld any information on the whereabouts of Delores after she ran away from Lakeview/Meridian. They did not know where she was. Delores remained on her own for several weeks, occassionally calling the Riches. She finally agreed to turn herself in. Petitioners picked Delores up, took her to lunch, bought her some clothes, since other than what she had on, she had none. They then took her to Meridian. The Riches met with Dr. Kimberly S. Haga. Dr. Haga, Ph.D., is a licensed psychologist. She was employed at Lakeview/Meridian from November 1, 1996 through January 28, 2000. Dr. Haga met with Petitioners during a two-hour meeting. Mr. Rich thought the meeting lasted only about 45 minutes. From the beginning, the meeting was hostile. Even though she did not know the Riches and the history outlined here, the meeting opened with Dr. Haga stating that the Riches had a very dysfunctional family. Although Delores was not placed with Petitioners at the time they returned her to Meridian, the Riches asked to be a part of her treatment. Petitioners knew they had formed a relationship with Delores, and believed it would be to her benefit if they participated. Moreover, Delores had requested their participation. Whether or not Delores returned to their home was unimportant; Petitioners wanted to see Delores get appropriate treatment. Dr. Haga thought Petitioners "insisted on being a part of the treatment process" and "insisted upon dictating the terms of treatment." Dr. Haga opined that such insistence by Petitioners was inappropriate. However, Delores at the time and date viewed Petitioners as her parents. Petitioners were the only foster parents who did not have problems with Delores' running away. Dr. Haga was also not privy to the numerous conversations the Riches had with Delores about staying in treatment. One statement out of context does not show the Riches acted in a manner inappropriate for a parent-child relationship or that inappropriate boundaries had been established for Delores. Additionally, the Riches did not encourage Delores to be overly dependant on them. At the end of the meeting, Dr. Haga observed Mr. Rich embrace and kiss Delores on the lips in saying goodbye. It was not a sexual kiss. Delores did not interpret the kiss as anything other than saying goodbye to her parent. Petitioners also told Delores that she was welcome at home at any time. The Riches wanted Delores to know that they cared, that she was not being abandoned, and that she was welcome in their home when her treatment was complete. In the doctor's opinion, Petitioners did not demonstrate appropriate parenting skills. These opinions are not credited given the surrounding facts of the incidences referenced. Because Delores had taken another younger child with her each time she had run away from Meridian, Delores was eventually denied admission to Meridian upon her return. After Meridian, Delores moved from foster home to foster home about every two to three weeks. Throughout she kept in touch with the Riches. Delores told Petitioners that she wanted to come home. They explained to her that they had no standing, and that she could not come back to their home until she was 18. At that time she was legally old enough to make her own decision. Petitioners received a phone call from Delores telling them that the Department was putting her on a plane to California to live with the parents who had abused and abandoned her. She was 17 years old. While in California, Delores stayed in contact with Petitioners; she quickly was back on the streets engaging in her old behaviors. When Delores turned 18, Petitioners, at Delores' request, sent her an Amtrack ticket to Crestview, Florida. Delores returned to the Riches' home. She has since married, become sober, and lives with her husband. The last child placed with the Riches was R. She was placed with the Riches before Delores left the Riches home. R. was age six when she was placed with the Riches. She was a part of a sibling group in Protective Service care. R. had been sexually abused. R's knowledge of anatomy and love was clearly inappropriate for her age. For that reason, Petitioners followed very strict rules for her that they had not really had to follow with J.J. They never bathed R. or supervised her in the tub. Petitioners worked closely with Donna Story and Chris Guy, R.'s therapists. Mr. Rich testified that R. was such a needy child that they had to have the professional guidance of Ms. Story and Ms. Guy because what R. had been through was so devastating. R. received therapy twice a week through Ms. Story, her therapist at Bridgeway. Ms. Story would come to the Riches' home once a week, and the Riches would take R. to a session once a week. The Department had no concerns regarding this placement. Petitioners gave each child entering their home their own flashlight immediately upon their arrival because they knew they were entering a strange home. They wanted the children to have a sense of security to be able to get up and find a bathroom or simply find their way around the house in the night. The first day of a child's placement, Petitioners let each child settle in, showing them their rooms and the home. As time went on, Petitioners went over the rules of the house. They sat each child down and explained what was and was not expected of them. A lot of the information for the rules came from the MAPP class Petitioners had attended; the other rules were their personal rules. Each child knew exactly what was expected of him or her, and knew what was appropriate and inappropriate behavior. The Riches maintained an open-door policy with the Department and made sure that every case worker knew that he or she was welcome at any time. Christine Guy holds a Master's degree in counseling and psychology. As indicated earlier, Ms. Guy worked with the Riches throughout the time they were foster parents. She testified in favor of adoption by Petitioners. In 1994, the first year Petitioners were foster parents, her initial opinion about Petitioners as foster parents was not favorable to Petitioners. She stated in a letter dated October 7, 1994, "I'm unable to recommend that any additional foster children be placed with the R.R.'s regardless of age, due to their need to completely assimilate and their reluctance to work toward reunification with the