The Issue The issues for determination are: (1) whether Petitioner is delinquent in child support payments; and (2) whether Respondent is authorized to levy Petitioner's two bank accounts and apply the funds to reduce Petitioner's past due child support obligation.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence and testimony of the witnesses presented and the entire record in this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: Petitioner is the father of a child born in Connecticut in 1986. On May 2, 1990, a Connecticut court ordered Petitioner to pay child support of $72.00 per week for the support of his child. The court also found that Petitioner had a child support arrearage of $3,797.11 and ordered that he pay an additional $15.00 per week to reduce the arrearage. Petitioner moved to Florida in early 1994. On November 13, 2001, the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Manatee County, Florida, received a request from the State of Connecticut to register and enforce a foreign support order against Petitioner. The adjudicated arrearage in child support was $25,179.87, as determined by the State of Connecticut. On December 11, 2001, Petitioner was sent a Notice of Registration of Foreign Support Order. The notice, sent by certified mail, was received at Petitioner's then current residence address. On January 23, 2002, an Order Confirming Registration of Foreign Support Order was entered; Petitioner was ordered to pay $90.48 per week beginning January 25, 2002. On July 12, 2007, the State of Connecticut certified that as of July 12, 2007, Petitioner had a $23,853.56 child support arrearage. Petitioner stipulated that the child support arrearage was at least $23,000.00. On September 8, 2006, the Department sent a Notice to Freeze to the Bank of America; on the same day a Notice of Freeze was sent to Regions Bank. In the notices, sent by certified mail, the Department advised the banks to hold up to $25,725.26 of Petitioner's funds until further notice. Bank of America responded indicating that Petitioner had $1,270.95 in his account; Regions Bank reported $591.42. On September 15, 2006, the Department sent two Notices of Intent to Levy by certified mail to Petitioner. The notices provided, in pertinent part, the following: You are hereby notified that pursuant to Section 409.25656, Florida Statutes, the Department of Revenue intends to levy on credits or personal property belonging to the obligor named above [Petitioner], or debts owed to the obligor. This property consists of liquid assets and is in the control of [appropriate bank]. This action is taken for nonpayment of child support by the obligor in the amount of $25,725.26 as of [appropriate date]. You are hereby notified that you may contest the agency's action to levy on the above referenced property. You may do so by either filing a petition in the existing Circuit Court case, . . . or by requesting an administrative hearing. If you wish to request an administrative hearing, you must file your petition for hearing, in writing, in accordance with the Notice of Rights attached to this Notice. Although Petitioner testified that he did not receive the notices, neither was returned by the postal service. On October 2, 2006, Petitioner filed a Petition for Administrative Hearing (Petition), in response to each Notice of Intent to Levy. In October 2006, the Department issued and sent Notices of Extension of Freeze to each bank indicating that Petitioner was challenging the Notices of Intent to Levy. The monies on deposit in each bank were the result of payments received by Petitioner for his labors as a lawn caretaker.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Department of Revenue, enter a final order that: (1) levies an amount up to $23,853.56 in each of the Petitioner, Michael K. Dugdale's, two bank accounts at Bank of America, N.A. and Regions Bank; (2) applies the funds to reduce Petitioner's past due child support obligation; and (3) credits Petitioner for said payment. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of October, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JEFF B. CLARK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of October, 2007.
