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
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.
Findings Of Fact The following are the facts to which the parties have stipulated: On September 27, 1977, the Circuit Court for the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit of Florida entered an order dissolving the marriage of Petitioner and Debra LaRhea Reynolds and incorporated into that order a stipulation whereby Petitioner agreed to pay child support in the amount of $20.00 per week. On April 13, 1977, Debra LaRhea Reynolds assigned her rights to child support to the Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. On June 25, 1982, the Circuit Court for the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit of Florida entered an order holding Petitioner in contempt for failure to pay accrued arrearages of child support in the amount of $4,280.00, to which Respondent was entitled by virtue of the assignment of rights referred to in paragraph 2. On June 8, 1982, the aforementioned court authorized a payroll deduction of $62.00 by weekly against Petitioner's paycheck. Under the terms of the contempt order, $40.00 of this amount was credited to the arrearage. As of June 23, 1987, the arrearage had been reduced to $1,960.00. On July 10, 1986, Respondent caused to be intercepted Petitioner's Federal Income Tax Refund of $1,080.03.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing stipulated Findings of Fact, and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a Final Order providing for the Petitioner's income tax refund in the amount of $1,080.03 to be intercepted and applied against his debt to the State of Florida for past due child support. Respectfully submitted and entered this 8th day of September, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of September, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Marian Alves, Esquire Legal Services of North Florida, Inc. 400 North Madison St. Quincy, Florida 32351 John R. Perry, Esquire Dept. of HRS, District 2, 2639 N. Monroe St. Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Dept. of HRS 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Sam Power, Clerk Dept. of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent's license to operate a child care facility should be revoked for alleged violations of Chapter 402, Florida Statutes (2002 through 2005),1 and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 65C-22 as set forth in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for licensing and disciplining child care facilities. In carrying out its responsibilities, the Department conducts routine inspections of child care facilities, as well as inspections based on any complaints concerning a child care facility. Youth in Action is a child care facility located in Panama City, Florida. On February 5, 2003, Dia Green, who at that time was employed by the Department, conducted an inspection of Youth in Action based on a complaint. Ms. Green observed children in the two, three, and four-year-old age groups going to the restroom without direct supervision. A child at Youth in Action scratched his nose while going down the slide. Staff at Youth in Action did not document the incident on the day that it occurred. The facility did not have a staff person trained in first aid present during all operating hours. On March 10, 2003, Ms. Green made a routine inspection of Youth in Action. She found that Youth in Action had no documentation to show that monthly fire drills had been completed. On January 6, 2004, Ms. Green conducted a routine inspection of Youth in Action. Again, she found that Youth in Action lacked documentation to show that monthly fire drills had been completed. There were broken furniture and toys that needed to be removed from the facility. The immunization records for some of the children being cared for at the facility were incomplete. By letter dated January 22, 2004, the Department advised the owner/operator of Youth in Action, Sherlene McClary, that Youth in Action's license was being changed to provisional for failure to have a director meeting the credentialing requirements of Subsection 402.305(2)(f), Florida Statutes (2003). The provisional license was effective January 2, 2004, through June 1, 2004. On April 28, 2004, Lee Anne Case, a child licensing counselor employed by the Department, inspected Youth in Action. She found the staff-to-child ratio was not sufficient for different age groups. There was one staff person for seven children in the 0 to 12-month-old group. There was one staff person for seven children in the one-year-old group. There was one staff person for nine children in another one-year-old group. There was one staff person for 16 children in the two- year-old group. Ms. Case observed that, when the children were coming in from the playground, Youth in Action staff were leaving a child on the playground. The cook for the facility noticed the child and brought it to the attention of staff. Ms. Case found that areas in the facility were not in good repair. The carpet was dirty, had holes, and was fraying on the edges, creating tripping hazards. The thermostat was hanging by wires from