biological family." The letter was prepared as a comment for the relicensure of the Riches as foster parents. However, the issue of aiding in reunification is not related to whether Petitioners would make good adoptive parents. Over the years, Ms. Guy visited Petitioners' home and found it to be clean, well-maintained and appropriate. She also knew them to establish rules for their foster children. She knew some of the rules as they pertained to the children that she was seeing that lived in their home, and found them to be very appropriate. She witnessed them grow as foster parents. She feels the Riches have acquired the skills necessary to be good foster parents. As stated by Ms. Guy in her testimony, "Having somebody that cares a whole lot is really hard to look at as anything but positive." Indeed Ms. Guy feels Petitioners would make good parents and good adoptive parents of a special needs child. Jeannie Lehnert has a Master's degree in counseling and human development. She is a licensed and nationally certified counselor. She also testified in favor of adoption by Petitioners. Ms. Lehnert has been working with emotionally and mentally handicapped children since 1993. She maintains a private practice in Crestview and Fort Walton, and also teaches for the Okaloosa-Walton Community College. Ms. Lehnert has known Petitioners since late 1995. She has observed their interaction with many of their foster children. Ms. Lehnert thought the Riches were the best foster parents in the county because they took a child into their home and into their family. They took them with all their bad behaviors and all their good behaviors. Ms. Lehnert was familiar with the rules of Petitioners for their foster children. She believed them to be strict as far as a foster child following the rules. When working with the Riches, Petitioners did everything Ms. Lehnert asked of them; if she asked them to impose certain restrictions, they would. She found Petitioners to be very open-minded to treatment and care-taking suggestions. Ms. Lehnert witnessed Petitioners' affections toward their foster children. She saw them hug them, pat them on the back, tell them they did a great job, and tell them that they cared about them. She found their affections to be very appropriate. The Riches did not cause the foster children in their care to become overly dependant on them. They accepted each child unconditionally. Petitioners did not favor one child over another child. They treated the children according to their ages and gave them privileges according to their ages; exactly the behavior a good parent would do. In fact, the evidence demonstrated that the Riches' would make good adoptive parents. They have and had the skills necessary to establish appropriate boundaries in a parent-child relationship based on the needs of a particular child and had in the past established such boundaries. Whether a particular adoptive match can be found is left to the future. Petitioners' application to become adoptive parents should be granted.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioners' application to become adoptive parents be granted. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of August, 2001, 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 1st day of August, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Christopher P. Saxer, Esquire Christopher P. Saxer, P.A. 126 Eglin Parkway, Northeast Fort Walton Beach, Florida 32548-4917 Eric D. Schurger, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 160 Governmental Center, Suite 601 Pensacola, Florida 32501 Virginia A. Daire, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204B 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Josie Tomayo, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Whether the five thousand dollars of prize money claimed by the Petitioner should be paid to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services due to the Petitioner's outstanding debt for child support collected through a court.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the individual whose name appeared on the lottery ticket and claim form for a five thousand dollar prize. The claim form and winning ticket were submitted by the Petitioner to the Tallahassee Office of the Department of the Lottery for validation and payment in accordance with that Department's procedures. The Department of the Lottery, as required by law, provided the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services with a list of five thousand dollar winners. The list contained the name of the Petitioner. The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services compared the list with its records and determined that there was an arrearage in child support of eight thousand one hundred and fifty-seven dollars and eighty-four cents owed by the Petitioner in Lee County, Florida. On July 12, 1988, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services certified the child support arrearage to the Department of the Lottery in accordance with Section 24.115(4), Florida Statutes. The Department of the Lottery fowarded the five thousand dollar prize money to the Office of the Comptroller. On July 19, 1988, the Petitioner was notified by certified mail by the Office of the Comptroller of its intention to apply the entire five thousand dollars towards the Petitioner's unpaid court ordered child support. The Petitioner requested a hearing on the nature of the debt and the amount owed. The amount of unpaid court ordered child support due on the date of the hearing was eight thousand one hundred and fifteen dollars and fifty-three cents.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Department of Revenue should intercept and apply Petitioner’s lottery prize to reduce an outstanding arrearage for child support.