Findings Of Fact In 1968, Petitioner's marriage to Judith Marie Youmans was dissolved by the Circuit Court in Duval County, Jacksonville, Florida. One child, D. R. Y. was born of the marriage. Custody of D. R. Y. was given to Petitioner's ex- wife. However, except for a few months, D. R. Y. was in the actual custody of her father until she reached the age of majority in 1982. Petitioner's ex-wife never paid any child support to Respondent for his custody of D. R. Y. Petitioner never had the final divorce decree modified to reflect D. R. Y.'s custody arrangement or to seek an award of child support for his custody of D. R. Y. The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services is not seeking child support enforcement in reference to D. R. Y. From 1968 until about 1977, Petitioner maintained an on again-off again relationship with his ex-wife. They never remarried. However, by 1977, Petitioner had fathered two children with his ex-wife, who are the subject of this action. C. D. Y., Jr., was born July 29, 1971, and M. S. Y. was born August 15, 1973. In 1977, Petitioner's ex-wife filed a paternity action against Petitioner alleging that the two boys were his children. Petitioner made an appearance in the paternity action and reached an agreement with his ex-wife regarding the paternity of the two boys and how much child support he would pay until they reached the age of majority. A final judgment incorporating the agreement between the parties was entered by the Circuit Court in Duval County, Jacksonville, Florida, on January 28, 1977. Petitioner states that he was never served with the 1977 paternity suit papers or the final judgment entered in the action. Petitioner testified that he was not aware that a final judgment had been entered awarding his ex-wife $15.00 per week per child until a few months before HRS became involved in the tax intercept under consideration here. However, Petitioner made two of the agreed to child support payments in February, 1977, after his attorney had advised him to do so. After the first two payments, Petitioner ceased making the $15.00 per child per week payments and has not made any child support payments to his ex-wife or to the Clerk's Office since February 4, 1977. Petitioner has, therefore, accumulated an alleged arrearage of child support for C. D. Y. and M. S. Y. in the amount of $16,35.00 through July 1987. Prior to HRS's involvement in the case in 1986, Petitioner's ex-wife neither asked for nor received any child support from Petitioner, except for the few payments made in 1977. She did not try to enforce the paternity settlement agreement until September 12, 1986, when she asked for HRS's help. Apparently, the reason she went to HRS was to attempt to collect the child support. She has not received any "public assistance" such as AFDC money from HRS and apparently is not asking for such aid. HRS has not obtained a court order finding Petitioner to be delinquent and no such order has been previously entered. Petitioner has, therefore, never been afforded an opportunity to raise his defenses to any alleged arrearage or non payment of support before the circuit court. Petitioner felt very strongly that he should not have to pay child support since his ex-wife did not perform her part of the agreement regarding her visitation. He testified that he attempted to visit the two boys on several occasions, but was usually frustrated in his attempts. The last time he attempted to visit the two boys was several years ago when he was met at the door by his ex-father-in-law who was pointing a shot gun at Petitioner and told him to leave. After the shot gun incident, Petitioner did not feel it to be in his best interest to attempt to see the boys anymore. Petitioner also maintained that he should not have to pay child support because she would not raise the boys correctly throughout the time period involved in this case. In essence, he left her because she would not give up certain drugs and he did not want to be living in such an environment nor did he want his boys to be living in such an environment. However, his ex-wife felt otherwise and didn't mind her children being raised around drugs. Petitioner felt that his ex-wife's involvement of HRS to collect child support was simply a tactic on her part to harass him and otherwise be mean. Petitioner also felt that he should have been paid child support for his custody of D. R. Y. who had refused to live with her mother. Petitioner felt that he should at least receive recognition of the fact that he did not receive any such support and be credited with the amount he should have been paid, i.e. $15.00 per week.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a Final Order in this case to the effect that the Department is not entitled to intercept Charles D. Youmans' federal tax refund unless and until Youmans is adjudicated delinquent by a circuit court in the periodic court ordered payment, and to the further effect that any federal tax refund which may already have been intercepted shall be returned to Youmans. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of August, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 29th day of August, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-2365 Petitioner's factual allegations contained in paragraph 1 of his letter are immaterial. Petitioner factual allegations contained in paragraph 2 are irrelevant. The factual allegation in the 1st sentence of paragraph 3 was not shown by the evidence. The rest of paragraph 3 is adopted. Paragraph 4, 5 and 7 are subordinate. Paragraph 6 is not shown by the evidence. Paragraph 8 discusses evidence not presented at the final hearing and is inadmissible. Paragraph 9 is irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles D. Youmans, pro se Route 5, Box 44 Brunswick, Georgia 31520 Warren J. Schulman SCHULMAN, HOWARD & HEMPHILL, P.A. 331 East Union Street, Suite 1 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Sam Power, HRS 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 Tom Batchelor Staff Attorney House HRS Committee The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1300 =================================================================