the wall, and, when the thermostat was touched, the lights would flicker. There was a five-inch hole in the wall leading directly to the outside. The floor mats on which the children napped were torn. The bathrooms lacked supplies such as paper towels, soap, and toilet paper. During the April 28, 2004, inspection, Ms. Case found that diaper changing in the infant room was being done on a surface that was not impermeable. The container for soiled diapers was not covered and was accessible to children. Ms. Case also observed indoor and outdoor equipment which was not safe. Inside the facility, a changing table was broken, the power cord to a portable radio was accessible to children, and the air conditioning unit was not properly mounted, leaving sharp corners exposed. On the playground, there were exposed roots, which created a tripping hazard; broken toys were left in the area; and a picnic table was pushed up to the fence negating the required four-foot height requirement for the fence. Additionally, during the April 28, 2004, inspection, Ms. Case found that there was a lack of documentation to show that some of the staff members had completed the required 40-Hour Introductory Child Care Training. Personnel records for some of the staff were missing. The Department gave Youth in Action until May 5, 2004, to correct the deficiencies in the torn and dirty carpet, the thermostat, the hole in the wall, the debris and broken toys on the playground, the picnic table pushed against the fence, the air conditioning unit, the power cord to the radio, the personnel records, and the training requirements. On May 7, 2004, Youth in Action was re-inspected to determine if the deficiencies had been corrected. The carpet had not been repaired or cleaned. The hole in the wall had been filled loosely with paper towels. The playground still contained debris and leaves were piled next to the fence, eliminating the four-foot fence requirement. Sleeping mats were torn. The diaper changing in the infant room was being done on an impermeable surface. The deficiencies related to the changing table and the air conditioning unit had not been corrected. The deficiencies in the training documentation and the personnel records also remained uncorrected. Youth in Action was given until May 10, 2004, to make the necessary corrections. It was also noted during the May 7, 2004, inspection that the facility had a staff-to-children ratio deficiency. One staff person was observed with seven infants. One staff person was with seven children in the room for one-year-old children. In a second room with one and two-year-old children, there was one staff person for seven children. In one group of three and four-year-old children there were 17 children and one staff person. On May 13, 2004, another inspection was made of Youth in Action to determine if the deficiencies found on May 5, 2004, had been corrected. On May 13, 2004, sleeping mats in the one- year-old room were torn and needed to be replaced; the diaper changing pad was still torn; and the sharp corners of the air conditioner had not been eliminated. On August 11, 2004, Jason Kesterman, an employee of the Department, inspected Youth in Action. He found that the facility's plan of scheduled events was not posted in a place accessible to parents. Paper towels or air dryers were not available and within reach of the children in the bathroom next to the one-year-olds' room. Some of the staff of the facility had not completed the 40-hour mandatory training course within the allotted time frame, and some lacked the ten-hour training course. One of the staff did not have documentation of the initiation of training within the allotted time. The first aid kit for the facility lacked moist wipes and rubber gloves. On November 12, 2004, Ms. Case inspected Youth in Action. Numerous deficiencies were noted. There was an insufficient ratio of staff to children. There was one staff person for 16 children when there should have been two staff members. During nap time, there was insufficient staff accessible for the one-year-olds. Ms. Case observed a heavy- duty bathroom cleaner that was accessible to children. The floor mats for napping were torn. Staff did not clean and disinfect the diaper changing surface after each use. The pad on the diaper changing table was torn. The ground cover within the fall zone of the swings was not maintained. A rocking fish toy had sharp and jagged handles. One of the staff did not have documentation of one of the required ten-hour training courses. The director of the facility was not onsite a majority of the hours of operation. The first aid kit for the facility did not contain a thermometer, moistened wipes, and a guide on first aid. The facility did not have a staff member trained in current infant and child cardiopulmonary resuscitation present during all hours of operation. Diaper ointment was dispensed without written authorization from the parent. Some of the children did not have documentation of a student health examination. Personnel records for some of the staff were incomplete. On December 2, 2004, the Department issued an Administrative Complaint assessing a $500 fine against Youth in