Findings Of Fact On January 25, 2002, Molina signed a Florida Lottery Winner Claim Form and transmitted it to DOL to redeem a lottery prize in excess of $600. Thereafter, shouldering its legal responsibility, DOR notified DOL that Molina was in arrears on a child support obligation that DOR was enforcing. On or around January 30, 2002, DOR notified Molina of its intent to intercept his lottery prize and apply it to satisfy or reduce an unpaid child support debt. Molina’s child support obligation is payable to the Central Depository of the Clerk of the Miami-Dade County Circuit Court pursuant to an order issued by a judge of that circuit on March 28, 1996. Molina owes in excess of $20,000 in unpaid child support.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED (if this has not been done already) that the Department of the Lottery transmit Molina’s lottery prize to the Department of Revenue. It is further RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a final order directing that Molina’s lottery prize be applied to satisfy or reduce the accrued arrearage on his child support obligation and providing that the balance of the prize, if any, be paid to Molina. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of August, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 15th day of August, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Pablo Y. Molina 10815 Northwest 50th Street Apartment 303 Miami, Florida 33178 Chriss Walker, Esquire Child Support Enforcement Department of Revenue Post Office Box 8030 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-8030 Louisa Warren, Esquire Department of Lottery 250 Marriott Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James Zingale, Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 J. Bruce Hoffmann, General Counsel Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 David Griffin, Secretary Department of Lottery 250 Marriott Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ken Hart, General Counsel Department of Lottery 250 Marriott Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: By Order of the Circuit Court of Pasco County, Florida, dated September 14, 1987, it was determined that Petitioner owed $1,560.40 in back child support payments which had been assigned to the state of Florida by the mother of the child on February 1, 1983, for assistance received by her from the state of Florida. Additionally, Petitioner was ordered to pay: (a) child support in the amount of $178.00 per month; (b) %15.00 per month on the arrearage and; (c) $5.00 per month clerk's fee for a total of $198.00 per month. Subsequent to this circuit court order, Respondent moved to intercept Petitioner's 1987 federal income tax refund, and Petitioner protested. An informal administrative hearing was held and the Respondent entered a Final Order wherein it was agreed between the parties that Petitioner owed $1,020.40 in past-due child support payments as of March 22, 1988. Although this figure of $1,020.40 cannot be reconciled with the Clerk's records in Pasco County, it is the figure agreed upon by the parties as being due as of March 22, 1988, and was used to intercept the Petitioner's 1987 federal income tax refund. On October 7, 1988, Petitioner, by order of the Circuit Court of Pasco County, Florida, was granted custody of the child for which he had been paying child support, and was no longer required to pay child support for the child. There is evidence that Petitioner had custody of the child in September 1988, but the Order states that "custody is to be upon the signing of the order". This order did not address the issue of current child support or past-due child support. Subsequent to March 22, 1988, the Petitioner was obligated to pay child support for the months of April 1988, through September 1988, for a total of $1,068.00. ( Six months at $178.00 per month). An Income Deduction Order entered by the Circuit Court of Pasco County, Florida, required Petitioner's employer to deduct $198.00 per month from Petitioner's salary and remit same to the Clerk's office for the payment ordered by the court on September 14, 1987. Respondent's employer accomplished this by rendering payment in bi-weekly amounts of $91.75. During the period from March 22, 1988, through October 7, 1988, Petitioner should be given credit for monies deducted by his employer and remitted to the Clerk's office in the net amount of $1,301.25 (Fifteen payments of $91.25 minus $75.00 Clerk's fee). Two biweekly payments remitted by Petitioner's employer during this period were improperly entered into the Clerk's record but were corrected between October 24, 1988 and November 14, 1988. The 15 payments for which Petitioner has been given credit take into consideration the 2 payments improperly entered into the Clerk's record. Respondent should be given credit for $365.60, the amount Respondent received as a result of the 1987 federal income tax refund intercept. Respondent should also be given credit for the following: (a) HLA blood test refund of $210.00 and; (b) Clerk's refund of fees of $65.00. The total amount owed by Petitioner as of October 7, 1988 was $2,088.00 ($1,020.40 arrearage as agreed by the parties and set forth in Respondent's Final Order plus $1,068.00 child support payments Petitioner was obligated to pay between March 22, 1988 and October 7, 1988) minus a credit of $1,941.85 ($1,301.25 employer payments, plus $365.60 tax intercept credit, plus $210.00 HLA credit, plus $65.00 Clerk's credit) for a net amount owed of $146.55 ($2,088.40 total amount owed after March 22, 1988 minus a total credit of $1,941.85).
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conlusions of Law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witness, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order finding that Petitioner owes the state of Florida the sum of $146.55 in past-due child support payments, and providing for Respondent to intercept Petitioner's 1988 federal income tax refund for the amount of $146.55 unless Petitioner pays this amount to the Respondent prior to the Respondent filing a federal income tax refund intercept with the Internal Revenue Service, in which case no tax refund intercept would be necessary. RESPECTFULLY submitted and entered this 28th day of March, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 28th day of March, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-0277 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in this case. No posthearing Proposed Findings of Fact were submitted by the Petitioner. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent 1.-2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. 3.-4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Subordinate to facts actually found in the Recommended Order. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Subordinate to facts actually found in the Recommended Order. Immaterial since the was an agreement as to the amount of arrearage owed as of March 22, 1988. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Findings of Fact 7 and 8. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. 12.-13. Subordinate to facts actually found in the Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Sam Powers, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Judith Greene, Esquire CANDICE A. MURPHY, P. A. P. O. Box 4815 Clearwater Florida 34618 Roy K. Kalbach 512 12th Avenue Leisure Hills Brooksville, Florida 34610