The Issue The issues in this proceeding are: What is the amount of child support arrearages and/or past-due support presently owed by Petitioner? Whether the Department of Revenue, Child Support Enforcement Program is authorized to employ the remedy of garnishment as set forth in Section 409.25656, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Facts On January 29, 1982, a Final Judgment was issued in the case of Linda Tillman v. Robert C. Tillman, Case No. 81-20402, in the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida (Broward County Circuit Court). Pursuant to this Final Judgment, Petitioner, Robert C. Tillman, was ordered to pay $103.00 per week in current child support commencing January 22, 1982, for three minor children. On June 12, 1985, the Broward County Circuit Court issued an Order to Transfer in Linda Tillman v. Robert C. Tillman, Case No. 81-20402, to Palm Beach County, Florida. On August 18, 1987, an Order Granting Respondent's Motion for a Decrease in Child Support was filed in the case of Linda Tillman and the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Robert Tillman, (hereinafter Tillman v. Tillman) Case No. 85-5064, in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County (Palm Beach County Circuit Court), under which Petitioner's current child support obligation was reduced to $65.00 per week because one of the parties' children had come to live with Petitioner. Additionally, child support arrearages of $4,121.64 were established and Petitioner was ordered to pay an additional $10.00 per week in liquidation of the arrearages. On July 20, 1990, an Order Adjudicating Respondent in Contempt was filed in the Palm Beach Circuit Court in Tillman v. Tillman, under which Petitioner was found in civil contempt of court for willfully failing to satisfy his child support obligations. Petitioner's child support arrearages were determined to be $3,935.42 as of May 10, 1990, and he was ordered to continue to pay $65.00 per week in current child support and increased arrearages payments of $15.00 per week. On March 11, 1993, an Order Adjudicating Respondent in Contempt was filed in the Palm Beach Circuit Court in Tillman v. Tillman under which Petitioner again was found in civil contempt of court for willfully failing to satisfy his child support obligations. Petitioner's child support arrearages were determined to be $5,102.59 as of February 18, 1993, and he was ordered to continue to pay $65.00 per week in current child support, increased arrearages payments of $35.00 per week, and $500.00 as a partial lump-sum payment on arrearages to purge his contempt. On November 6, 1995, an Order Adjudicating Respondent in Contempt was filed in the Palm Beach Circuit Court in Tillman v. Tillman under which Petitioner again was found in civil contempt of court for willfully failing to satisfy his child support obligations. Petitioner's child support arrearages were determined to be $8,298.93 as of October 17, 1995. He was ordered to continue to pay $65.00 per week in current child support and $10.00 per week plus a $150.00 lump-sum payment on arrearages to purge his contempt. On March 19, 1996, an Order Adjudicating Respondent in Contempt was filed in the Palm Beach Circuit Court in Tillman v. Tillman under which Petitioner again was found in civil contempt of court for willfully failing to satisfy his child support obligations. Petitioner's child support arrearages were determined to be $8,829.74 as of May 25, 1995. He was ordered to continue to pay $65.00 per week in current child support and $20.00 per week plus a $500.00 partial lump-sum payment on arrearages to purge his contempt. On August 8, 2001, the Department mailed a Notice of Freeze (NOF) in an amount up to $2,254.96 to the South Atlantic Federal Credit Union in Boca Raton, Florida, by certified mail, return receipt requested, regarding any accounts of Petitioner. The credit union received the NOF on August 10, 2001. On August 15, 2001, the Department mailed a Notice of Intent to Levy (NOIL) in an amount up to $2,254.96 to Petitioner by certified mail, return receipt requested. Petitioner received the NOIL on August 18, 2001. The NOF and NOIL mailed by the Department satisfied the statutory notice requirements of Section 409.25656, Florida Statutes. Petitioner filed a Request for Administrative Hearing dated August 30, 2001, which was received by the Department on September 18, 2001. The Department sent a Notice of Extension of Freeze (NOEOF) in an amount of up to $2,254.96 to South Atlantic Federal Credit Union on September 12, 2001. The Department dismissed Petitioner's August 30, 2001, Request for Administrative Hearing as legally insufficient. Petitioner filed a timely and legally sufficient Revised Petition for Hearing dated January 7, 2002, which was received by the Department on January 16, 2002. On June 10, 2002, a Recommendation of Hearing Officer and an Order Granting Motion to Correct Ledger and to Determine Arrears were filed in the Palm Beach Circuit Court in Tillman v. Tillman, under which Petitioner's child support arrearages were determined to be $6,344.12, all of which was past due as of May 15, 