Action for failure to supervise a 19-month-old child who walked away from the facility. Youth in Action paid the $500 fine. On January 27, 2005, the Department notified Youth in Action that its license was being placed on provisional status effective December 1, 2004, for repeated violations of Florida Administrative Code Chapter 65C-22. The provisional license was to remain in effect until June 1, 2005. The Department advised the facility that inspections in addition to the routine inspections would be made of the facility to monitor the facility's compliance with Florida Statutes and the Florida Administrative Code. The facility was notified that "failure to immediately correct documented violations during your facility's inspections will leave the [D]epartment no alternative but to seek revocation of your license." Sherrie Gainer, an employee of the Department, inspected Youth in Action on January 19, 2005. She found cleaning supplies that were accessible to children as well as knives in a lower kitchen cabinet that was accessible to children. This deficiency was corrected at the time of the inspection. Ms. Gainer found that the director's file was not located at the facility. Some of the children's files were incomplete. Some of the personnel files for staff were incomplete. Youth in Action was given until January 31, 2005, to correct the deficiencies. On March 2, 2005, Ms. Gainer inspected Youth in Action. She found that there was a deficiency in the staff-to- child ratio. One group of children had seven three and four- year-old children and one one-year-old child. Such a mix required the supervision of two staff and only one staff was supervising. Ms. Gainer inspected Youth in Action on March 22, 2005. She found that the facility did not have complete records for some of the child care personnel. In response to a complaint, Ms. Gainer inspected Youth in Action on May 4, 2005. She found a staff-to-child ratio deficiency. There should have been two staff persons for eight children, but there was only one staff person supervising the children. She observed that there was an uncovered vent in the ceiling of the bathroom that allowed rain to enter the facility and that the toilet seats were loose. Ms. Gainer inspected Youth in Action on October 11, 2005. She found that the facility did not have documentation to show completion of a five-hour literacy training course by June 30, 2005, for staff hired on or before December 31, 2004. Additionally, records or copies of records were not being maintained at the facility for review by the Department. Files were being maintained across the street from the facility. On November 14, 2005, Ms. Gainer again inspected Youth in Action. A bathroom light did not work. Cleaning supplies in the kitchen were accessible to the children. Bedding did not fit against the crib, leaving a big gap. The bedding was dirty and brown in color. Several sheets found on the infant beds were badly stained. On November 29, 2005, Ms. Gainer re-inspected Youth in Action. Cleaning supplies in the kitchen were accessible to the children. A radio cord was hanging within reach of the children in the toddlers' room. Ms. Gainer inspected Youth in Action on December 20, 2005. There was a deficiency in the staff-to-children ratio. Two staff were needed for five children in the infant group, and only one staff person was supervising the five children. Ms. Gainer observed that the white lattice by the walkway was coming undone. On February 23, 2006, Ms. Gainer inspected Youth in Action and noted a staff-to-children ratio deficiency. There was one staff person supervising seven children, consisting of four one-year-olds and three two-year-olds. Two persons were required to supervise that particular age group. Based on a complaint, Ms Gainer made an inspection of Youth in Action on March 1, 2006, and she observed another staff-to-children ratio violation. One staff person was present with 18 children, three of whom were one-year-old and 15 of whom were two and three-year-old. Based on another complaint, Ms. Gainer made an inspection of Youth in Action on March 13, 2006. She found there were 13 children in one room watching television with one staff person. There were seven one-year-old children in with a group of two, three, and four-year-old children. On April 12, 2006, Ms. Gainer was advised by an employee of Youth in Action that the director of the facility was employed full time by the local school district and was not at the facility a majority of the operating hours. On April 13, 2006, Ms. Gainer inspected Youth in Action and found that the emergency plan was not posted. She observed a volunteer left alone supervising three one-year-old children in a classroom.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Youth in Action violated Section 402.305, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rules 65C-20.001, 65C-20.002, 65C-20.003, 65C-20.004, and 65C-20.006, and revoking it license to operate a child care facility. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of January, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL 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 29th day of January, 2007.