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Petitioner, Lee Ann Flagg, is a 22-year-old resident of Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Since 1991, she has received Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) benefits for her 22-month-old son. Petitioner wants to learn a marketable skill, so she can obtain a job and stop receiving AFDC. Based on the information in Petitioner's AFDC case file, her total income was her AFDC grant of $241 per month. Petitioner is exempt from Job Opportunities and Basic Skills (JOBS) program due to the age of her child. On May 26, 1992, Petitioner volunteered for Project Independence (PI). On June 5, 1992, Petitioner attended PI orientation at which she stated her desire to attend school in the fall of 1992. At all times material hereto, Petitioner met PI target group criteria in that she is under the age of 24 and had not been employed for the past 12 months. On July 28, 1992, Petitioner requested child care assistance from Respondent. She advised her PI case manager that the lack of child care was a barrier to her being self-sufficient and that she needed child care to attend school in the fall of 1992. In July 1992, Petitioner's case manager informed Petitioner that, due to the child care freeze, Respondent could not provide her with child care and placed Petitioner in "limited contact." During the time in "limited contact," Petitioner provided monthly attendance verification to her PI worker until February 1993. In August 1992, Petitioner enrolled in business classes at Lively Area Vocational Technical School (Lively) in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Needing child care assistance, Petitioner's parents assisted her with child care temporarily. In February 1993, because Respondent could not provide Petitioner with child care, she requested disenrollment from the PI program. However, Petitioner can re-enroll in the PI program at any time. Petitioner continues to attend classes at Lively. But, due to her inability to obtain child care services from Respondent, she has been forced to reduce her classes. Additionally, Petitioner has taken a part-time clerical job at below poverty wages, for which she receives child care. Because of the child care freeze, Petitioner cannot receive child care assistance from Respondent for education and training activities. Background The Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) Program is a joint federal-state assistance program authorized by Title IV-A of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 602. The AFDC program is administered by states under the supervision of the Federal Department of Health and Human Services. A "Job Opportunities and Basic Skills" (JOBS) program must be developed by each state participating in the AFDC program. The purpose of the JOBS program is to provide training, education and work opportunities for AFDC recipients, pursuant to the Family Support Act of 1988, that will help avoid long-term public assistance dependency. Supervision of the JOBS program and contracting for the provision of support services, such as child care, is the responsibility of the state agency administering the AFDC program (referred to as the IV-A agency). In Florida, Respondent is the IV-A agency, and the Department of Labor and Employment Security administers the JOBS program. Florida's JOBS program is called Project Independence (PI). The criteria governing PI is found in Section 409.029, Florida Statutes, the Florida Employment Opportunity Act. For PI purposes, all AFDC recipients are either exempt or nonexempt from participating in PI and are either target group or non-target group members. Exempt recipients are persons who have barriers to participating in PI, such as having young children or being disabled, based on federally defined exemption criteria. These recipients are not required to participate in PI, but may volunteer to participate. Nonexempt recipients are persons who do not meet the federal exemption criteria and are referred to as mandatory. These recipients may be referred to PI by their Respondent caseworker, and if referred, they are required to participate in PI as a condition of receiving AFDC, so long as resources are available. Conversely, if resources are not available, a nonexempt referred recipient is not required to participate in PI, but may volunteer to participate in PI. Furthermore, even if a nonexempt recipient is not referred to PI, such recipient may volunteer to participate in PI. Target group members are AFDC recipients who, based on certain characteristics such as work history or number of years already on AFDC, are likely to become long-term public assistance recipients. Non-target group members are AFDC recipients who do not meet target group criteria. Both target group members and non-target group members may be either exempt or nonexempt. Caseload Prioritization Rule Participation requirements for AFDC recipients in PI is set forth in Section 409.029, Florida Statutes, the Florida Employment Opportunity Act. In April 1992, Respondent promulgated Rule 10C-32.002 AFDC Employment and Training Program, Florida Administrative Code, implementing Section 409.029, Florida Statutes. Section (4) of Rule 10C-32.002, referred to as the caseload prioritization rule, sets forth Respondent's PI caseload prioritization procedures, implementing Subsection 409.029(9)(c), Florida Statutes. Subsection 409.029(9)(c) states: (9) PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS (c) All exempt and nonexempt AFDC recipients who do not meet target group criteria shall be permitted to volunteer. Nonexempt AFDC recipients who meet target group criteria shall be required to participate in the