2002. Petitioner was ordered to pay $50.00 per month in liquidation of his arrearages. The official payment records of the Palm Beach County Clerk of Court established that Petitioner owed child support arrearages/past-due child support in Tillman v. Tillman of $6,194.12 as of November 25, 2002. The Department faxed and mailed by certified mail, return receipt requested, an Amended Notice of Freeze (Amended NOF) in an amount up to $6,094.12 to South Atlantic Federal Credit Union on October 16, 2002. The credit union received the Amended NOF on October 18, 2002. The Department faxed an Amended NOIL to Petitioner in an amount up to $6,094.12 on October 18, 2002, and mailed a copy to Petitioner on October 19, 2002.2/ The Department faxed and mailed an Amended Notice of Extension of Freeze (Amended NOEOF) in an amount up to $6,094.12 to South Atlantic Federal Credit Union on December 20, 2002. Facts Based Upon the Evidence of Record Petitioner made five timely monthly payments of $50.00 in Tillman v. Tillman between May 15, 2002, and November 25, 2002. Petitioner made two more timely monthly payments of $50.00 between November 25, 2002 and January 17, 2003, reducing the amount he owed in child support arrearages/past-due in Tillman v. Tillman to $6,094.12 as of January 17, 2003.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Revenue, Child Support Enforcement Program enter a final order that levies upon the funds in the Petitioner's credit union account up to the amount of $6,094.12; applies the funds to reduce Petitioner's accrued child support arrearage; and credits Petitioner for the amount so applied. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of February, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. BARBARA J. STAROS 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 27th day of February, 2003.
The Issue Whether Amended School Board Policy 2262 is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority under section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes (2013)1/.
Findings Of Fact The School Board has the constitutional duty to operate, control and supervise the public schools within Collier County, Florida. Art. IX, § 4(b), Fla. Const. (2014); see also § 1001.32, Fla. Stat. Sports Club is a private, non-profit Florida corporation, whose principal business activity is providing before and after school child care. Sports Club is located in Collier County, and offers its child care services at its own private facilities, as well as at certain District elementary schools. Parents Rock is a private, non-profit Florida corporation formed on June 24, 2013, for the purpose of representing parents’ interests in education, and advocating for legislation, regulations, and government programs that improve parents’ rights and choices in local education. Parents Rock’s membership consists of approximately 700 individuals, mostly parents of children attending schools in the District. A substantial number of these parents use the child care programs located at the District facilities. Moreover, a substantial number of Parents Rock’s members routinely attend School Board meetings and advocate for parental involvement in their children’s education and issues of importance, like the District’s child care program. Amended School Board Policy 2262, which is part of the School Board’s Bylaws and Policies, is titled: Before and After School Child Care. The challenged policy contains paragraphs lettered “A through L” which provides for the following issues: Parents and the community being given an opportunity to make recommendations concerning the operation and funding of child care programs prior to the approval by the School District; Child care programs and services being available to students both prior to and after the school day; Child care programs having an emphasis on providing educational opportunities and “variety of activities that promote the social, intellectual, and physical development of children in the program[;]” Adequate attention being given to the child care programs having an environment that meets the needs and well-being of the children, ensuring the children’s safety, security, that the children are clothed, fed, and “hav[ing] an opportunity for a variety of social, intellectual, and physical activities[;]” Vendors or other organization contracted to provide the child care programs having adequate liability insurance, and “maintaining appropriate adult-child ratios, provide quality child care, and in general, complying with the procedures established by the State and the District[;]” Notifying parents and families about the child care programs and procedures for enrollment; Continuing program assessments by staff, participating parents, and other stakeholders during the course of the child care program; Fees for the child care services being applied only to those schools involved in vendor run or school based programs; Recognizing that a parent may notify the child care providers of the parent’s preference that a child receiving either additional physical or academic activities, and “every reasonable effort shall be made to accommodate the request[;]” Parents, whose children participate in the child care programs, giving “feedback concerning the program” and requiring that the District’s manager of after school child care consider the information; A procedure for surveying and collecting information from parents evaluating the child care programs; and Providing that “[a]ny terms, conditions, or issues enumerated in the District’s RFQ 115-4113 [sic], whether express or implied, related to this policy, are hereby adopted and incorporated by reference in the policy during the