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 The issue for determination is whether the Department of Revenue should retain and apply the Petitioner’s $800.00 lottery prize to reduce an outstanding arrearage for child support.
Findings Of Fact Department of Revenue and Department of Lottery are the agencies of the State of Florida charged with the duty to enforce statutes which provide for the seizure of lottery prize winnings to satisfy past-due child support debt. On or about April 30, 2001, Johnson made a claim to a lottery prize in the amount of $800.00. The DOR notified the DOL that Johnson was indebted to the state for court-ordered child support through the court depository, in the amount of $10,626.79. Pursuant to Subsection 24.115(4), Florida Statutes, Petitioner’s entire lottery prize was transferred to DOR by DOL. Petitioner was given written notice on April 30, 2001, of the DOR’s intent to intercept his lottery prize and apply it to partially satisfy his unpaid child support debt. Pursuant to a Final Judgment of Paternity and Income Deduction dated September 13, 1989, Petitioner is subject to a lawful order requiring him to pay child support. Johnson has failed to discharge his child support obligations pursuant to that judgment, and as of December 8, 1995, Johnson's arrears were $10,626.79. DOR intends to apply the Petitioner’s lottery prize in the amount of $800.00 to partially satisfy his past-due child support debt.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a final order retaining Johnson's $800.00 lottery prize to be applied to reduce the accrued arrearage on Johnson's child support obligation. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of January, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ FLORENCE SNYDER RIVAS 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 January, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: William Johnson 2815 Northwest 95th Street Miami, Florida 33147 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 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
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner’s application to adopt a minor child should be denied because it is in the best interest of the child.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, in accordance with chapters 39, 63, and 409 Florida Statutes (2013),3/ is the agency tasked with, among other things, the responsibility to deny or approve adoption applications. The minor child was born in May 2013 and placed in Petitioner’s home in that same month.4/ At all times relevant to this case, the minor child’s biological parents were unable or unwilling to take responsibility for their child. Termination of parental rights was completed in October 2013. Petitioner is the minor child’s step-grandmother. Petitioner filed an application to adopt the minor child on November 25, 2013, listing her address as 4203 East Hanna Avenue, Tampa, Florida. A home study, which is an assessment of the potential adoptive parent’s home environment, parental capacity to support the child and the relationships with individuals both inside and outside the home of the potential adoptive parent, must be conducted prior to an adoption. On November 26, 2013, the home study was conducted at the Hanna Avenue address. Several areas of concern were noted in the home study; the home was cluttered and dirty with soiled dishes in the sink and fast food bags and wrappers throughout the home. On February 11, 2014, the AARC met to review Petitioner’s application to adopt the minor child. Petitioner was present at the AARC meeting. The following concerns were expressed during the AARC meeting: Petitioner’s monthly expenses far exceed her income; Petitioner has a criminal history and is currently on probation for the last offense, and served 10 days in jail in January 2014 without telling Respondent where she was and who was attending the minor child; Petitioner has significant health issues including congestive heart failure, diabetes, high blood pressure and a bulging disc in her back; Petitioner is legally married but has been separated from her husband for over 20 years without any knowledge of whether her husband is alive or dead; and there have been multiple abuse reports, although some indicators of abuse were not substantiated. Additionally, Petitioner has moved from the residence where the home study was conducted in November. That move to a different address invalidated the home study and another home study would have to be conducted to evaluate Petitioner’s current living situation. Petitioner’s expenses, as she detailed, far exceed her income. Petitioner receives approximately $820 a month in income, yet her living expenses include $800 rent, $150 in utility services, and $50 for water. Currently, Petitioner’s two daughters and their children (each daughter has a child) live with her in a three-bedroom home. Petitioner has her own bedroom. Each daughter has her own bedroom which