pro- gram. Exempt AFDC recipients who meet target group criteria shall be permitted to volun- teer. If the department lacks resources to provide the services necessary for participa- tion under this section, nonexempt AFDC recip- ients who do not meet the target group crit- eria shall be required to participate in in- itial job search if they are approved for ini- tial job search, but shall be deferred from further participation after completing up to 3 weeks of job search activities. If the department continues to lack resources to pro- vide the services necessary for participation under this section, nonexempt recipients who do not meet target group criteria and who are not approved for initial job search shall also be deferred from further participation after completing orientation. If deferring such recipients from mandatory participation does not alleviate budget constraints on ser- vices, the department shall defer nonexempt AFDC recipients who do not meet target group criteria from mandatory participation and may also defer participants who meet target group criteria from mandatory participation so long as the department is meeting federal particip- ation rates and target group expenditure re- quirements. If the department cannot, after making a good faith effort, meet federal part- icipation rates and target group expenditure requirements by deferring nonexempt target group AFDC recipients from participation, the department may limit service to AFDC recip- ients who meet target group criteria and may mandate the participation of those target group members who are non-target-group volun- teers only after the department has attempted to conserve its resources under the proce- dures established in this section. (Emphasis added.) Rule 10C-32.002(4) states: Effective October 1, 1991, the Florida Employment Opportunity Act, F.S. 409.029, was revised to allow the department to prioritize and disenroll participants based on target groups and assessment status where funds are insufficient to serve all partici- pants. Caseloads may be reduced to allow for sufficient case management when they exceed a staff/client ratio of 1:150. Staff/client ratios for the teen parent caseload should not exceed 1:100. Each district will init- iate case load disenrollment procedures as needed. Case managers must identify three cate- gories of participants in their caseloads: Priority One, exempt volunteers; Priority Two, mandatory target group participants; and Priority Three, mandatory non-target group participants. When caseloads exceed a staff/client ratio of 1:150, all Priority Three cases, mandatory non-target participants, will be offered an opportunity to continue partici- pation or disenroll. Priority Three participants who wish to continue in the program must be allowed to do so and will be placed in Priority One category. Priority Three participants who do not wish to continue in the program should be disenrolled after Orientation, and Job Search if the participant meets the criteria for Initial Job Search. To reach or main- tain the 1:150 staff/client ratio, new mand- atory non-target referrals may be disen- rolled after Orientation, and Job Search, if applicable, if they do not wish to continue to participate. If the staff/client ratio remains above 1:150 after disenrollment of Priority Three cases, then all Priority Two, mandatory tar- get groups may be allowed the opportunity to disenroll from the program after Orientation, and Job Search, if applicable. Information about disenrollment and re- entry into the program must be provided, verbally and in writing, to each participant being given these opportunities. This infor- mation must include: A participant who is given the opport- unity to disenroll will not be sanctioned, nor will disenrollment affect the AFDC grant amount. An individual who disenrolls may re- enroll in the program at a later date by con- tacting the local AFDC employment and train- ing office. An individual who disenrolls and becomes employed may be eligible for child care dur- ing the hours of employment and should con- tact the AFDC employment and training case manager. A participant who is given the opport- unity to disenroll and chooses to continue participating in the AFDC employment and training program can do so. A participant who does not meet an exemp- tion from program participation and who chooses to remain in the program although given the opportunity to disenroll can be sanctioned for failure to complete assigned activities. A participant who does not meet an exemp- tion from program participation and chooses to disenroll may be required to re-enter the program at a future date. Failure to do so without good cause will cause a sanction to be imposed. Support Services will be terminated for a participant who chooses to disenroll unless the individual is employed. If new referrals are not sufficient to maintain the staff/client ratio of 1:150, disenrolled cases should be identified for program re-entry. Program re-entry will be based on continuing eligibility for AFDC, priority group status, and length of time since disenrollment. The first individual disenrolled from the highest priority group will be re-enrolled first, etc. If the state fails to meet the feder- ally required expenditure rate for target groups, participation in the program may be limited to and required for target group members. (Emphasis added) The caseload prioritization rule only applies in situations in which PI staff/client ratio exceeds 1:150; staff meaning case manager. Respondent contends that Subsection 409.029(9)(c), Florida Statutes, was needed for the determination as to when PI's resources were sufficient to provide services to clients. In the caseload prioritization rule, Respondent interprets the statutory phrase "lacks resources" as the point at which the staff/client ratio exceeds 1:150. Respondent's districts meet this "limited resources" point when the staff/client ratio exceeds 1:150. The factors considered in the measuring stick used by Respondent to determine the limited resources were staff allocations and staff availability to provide services. Child care was not included, since it was, and is, a support service as interpreted by Respondent from Subsection 409.029(7), Florida Statutes. At the time Subsection 409.029(9)(c) was passed by the