The Issue Whether Petitioner owes child support and, if so, the amount of the indebtedness and whether Respondent should report that indebtedness to credit reporting agencies.
Findings Of Fact In 1983, the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (DHRS) filed a paternity action against Petitioner in the Circuit Court for Broward County, Florida. This matter was assigned Case Number 83-1335 CH. The proceeding was filed to determine whether Petitioner was the father of a child born to Debra Bethea on November 17, 1979. This matter was voluntarily dismissed by the DHRS on December 29, 1983. Petitioner made a court appearance prior to the dismissal, and he received a copy of the notice of dismissal. In 1992, DHRS and Ms. Bethea filed a Complaint to Determine Paternity and Child Support in Broward Circuit Court, where it was assigned Case Number 92-4134(23). Like the 1983 proceeding, this pertained to the child born to Debra Bethea on November 17, 1979. In 1992, the Broward County Sheriff's Office used a Return of Service form which contained the following to reflect that a complaint had been served on a defendant by substitute service: At the defendant's usual place of abode on "any person residing therein" the age of fifteen years or older, to wit: in accordance with the provisions of F.S. 48.031(1), Florida Statutes. The Return of Service filed in Case 92-4134(23) reflected that a copy of the complaint had been served on Petitioner on February 28, 1992, by substitute service. The person with whom the complaint was left at Petitioner's "usual place of abode" was a Mr. Turner who was identified as being a "friend." The second paternity complaint was heard by a hearing officer who made findings and recommendations to the presiding judge. The "Report of the Hearing Officer on Paternity and Support" dated June 22, 1992, filed in Case 92-4134(23) (the Report) reflects that a clerical default was entered against Petitioner on April 14, 1992. The hearing officer recommended that the Court enter an order adjudicating Petitioner to be the father of the child and ordering that he pay child support in the amount of $221.00 per month until the child reached 18 years of age. 1/ These payments were to be made through the Court's Support Payment Unit. Petitioner did not appear at the proceeding before the hearing officer. The recommendation as to the child's paternity was based on the testimony of Ms. Bethea. On June 29, 1992, the presiding judge entered an order that ratified the Report, adopted its findings, and ordered the parties to comply with all items contained in the Report. This is a facially valid order from a court of competent jurisdiction. The sums of $28.36, $56.72, and $23.75 were paid in the years 1992, 1993, and 1994, respectively. No other payments or credits were made. As of September 30, 1999, Petitioner owed the sum of $28,604.17 in back child support. Petitioner had made no child support payments between that date and the date of the final hearing in this proceeding. Petitioner testified that he was homeless in February 1992 and that he did not know Mr. Turner. He also testified that he knew nothing of the second paternity proceeding, that he was not the father of the child, and that reporting this debt to credit reporting agencies will destroy his credit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order finding that Petitioner owes back child support in the amount of $28,604.17. It is further recommended that Respondent report that arrearage to appropriate credit reporting agencies pursuant to Section 61.1354(2), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of April, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of April, 2000.
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 Whether Petitioner's Federal Income Tax refund should be intercepted by Respondent?
Findings Of Fact Case No. 88-1323 On November 10, 1986, the Circuit Court of the Fourth Judicial Circuit, in and for Duval County, Florida, entered an order finding Petitioner to be in arrears in child support payments in the amount of $3,099.30. As of July 21, 1988, Petitioner's arrearage for his child support payments was $2,430.71, Case No. 88-1324 On November 26, 1986, the Circuit Court of the Fourth Judicial Circuit, in and for Duval County, Florida, entered an order finding Petitioner to be in arrears in child support payments in the amount of $665.00. Also, the court determined that Petitioner owed the State of Florida $3,082.00 as a public assistance obligation which had been previously established by the court. As of July 21, 1988, Petitioner was in arrears in the amount of $3,432.01 in his child support payments and in the public assistance obligation. Petitioner's Case Mr. Brown is currently making all the payments he is required to make under both court orders. He admits he owes the amount at issue in this case, although he believes there may be minor discrepancies in the records and he plans to pursue this with the agency responsible for record keeping.