is shared with her child. One daughter, (B), currently works at a hotel. Daughter B supplements Petitioner’s income to run the household. However, Daughter B has indicated she wants to move out. She has not given a specific move date. The other daughter, (M), was arrested in May 2014 for allegedly stealing electricity from Tampa Electric. The charge was dropped when Daughter M paid the electrical bill and court costs. That daughter is applying for a job but is without an income to support herself and her child at this time. Respondent does not consider income from persons other than the applicant in its review of potential adoptive parent’s application. In November 2010 Petitioner entered a plea of guilty to allegations of fraudulent use of a credit card and grand theft. The circuit court in Hillsborough County withheld adjudication of guilt, but placed Petitioner on 24 months of probation with the requirement to re-pay the money and all mandatory court costs. Petitioner has been arrested three times on violation of probation (VOP) for her failure to timely pay the costs. Petitioner’s last arrest, in January 2014 resulted in a ten-day jail term for the VOP. Although Petitioner’s adult daughters were tending to the minor child, neither Petitioner nor her daughters notified Respondent that Petitioner was not available for the minor child’s needs. Petitioner anticipates paying the remainder of the costs within the next few weeks when one of her daughters receives her income tax refund. Petitioner has significant health concerns. While at work several years ago, Petitioner sustained a back injury, a bulging disc. She is not seeking rehabilitation for her back, and is not planning on returning to work. Petitioner confirmed she has a history of high blood pressure and congestive heart failure, although she is currently feeling well. Additionally, Petitioner verified that she takes insulin four times a day to control her diabetes. Petitioner married D.B. on June 28, 1993. Petitioner has obtained the form to file for a divorce, but to date no petition for divorce has been filed by either Petitioner or D.B. Petitioner has had several reports of child abuse since 1990; however, some of those reports have been unsubstantiated. Petitioner and the minor child have lived in no less than three different homes over the past year. Petitioner submitted her adoption application while residing at one home and Respondent conducted the requisite home study at that location. However, even before the AARC meeting could take place, Petitioner had moved to another home, thus voiding the home study. Petitioner’s frequent moves does not provide a stable living environment for the minor child. Ms. Spofford has worked as a guardian ad litem (GAL) for over three years. A GAL advocates for the best interest of the child and may, at times, express different advocacy positions than the biological parents, potential adoptive parents, caregivers or, as in this case, Petitioner. GAL Spofford was appointed as the minor child’s GAL approximately three weeks after his birth, and she has visited with the minor child at least once a month since that appointment. GAL Spofford makes both announced and unannounced visits to Petitioner’s home to visit with the minor child. As a small baby, the minor child was not mobile, and GAL Spofford was not as concerned about his home environment. However, the minor child is now mobile and GAL Spofford has a lot of concerns. On one particular unannounced visit, GAL Spofford was allowed into the home by a three- or four-year old child, when no adult was present.5/ GAL Spofford picked up the minor child and discovered he had a wad of paper in his mouth, which GAL Spofford removed. In this one instance alone, the supervision of the minor child and the other young children was inadequate. Based on the totality of the circumstances, GAL Spofford believes it is in the minor child’s best interest to be adopted by another family. There is no dispute that Petitioner loves the minor child. Petitioner has cared for the minor child since his discharge from the hospital. Petitioner’s witnesses were unified in their observations of how Petitioner loved the minor child and looks out for his interest. Although Petitioner wants to adopt and care for the minor child, current circumstances do not render that a viable option. Respondent has a formidable task in ascertaining the best interest of any child. It requires a look into the future and a prediction of what will happen. Petitioner’s past indiscretions do not lend themselves to a stable and secure environment for the minor child. It is in the minor child’s best interest to be adopted by someone other than Petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Families enter a final order denying Petitioner’s application to adopt the minor child. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of June, 2014, 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 26th day of June, 2014.