Florida Legislature, the staff/client ratio exceeded 1:400 and 1:500 in some of Respondent's districts. Respondent determined that a ratio exceeding 1:150 prevented a case manager from providing the services needed for clients, i.e., spending the amount of time needed, and that the lack of time, translating into the lack of services needed, could affect Respondent's PI federal funding. Respondent contends that the caseload prioritization rule was necessary for the administration of Subsection 409.029(9)(c). The rule in Respondent's view provided and clarified the procedures to be used for the disenrollment of clients to reduce caseloads. Respondent further contends that the caseload prioritization rule was necessary for the proper administration of Subsection 409.029(7), Florida Statutes, which Respondent interprets as applicable to the offering of child care services. According to Respondent, the rule gave Respondent the ability to identify specific reasons to defer individuals from participation in the PI program. On July 10, 1992, Respondent's caseload prioritization procedures were issued statewide and were generally applicable to all PI participants in Respondent's districts. Notwithstanding, because the staff/client ratio did not exceed 1:150 in Respondent's District 2, the procedure was not utilized in District 2. The caseload prioritization procedures were not invoked prior to instituting the child care freeze in Respondent's District 2. Child Care Freeze For the 1992-93 fiscal year, the Florida Legislature failed to appropriate sufficient funds to meet the needs of PI child care in Respondent's District 2. Subsequently, again, for the 1993-94 fiscal year, the Legislature did not appropriate sufficient funds. On July 10, 1992, Respondent issued a memorandum, effective that same date, freezing child care in Respondent's District 2 only for new enrollments of AFDC recipients who wished to participate (volunteers) in PI education and training activities and who needed child care in order to participate. The challenged child care freeze policy purports to be as follows: Due to the large over annualization we are projecting for FY 92-93 in Service I, Ser- vice II and Family Support Act child care services, I am directing you to immediately freeze new enrollments except for entitled groups (TCC and AFDC Employed) and the high- est at-risk group (Priority 1 in Service I). We will closely monitor utilization and let you know as soon as spending is within bud- get limits. This freeze applies to new enrollments only. Children currently in care should continue to receive services as appropriate. Respondent instituted the child care freeze because of projected annualized budget deficits; that is, Respondent annualized its current PI child care expenditures and projected a budgetary deficit if expenditures increased beyond what was currently spent. The child care freeze did not affect Transitional Child Care (TCC) recipients and AFDC recipients who work. Transitional Child Care is child care for former AFDC recipients who lost their AFDC eligibility due to earned income and who meet other federal requirements. TCC and AFDC employed individuals are guaranteed child care. Also, the child care freeze did not affect those individuals who Respondent requires to participate in PI. Respondent's District 2 is divided into two districts: Subdistrict 2A and Subdistrict 2B. Subdistrict 2A is comprised of Bay, Calhoun, Franklin, Gulf, Holmes, Jackson and Washington counties. Subdistrict 2B is comprised of Franklin, Gadsden, Jefferson, Leon, Liberty, Madison, Taylor and Wakulla counties. Child care services are provided through contract with central agencies. Two child care provider agencies serve Respondent's District 2: Big Bend Child Care, serving Subdistrict 2B and Early Childhood Services, serving Subdistrict 2A. PI child care monies are split between the two provider agencies. Due to the child care freeze, from July 10, 1992, no AFDC recipient in Subdistricts 2A and 2B, who needed child care for education and training, received it. However, on January 19, 1993, child care slots became available in Subdistrict 2A with Early Childhood Services. On January 19, 1993, Early Childhood Services had 318 children of AFDC recipients on a waiting list. Only 35 slots became available. On March 15, 1993, Respondent allowed Early Childhood Services to provide child care services on a "one-in one-out" basis--equal number of child care slots filled as are vacated. As of January 1993, in Respondent's District 2, 542 children of AFDC recipients were waiting to receive child care services. Approximately 70 of the children, all residing in Subdistrict 2A, have been placed since January 19, 1993. For the offering of child care services, Respondent looks to both Subsection 409.029(7), Florida Statutes, and Rule 10C-32.002(10)(b)2, Florida Administrative Code, for guidance as to what action to take when child care resources are limited. Respondent contends that Subsection 409.029(7) is applicable to child care services. Subsection 409.027(7) includes child care services as a support service and provides that child care services "shall be provided according to federal law to the extent funds are available." Rule 10C- 32.002(10)(b)2 provides that a PI participant, meeting the requirements for a deferred status and not required to participate, "will be placed in limited contact status" due to the "temporary unavailability of support services." In August 1992, Respondent conferred with the regional office of the federal agency overseeing the AFDC program, regarding the subject of guaranteeing child care to AFDC recipients as it relates to availability of funds. Respondent and the federal agency agreed to certain principles on the subject, which included the following: "To the degree resources are available" is acceptable as a factor in limiting participa- tion in a program component when child care is a determining factor (other than AFDC-emp- loyed and TCC). The state may determine the criteria for those required and/or allowed to participate in the program as long as the state meets the federal participation rate and target group expenditure requirements. [W]hen a state finds itself without sufficient resources, including child care resources, it may place individuals on a waiting list. Before