duration of RFQ 115-4113 including any renewal period provided for in said RFQ.” Amended School Board Policy 2262 then states that to “implement this policy, the Superintendent will develop and/or revise administrative procedures consistent with the RFP/RFQ process relative to child care service.” The School Board wholly adopted School Age Child Care Services, RFQ #115-4/13 (RFQ), into its Policy. Consequently, a short explanation of the RFQ is required here. In the RFQ, the District sought to qualify child care providers to operate child care programs at the District’s elementary schools. The RFQ that was released by the District, on May 2, 2013, provided for: uniform fees for all program services;2/ no credit for fees paid, if a child was unable to use the child care program due to an absence;3/ a $10.00 surcharge on each registered student that a private vendor provided financial assistance to attend the after school program;4/ and standards and criteria for the child care programs that required the programs to be staffed by certified teachers.5/ Finally, and importantly, the RFQ allowed elementary school principals to decide whether or not to offer child care through private providers or for the school to operate its own “in-house” child care program.6/ Sports Club participated in the RFQ process, and was identified as a qualified provider. Based on its approval as a qualified provider, Sports Club was given an opportunity to present its services to the District’s elementary school principals in a webinar. Following the presentation, on May 29, 2013, five elementary school principals chose Sports Club as child care provider for their schools. However, Sports Club was not chosen as a provider for six other elementary schools that it had previously served under a contract with the District. In some instances, like Veterans Memorial Elementary School, the principal had decided to operate an “in-house” program, rather than selecting Sports Club. After the selection process, Sports Club informed parents about the impending changes, and asked the parents to contact the School Board if they wanted to keep Sports Club as a child care provider. The School Board was to ratify the elementary school principals’ decisions at a June 11, 2013, School Board meeting. Many parents, on learning about the RFQ’s terms and that Sports Club would no longer be providing child care at their child’s elementary school, became extremely upset. A particular concern was the District’s decision not to seek any parental involvement in the formulation of the RFQ and provisions setting the uniform fees, which increased the child care costs for the parents. On June 3, 2013, the RFQ became the subject of an unadopted rule challenge brought by a parent. Rather than proceeding to a final hearing, the School Board elected to initiate rulemaking concerning the unadopted rule challenge on September 13, 2013. In the initial Notice of rulemaking, the School Board specifically stated that although a proposed text of the rule was not available, the RFQ’s provisions regarding fees and program content would serve as a reference point. During the rulemaking workshops on October 16, 2013, and November 13, 2013, the District’s rule proposals amended certain provisions within the RFQ. Specifically, the proposals amended the RFQ’s terms concerning the amount of the uniform fees to be charged;7/ the granting of credits in the limited instance when a child has a medical excuse for not attending the after school child care;8/ setting out a parental survey for assessing the child care programs;9/ and reducing the fee paid by private providers for using the District’s facilities during the summer months.10/ The School Board at its December 10, 2013, meeting, enacted Amended School Board Policy 2262, which incorporated the RFQ completely into the policy in paragraph “L.” On its face, the School Board’s language in paragraph “L” is not clear as to which version of the RFQ was incorporated. However, the testimony and attachments to the Amended School Board Policy show that the School Board’s reference is referring to the RFQ, as the School Board had amended it during the rulemaking process. Amended School Board Policy 2262, with the RFQ’s terms setting out the uniform fees and program criteria, only applies to child care programs located at the District’s elementary schools. Amended School Board Policy 2262 has no application for child care services off-site. The facts here show that Sports Club owns its own facility, and provides transportation to the Sports Club’s private facility for students from some of the elementary schools that elected to provide “in-house” services. Parents sign a permission form, and Sports Club’s bus transports the child from the elementary school to Sports Club’s facility. At its private facility, Sports Club is free to offer child care programs at rates that it decides are appropriate, without any regard to the challenged rule. Sports Club’s claimed economic losses are the result of its decision to participate in the RFQ process, not the challenged rule. Sports Club was selected as a child care provider under the RFQ at the June 11, 2013, School Board meeting, and Sports Club subsequently entered into a contract with the District to provide child care services under the RFQ, on August 16, 2013. These events occurred months before the School Board adopted the challenged rule here at its December 10, 2013, meeting. Moreover, the undersigned found that Mr. Brettholtz credibly testified that the financial records provided by Sports Club did not follow accepted accounting practices, and could not be used to support Sports Club’s claimed economic losses.