Recommendation Therefore, based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent issue a final order affirming the determination that Petitioner owes past-due support. DONE and ORDERED this 24th day of August, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. JOSE A. DIEZ-ARGUELLES Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of August, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Billy Lee Brown 3490 Lannie Road Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Warren J. Schulman, Esquire 331 East Union Street, Suite 1 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
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 On August 11, 1992, Petitioner submitted a claim to the Lottery based on a Play-4 ticket he held for the Lotto drawing of August 9, 1992. The ticket reflected that Petitioner was eligible for a prize of $2,500.00. On August 11, 1992, DHRS certified to the Lottery that Petitioner owed $2,187.24 in Title IV-D child support arrearage. By letter dated August 27, 1992, 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 DBF. Petitioner was further advised that DBF would notify him shortly regarding the distribution of the funds. By letter dated September 4, 1992, DBF notified Petitioner that it was in receipt of his prize from the Lottery and that it intended to apply $2,187.24 of the award toward the unpaid claim for child support. Enclosed with the letter was State of Florida warrant number 0453833 in the amount of $312.76 payable to Petitioner. This warrant was payment of part of the Petitioner's lottery prize and represented the difference between the amount of the prize and the amount of child support that DHRS had certified as being due. In a letter received by DBF on September 28, 1992, Petitioner disputed that any obligation was outstanding and requested a formal hearing. The evidence presented by Respondents established that as of August 9, 1992, the date of Petitioner's lottery winnings, Petitioner owed child support in the amount of $2,187.24. These child support payments were being collected through the Clerk of the Circuit Court, in and for Dade County, Florida, pursuant to a Final Judgment of Paternity entered by Dade Circuit Judge Seymour Gelber on September 30, 1986, in Dade Circuit Court Case No. 86-23681.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Banking and Finance transfer to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services the sum of $2,187.24 in satisfaction of Petitioner's debt for child support as of August 9, 1992. DONE and ENTERED this 17th day of December, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 17th day of December, 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: Nathaniel Williams 9028 S.W. 97th Avenue, Apt. 3 Miami, Florida 33176-1966 Scott C. Wright Assistant General Counsel Office of the Comptroller The Capitol, Suite 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Honorable Gerald Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida Department of Banking and Finance The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 William G. Reeves, General Counsel Department of Banking and Finance Room 1302, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Chriss Walker, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Robert L. Powell, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Slye, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Louisa Warren, Esquire Department of Lottery 250 Marriot Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4000 Dr. Marcia Mann, Secretary Department of Lottery 250 Marriot Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ken Hart, General Counsel Department of Lottery Knight Building, Suite 309 Koger Executive Center 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
The Issue The issue presented is whether Petitioner's license to operate a child care facility should be revoked.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Geraldine Lee was the owner and operator of a child care facility, licensed by the State of Florida and known as The Children's Palace II. On November 14, 2004, there were eighteen children in the care of The Children's Palace II. Each child was signed in by the child's parent when the child arrived each morning, and one of Lee's employees then signed that the child was actually there. The child was then signed out when the child was picked up that day. The facility was open until 10:00 p.m. However, the facility closed earlier if all the children had been picked up before that time. On November 14 when Taunya Patterson brought her six- month-old son Kenneth Geddes to the facility, she neglected to sign in her son, and no employee counter-signed. Thus, there was no written record that he was there. At that time, Geddes had been receiving child care at The Children's Palace II for two months. When Patterson returned to the facility at 9:00 p.m. to pick up her son, she found the facility closed, locked, and dark. She summoned the police, who, in turn, summoned Geraldine Lee, who came to the facility. She unlocked the facility and Patterson's son was in the crib where he normally slept, lying on his stomach and crying. The infant was unharmed. Geraldine Lee had left the facility that day at approximately 7:30 p.m. Before leaving the facility, she walked through but did not see any children still there. She left her employee Theresa Leverett in charge of the facility. At approximately 8:30 p.m. Lee returned to the facility to pick up her granddaughter. Leverett was leaving the facility when Lee was picking up her granddaughter. On December 3, 2004, the Department notified Lee that it was revoking her license to operate a child care facility effective immediately. On August 18, 2004, Lee had been issued a provisional license for The Children's Palace II, effective August 20, 2004, to February 19, 2005. Once before, The Children's Palace II had been issued a provisional license but had been issued a regular license thereafter. Prior to November 14, 2004, no child had been left alone in the facility. The only prior similar incident occurred when an employee walked out of a room where a child was present, thereby leaving the child unsupervised.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that the Department failed to meet its burden of proof and dismissing its notice of intent to revoke the license of The Children's Palace II. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of December, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINDA M. RIGOT Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of December, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Robin Whipple-Hunter, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services Post Office Box 2417 Jacksonville, Florida 32231-0083 Thomas A. Delegal, III, Esquire Delegal Law Offices, P.A. 424 East Monroe Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Gregory Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204B 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Slye, Acting General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Should Petitioner have $8,812.78 deducted from his lottery prize of $19,091.96 to meet his child support obligation? See Section 24.115(4), Florida Statutes (1996 Supp.).
Findings Of Fact In the case of Glenda Carey vs. James P. Carey, in the Circuit Court in and for Gadsden County, Florida, Case No. 91-24, related to the dissolution of their marriage, a final judgment was entered which obligated Petitioner to pay child support to his minor son. Over time Petitioner failed to faithfully meet the child support obligation. By April 23, 1997, the amount of arrearage for child support was $8,485.13. Petitioner had owed a similar amount on September 9, 1996. On September 9, 1996, Petitioner made a claim for a lottery prize with the Lottery in the amount of $19,091.96, which he had won through participation in a lottery game. Being mindful of the existence of the overdue child support payments that have been referred to, the Lottery transmitted $8,812.78 of that lottery prize of $19,091.96, to the DOR, Child Support Enforcement Section, and notified Petitioner of that decision by correspondence dated October 2, 1996. Petitioner contested that decision by requesting a formal hearing on October 18, 1996. The proper amount of child support for which Petitioner is obligated effective September 9, 1996, when he claimed his lottery prize and April 23, 1997, the concluding hearing date, was $8,485.13. Consequently, Petitioner is entitled to an additional $327.65 in prize money over and above the prize money already received.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered which upholds payment of $8,485.13 in past due child support and remits to the Petitioner $327.65 in additional lottery prize winnings. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of May, 1997, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of May, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: James P. Carey 2528 Centerville Road Tallahassee, Florida 32308 James P. Carey 720 Thomas Street Key West, Florida 33040 Chriss Walker, Esquire Department of Revenue Child Support Enforcement Post Office Box 8030 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-8030 Louisa Warren, Esquire Department of Lottery 250 Marriott Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Linda Lettera, General Counsel Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 Larry Fuchs, Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100