placing an individual on a waiting list, the individual will be given an opportunity to make provisions for her own child care, or other services, in order to remain in the program. [W]ith the exception of AFDC-employed and TCC, the guarantee of child care to both JOBS and non-JOBS participants is directly tied to the conditions under which the participant is required or allowed to participate. One clear and explicit condition is the extent to which state resources permit such partic pation. Respondent interprets Florida law, as it relates to budgeting, that the law requires Respondent not to exceed its budget. To stay within its budget, Respondent instituted the child care freeze instead of the other available options which would involve the disenrollment of children already in care, including the entitled groups. The child care freeze required Respondent to constantly be aware of the status of the child care budget (on a monthly basis) due to its constant fluctuation. Also, in administering the child care freeze, Respondent interprets the federal law and Subsection 409.029(9)(c), Florida Statutes, to state that it is not required to provide child care to volunteers of the PI program. But, even with this interpretation, volunteers for the PI program are not denied participation in the PI program during child care constraints. An individual who does not need child care, or even one who does need child care but can provide it through other means can volunteer for participation in the PI program. No child care will be provided, but the participants can receive other services associated with the PI program. The child care freeze was never promulgated pursuant to Section 120.54, Florida Statutes.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent's Law Enforcement and Correctional Officer Certificates should be disciplined for the reasons set forth in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: In this disciplinary proceeding, Petitioner, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (Commission), seeks to discipline Correctional Certificate No. 56629 and Law Enforcement Certificate No. 135685 held by Respondent, Gayle L. Graham (formerly known as Gayle Livings), on the grounds that she unlawfully obtained public assistance benefits in 1996, 1997, and 1998 by failing to disclose on her applications that she was receiving child support payments. In her request for a hearing, Respondent denied that she "knowingly [made] a false statement" when applying for such benefits. During her tenure as a law enforcement officer, Respondent has been employed by both the Leon County and Gadsden County Sheriff's Office. Since November 1998, she has been a police officer with the City of Midway Police Department. On September 4, 1990, Respondent's marriage with Brooks Jampole (Jampole) was dissolved. Beginning on September 15, 1990, Jampole was required to pay Respondent $400.00 per month in child support payments for their minor child (Joseph). Although such payments were sporadic during the first few years, in 1994, the court directed that Jampole deposit the payments with the court registry each month; from that time until she applied for public assistance benefits in October 1996, and continuing through 1998, Respondent received regular child support payments through the Gadsden County Clerk's Office. On an undisclosed date, Respondent married Michael Graham (Graham). Their union produced a child (Brianna) in March 1995. In October 1996, Respondent had just resigned her job with the Gadsden County Sheriff's Office and her husband had lost his job. The couple lived in a Tallahassee apartment with Joseph and Brianna. At that time, Respondent had become pregnant with her third child. Because of a difficult pregnancy, which rendered her unable to work and in desperate financial straits, Respondent applied for public assistance benefits from the State of Florida, including food stamps and cash assistance in the form of Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). Her application was processed by the Tallahassee office of the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS). Shortly after her benefits were approved, her financial woes were further exacerbated when Graham left the marriage and failed to contribute support for his two minor children. In order to receive public assistance benefits, an applicant must meet all DCFS criteria, including those falling under the categories of income, assets, and technical requirements. Relevant to this controversy is the requirement that child support payments, which are considered a form of unearned income, be fully disclosed by the applicant. Any amount of child support received by an applicant has an effect on how much public assistance an applicant may receive. Further, by law, child support payments received by an applicant while the beneficiary of public aid must be reassigned to DCFS. According to DCFS public assistance specialists who processed such applications in late 1996 and 1997, it was standard procedure to run through a computer check list with all applicants, which included an instruction that the applicants disclose any child support payments. Although none of the specialists could specifically recall their conversations with Respondent, it can be reasonably inferred from the evidence that Respondent was told that she must disclose all sources of income, including child support payments. In addition, the application itself contained a space for disclosing these amounts, and it warned the applicant about the Florida fraud law and the penalties for perjury. On seven applications executed by Respondent between October 22, 1996, and July 28, 1998, she failed to disclose the fact that she was receiving monthly child support payments for Joseph. This resulted in her benefits increasing, and it deprived the State of her monthly child support payments, which should have been reassigned to DCFS. In all, Respondent was overissued $5,080.00 in cash assistance and $2,361.00 in food stamps from November 1996 through November 1998. However, as part of a pre-trial intervention program with the Leon County State Attorney's Office, and with the assistance of a family loan, Respondent promptly repaid all overpayments, and the associated criminal charges were dismissed. In fairness to Respondent, during