The Issue The ultimate issue is whether, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services may intercept Daniels' income tax refund. However, this turns on the issue of whether Daniels has been delinquent in excess of 3 months. Factually, Daniels owed money for aid provided his child. The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services has obtained a judgement in the amount of $6,673 upon which Daniels is to make payments of $25/month. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services argues that Daniels owes and has been delinquent on the $6,673 since the order was entered. Daniels argues that he is not over three months in arrears on his payments of $25/month. The evidence introduced by Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services shows Daniels is in arrears only $27.91 on his payments on the judgement. The issue is whether Section 45 CFR Section 303.72 requires a delinquency in payments required to be made on the amount of money established in a court order.
Findings Of Fact On October 10, 1981, Carol Renee Neal assigned to the State of Florida her rights to child support for Latoya v. Daniels, acknowledged child of Ira Clayton Daniels. An Order was entered on January 14, 1985, which established that Ira Clayton Daniels owed the State of Florida $6,673 for a public assistance child support obligation and provided that Ira Clayton Daniels would pay $25/month until the $6,673 was repaid. The records of the Department, Daniels' Exhibit 1, reflect Daniels has made regular payments on the debt, and at the time of the hearing owed $27.91 arrearage on the debt. Daniels was less than three months in arrears on his payments established by the Order referenced above.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, the claim against Ira Clayton Daniels should be dismissed. DONE AND ORDERED 16th day of September 1986 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 16th day of September 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Warren J. Schulman, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Child Support Enforcement Program 105 East Monroe, Suite 101 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Frederick J. Simpson, Esquire HRS District IV Legal Counsel Post Office Box 2417 Jacksonville, Florida 32231-0083 Ira C. Daniels 8904 Greenleaf Road Jacksonville, Florida 32208
The Issue Is Petitioner entitled to be exempt from disqualification to work in a position of trust or responsibility, having been declared ineligible to work in that position by virtue of offenses involving child abuse and contributing to the dependency of a minor?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner has two children, M.B. and D.P. On February 11, 1993, those children were two years old and eight months old, respectively. Both children were residing with Petitioner. At that time Petitioner and the children lived in Gulf County, Florida. Around 8:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. on February 11, 1993, Petitioner decided to leave her apartment and go to a nearby store. At that time she left D.P. in the care of Sabina Daniels, Petitioner's step-sister, who was thirteen years old on that date. The Petitioner took M.B. to her neighbor's apartment and left that child with Dianna Harrison, an adult. However, the Gulf County Sheriff's office received a call around 10:30 p.m. on February 11, 1993, indicating that a child had been left unattended at the Pine Ridge Apartments where Petitioner resided. Officer Stacy Strickland, now a Sergeant, went to Petitioner's apartment around 10:34 p.m. and tried to get someone to answer the door to the apartment. No one answered. Consequently, Officer Strickland contacted the apartment manager who opened the door. Officer Strickland discovered D.P. standing in a baby bed. No other person was in the apartment at that time. Officer Strickland sought the assistance of other persons to help provide emergency care to the child. While waiting for that assistance, Officer Strickland remained in the apartment for fifteen to twenty minutes. When Officer Strickland and other officials departed Petitioner's apartment, they left a note for the Petitioner to call the Gulf County Sheriff's office concerning her child D.P. Petitioner called the Gulf County Sheriff's office at around 12:00 a.m., February 12, 1993. Petitioner came to the Gulf County Sheriff's office around 12:20 a.m., on February 12, 1993. At that time, Petitioner was placed under arrest for aggravated child abuse for having left D.P. unattended. Following her arrest, Officer Strickland read the Petitioner her rights under the Miranda decision, to include the right to seek counsel to aid her in confronting the charge. Although Petitioner was less than forthcoming during the hearing, concerning the disposition of the charges that arose from the incident in which D.P. had been left unattended, it is clear that Petitioner voluntarily entered a plea of guilty to child abuse and contributing to the dependency of a minor in the case of State of Florida v. Denine Pittman, in the County Court, in and for Gulf