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent committed the violations as alleged in the Administrative Complaint (AC), and, if so, the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact DCF is the state agency responsible for licensing child care facilities and enforcing regulations to maintain the health, safety, and sanitary conditions at those facilities operating in the State of Florida. See §§ 402.305-.311, Fla. Stat.; and Fla. Admin. Code R. 65C-22.010. In order to fulfill its regulatory duty, DCF conducts complaint and routine inspections. The factual allegations, as stated in the AC, provide the following: a. On December 20, 2018, the Department received an allegation that the owner/ director of the facility hit a child on the face with a ruler and slapped him. The teacher also hit another child on the chest with a ruler and that a child had slight bruising and a round scratch under his left eye. The Department conducted an investigation into these allegations starting on December 28, 2018. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Department determined the facility committed Class I violations of child care facility standards for child abuse and unscreened individuals. Licensing Counselor, Tiffani Brown, along with a Child Protective Investigator (CPI) Barbara Smith commenced their investigation on December 28, 2018, after the facility reopened from the holidays. They met with the owners [sic] daughter, Danita Gaines and spoke to the owner via the phone. While at the facility, Counselor Brown questioned Anthony Council, who stated he does help take care of children. Mr. Council was located in a room with children present. Mr. Council is not background screened and was ordered to leave. The owner, Cloe Gaines was on vacation and would not return until 1/2/19. Counselor Brown and CPI Smith returned to the facility on 1/2/19 to speak to the owner. Ms. Cloe Gaines was interviewed, and she stated she is a foster parent. Due to the allegations, Ms. Cloe Gaines was handed a restriction letter, which she signed and left the facility. Counselor Brown and CPI Smith interviewed Ms. Cloe Gaines [sic] foster children. The first foster child, G.M. said for punishment Ms. Cloe Gaines makes him go to sleep. The second foster child, M.M. continued to nod her head indicating yes when asked if he gets spanked for punishment. Counselor Brown and CPI Smith interviewed four other children at the facility. The first child, A.J. stated that Mrs. Cloe whips them with a belt or ruler on the arms and hands. The second child, A.J. stated that Mrs. Cloe hits people if they be bad. The third child, O.E. said that Mrs. Cloe hits them if they are bad with a blue ruler that she keeps in her desk. The last child, T.J. stated that they get hit with a pink and purple ruler that is kept in the classroom. The children were taken to be interviewed by the Child Protection Team for forensic interviews, which were again verified. Based upon the factual allegations in paragraph 3 above, the AC asserts that those allegations constitute the following Class I violations: a. On January 4, 2019, Anthony Council, is an unscreened individual who was left alone to care for children, in violation of Section 435.06(2)(a), Florida Statutes. This constitutes a Class I violation of Child Care Licensing Standard, CF-FSP Form 5316, 4-18, October 2017, incorporated by reference, 65C-22.010(1)(e)l, F.A.C. b. The owner, operator, employee or substitute, while caring for children, committed an act or omission that meets the definition of child abuse or neglect as provided in Chapter 39, Florida Statutes in that four children disclosed child abuse at the hands of the owner Cloe Gaines. A.J., A.J., O.E., and TJ. [sic] disclosed that they are victims of child abuse by Ms. Gaines when she hits them with belts and rulers as a form of discipline in violation of CCF Handbook, Section 8.2, A. This constitutes four (4) Class I Violations of Child Care Licensing Standard, CF-FSP Form 5316, 47-02 and ll-06, October 2017, incorporated by reference, 65C- 22.010(1)(e)1, FAC. Respondent was licensed by DCF to operate a child care facility located at 1550 King Street, Cocoa, Florida. During the hearing, it was disclosed that the Academy had been closed for at least a month. Cloe Gaines (Ms. Gaines) is the owner/director of the Academy. Danita Gaines, Ms. Gaines’ daughter, has worked at the Academy since 2015 as a teacher in the two-year-old classroom. Anthony Council is Ms. Gaines’ grandson and performed maintenance several times at the Academy when asked to do so by Ms. Gaines. Additionally, Mr. Council has a son who attended the Academy. On December 20, 2018, DCF received allegations that Ms. Gaines had hit