the first interview with a public assistance specialist in October 1996, Respondent told the specialist that the payments had sometimes been sporadic in the past and that she could not rely on her ex-husband, who had taken her to court five times and had threatened to stop paying support. Respondent says the specialist replied that she didn't need to report the funds if "you absolutely can't count on it." While each of the specialists who testified at hearing denied that they would ever make such a remark, and perhaps these exact words were not spoken, it is fair to infer that Respondent left the interview with the understanding that she would not have to report the income in the event the future support payments were not assured. However, as the regularity of the payments continued during the ensuing months, Respondent should have known that she was under an obligation to report the income. To her credit, though, she advised DCFS when Graham left the household, which resulted in her receiving lower monthly payments. In mitigation, Respondent has been certified as a correctional officer since 1991 and a law enforcement officer since 1992. She is presently employed in good standing as a police officer with a municipality in Gadsden County, a job which requires continued certification. When the illicit conduct occurred, Respondent was facing extraordinary financial and personal problems, including an inability to work due to a difficult pregnancy with her third child, and two small children to support. In addition, her husband had just lost his job, and within a short period of time, he left the marriage without providing financial assistance to his former wife and children. Moreover, at the beginning of the application process, Respondent was under the misimpression that if child support payments were not absolutely assured, then their disclosure was not necessary. Importantly, she has made restitution for all overpayments. Finally, revocation or suspension of the certificates would cause a severe financial hardship on Respondent, who needs certification to continue in her present job, and who must support her family. Only one aggravating factor is applicable, and it is clearly outweighed by the mitigating circumstances. Although Respondent received pecuniary gain from her misconduct, she did not use her position to commit the misconduct nor was she performing other law enforcement duties at the time; there are no prior disciplinary actions taken against her; there was no danger to the public; the severity of the conduct was minimal; the actual "damage" to the public (overpayments) was promptly repaid; and the misconduct was not motivated by discrimination and did not involve domestic violence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a final order determining that Respondent has failed to maintain good moral character, as charged in the Administrative Complaint, and that her correctional and law enforcement certificates be placed on probation for a period of two years, subject to such terms and conditions, if any, as the Commission may deem appropriate. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of August, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 August, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: A. Leon Lowrey, II, Program Director Division of Criminal Justice Professionalism Services Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489 Michael R. Ramage, General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489 Gabrielle Taylor, Esquire Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489 Harold S. Richmond, Esquire 227 East Jefferson Street Quincy, Florida 32353-0695
Findings Of Fact Mr. Clinton Williams won a prize of $3,839.50 on a $1.00 wager in the Lotto game for October 12, 1991. Based upon a letter to the Department of the Lottery from Chriss Walker, the Acting Assistant Secretary for Child Support Enforcement. The Office of the Comptroller found that Mr. Williams owed $3,250 as back due child support. That amount was deducted from his winnings and on November 8, 1991, a state warrant in the amount of $589.50 was delivered to Mr. Williams. The arrearage arose because an error had been made in the child support enforcement division of the State Attorney's Office in Miami. An income deduction order had been entered against Mr. Williams by the family division of the Circuit Court in Dade County Florida on September 27, 1990, but no money was ever deducted from Mr. Williams' pay. When the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services checked Mr. Williams' record after he submitted the winning ticket, the error was discovered. As a result, in January 1992 the award was modified obligating Mr. Williams to continue to pay $252 per month in child support, and to pay an additional $100 per month to pay back child support due under the September 27, 1990 order. In addition, the order entered by the Circuit Court on January 13, 1992, provides, in paragraph 14: The lottery winnings that are currently being withheld in Tallahassee shall be released to the Petitioner [the child's mother] immediately. Based on the order of the Circuit Court, there is no doubt that Mr. Williams is indebted for back child support. No error occurred in the interception of his lottery winnings to satisfy his obligation for that past-due child support.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petition for Formal Proceeding filed by Mr. Williams be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 7th day of May 1992. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of May 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: Karrin R. Boehm-Alman, Esquire Law Offices of Maurice M. Diliberto 28 West Flagler Street Suite 600 Miami, FL 33130 Bridget L. Ryan, Esquire Office of the Comptroller Suite 1302, The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0350 Louisa H. Warren, Esquire Department of the Lottery 250 Marriot Drive Tallahassee, FL 32301 Chriss Walker, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Honorable Gerald Lewis, Comptroller Department of Banking and Finance The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, FL 32399-0350 William G. Reeves, General Counsel Department of Banking and Finance Room 1302, The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0350