County, Florida, Number 93-133M. A judgment and sentence in that case was entered on March 3, 1993, requiring the Petitioner to serve three months' probation in which she would pay $30 per month for supervisory fees and was required to make monthly contacts with a probation officer. In addition, Petitioner was required to pay a fine in the amount of $214. It can be properly inferred that Petitioner complied with requirements in the judgment and sentence. Petitioner's assertions at hearing that she only left D.P. on the night in question for 30 minutes, that she had never been advised of her Miranda rights by Officer Strickland on February 12, 1993, and that she did not realize that she could have contested the charges through a trial are rejected. In 1995, Petitioner moved from Gulf County to Panama City, Florida. In August 1996, Petitioner was working in a child care facility in Panama City known as Phoenix Preschool. In her position she was providing direct care to children and was subjected to background screening in accordance with Chapter 435, Florida Statutes. Through the screening process Respondent discovered the disposition in Case No. 93-133M, leading to Petitioner's disqualification to work in a position of special trust with children and the contest of that determination through Petitioner's request for an exemption from that disqualification. In her testimony at hearing Petitioner expressed her desire to continue to work with children as an employee in a child care facility. The record does not reveal that Petitioner has had other circumstances involving inappropriate behavior involving her own children or claims of inappropriate behavior or treatment of other children for whom she has rendered care. On November 11, 1988, Petitioner was provided a certificate indicating the successful completion of twenty hours of child care training offered by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services and the Department of Education. On September 28, 1996, Petitioner received a certificate of completion of Dr. Jean Feldman's Classroom Management Workshop. The course lasted six hours. By the nature of the appearance of the certificate it is found to relate to training to assist in caring for children. On September 30, 1996, Petitioner received a certificate from the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services and the Department of Education for completing a ten- hour course for developmentally appropriate practices for young children. On November 30, 1996, Petitioner received a certificate of completion of "Mr. Al's" course on "Music, Movement and More." This course lasted six hours. By the nature of the appearance of the certificate it is found to relate to children's issues. In 1996, in relation to her position of teacher-aide for the Phoenix Preschool, Petitioner received training from the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services related to child care in-service. Ms. Gloria Lawrence testified at the hearing. She worked with Petitioner at the Phoenix Preschool, and found that Petitioner did a good job with children, in that Petitioner got along with children at the Preschool. Ms. Lawrence observed that Petitioner was trustworthy and responsible with those children. Ms. Lawrence's testimony is credited. Ms. Frances Frazier testified at the hearing. Ms. Frazier is a close friend of Petitioner and has known Petitioner during the course of Petitioner's life. Ms. Frazier finds the Petitioner to be reliable and responsible and to be good with children and believes that Petitioner has learned from the mistake that Petitioner made which formed the basis for Petitioner's disqualification to work in a position of special trust. Ms. Frazier has known Petitioner to baby-sit for Ms. Frazier's grandchildren. Ms. Frazier has not found the Petitioner to abuse children. The only incident that Ms. Frazier is aware of concerning the Petitioner leaving children unattended was the occasion under discussion here. Ms. Frazier's testimony is credited. In addition, Petitioner presented letters from Ms. Vanessa Fennell, Ms. Annie S. Fields, Ms. Dianna Harrison, Ms. Beverly Daniels, Ms. Charlotte L. Medley, Ms. Candy Robinson, and Pastor Shirley Jenkins concerning Petitioner's basic personality as a concerned person for children and the elderly.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the fact finding and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered which grants Petitioner an exemption from disqualification to be employed in a position of special trust to work with children. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of November, 1997, in 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 13th day of November, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: John R. Perry, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services Suite 252-A 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2949 Denine Pittman Apartment D43 801 West 13th Street Panama City, Florida 32401 Gregory D. Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Richard A. Doran, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