a child on the face with a ruler. On December 21, 2018, DCF attempted to investigate the alleged child abuse complaint. However, the Academy was closed for winter break, and scheduled to reopen on December 28, 2018. Child Protective Investigator (CPI) Smith, a 13-year DCF employee, located two of the alleged victims of the Academy at their respective homes on December 21, 2018. CPI Smith interviewed B.T., a four-year-old male, who stated that he and his cousin, T.J., were arguing at the Academy. Ms. Gaines called on them and she struck B.T. on the face with a ruler, which caused B.T.’s face to bleed. B.T. stated that T.J. raised his arm in front of his chest and T.J. was struck on his arm. Based on B.T.’s comments, CPI Smith requested that B.T. be taken to the Children’s Advocacy Center of Brevard (CACB) for a video-recorded interview. During the video-recorded interview, B.T. was forthcoming about the injuries he sustained at the Academy. B.T. again stated that he and T.J. were arguing and playing, and Ms. Gaines hit him (B.T.) on the face with a ruler, which caused his face to bleed. B.T. said Ms. Gaines gave him a band-aid for his face. Pictures taken of B.T. on December 21, 2018, show the injuries B.T. sustained. CPI Smith substantiated or verified the abuse of B.T. by Ms. Gaines. B.T. also told CPI Smith where Ms. Gaines kept the ruler she used to hit him. When CPI Smith returned to the Academy, she located the blue ruler in Ms. Gaines’ desk drawer. Another alleged victim, T.J., was also interviewed at his residence on December 21, 2018. T.J. recounted that he and B.T. were playing and fighting when Ms. Gaines called them. T.J. provided that Ms. Gaines hit B.T. on the face, and that he, T.J., was hit on the arm with a ruler. CPI Smith was unable to substantiate abuse of T.J. because there were no physical indicators on T.J. at the time of the interview. CPI Smith and Tiffani Brown, a DCF child care regulation counselor and licensing counselor, returned to the Academy when it reopened on December 28, 2018, to investigate the child abuse allegations. Ms. Gaines was not present, but the DCF employees spoke with Danita Gaines, who said Ms. Gaines was on vacation and would return on January 2, 2019. The two DCF employees returned to the Academy in January 2019. When CPI Smith returned to the Academy, she interviewed two other alleged victims, twins A.J. and AK.J. AK.J., the male twin, provided that Ms. Gaines was mean, whips students on the arms and hands, and will make them stand by the wall with their hands raised over their heads. As a result of his interview at the Academy, AK.J. was asked to go to the CACB for a video- recorded interview. A.J., the female twin, stated that Ms. Gaines hit her (A.J.) on her hands and arms with the ruler, and makes them (the children) stand beside the wall, “if they be bad.” CPI Smith asked that A.J. be taken to CACB for a video-recorded interview also. In AK.J.’s video-recorded interview, he provided the name of his favorite Academy teacher, but stated that he did not like Ms. Cloe (Ms. Gaines) because she was mean and “pops” people with a ruler. AK.J. said he was scared of Ms. Gaines; the ruler was hard; and it hurt when he was struck. During A.J.’s video-recorded interview, she recounted that Ms. Gaines and her daughter, “Ms. Danita,” were mean. A.J. also stated Ms. Gaines “whooped” her (A.J.) with a ruler and at times Ms. Gaines made all the children stand at the wall with their hands raised over their heads. On January 2, 2019, Counselor Brown, a DCF employee of nine years, observed Mr. Council walking outside the Academy with several students following him. Mr. Council does not have the required background screening approval to care for children in a daycare setting, and a background screened teacher was not present when Counselor Brown first observed Mr. Council. The background screened teacher appeared a minute or so later. During the hearing, Mr. Council provided that he was at the Academy daily, either dropping off or picking up his son. Mr. Council further testified that he performed various maintenance tasks that Ms. Gaines asked him to perform, such as changing filters for the air-conditioning vents and policing the playground, all while children were present. Mr. Council admitted that Ms. Gaines had told him (Mr. Council) to get the required background screening completed, but he had not done so.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Department of Children and Families, enter a final order revoking the license of CG Academy. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of June, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of June, 2019.
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
